Digby wrote:Hain was wrong not to have checked a conflict of interest, wrong perhaps with it only being an interim injunction and perhaps simply wrong
Then again the use of NDAs by Green is also wrong, at least I'd hope the idea wasn't to cover crimes, so I'm maybe sliding off the fence a little on the side of Peter Hain. That others may use NDAs correctly isn't of relevance here, though I'm willing to bet plenty of others including charities and the NHS are also abusing the process
I don't think they know they're 'abusing' the process. I've been asked to sign ndas for ridiculous things and when I've said "err... Is that really needed?", they've realised, yeah, it's a bit pointless. And most just sign them...
Digby wrote:Hain was wrong not to have checked a conflict of interest, wrong perhaps with it only being an interim injunction and perhaps simply wrong
Then again the use of NDAs by Green is also wrong, at least I'd hope the idea wasn't to cover crimes, so I'm maybe sliding off the fence a little on the side of Peter Hain. That others may use NDAs correctly isn't of relevance here, though I'm willing to bet plenty of others including charities and the NHS are also abusing the process
I don't think they know they're 'abusing' the process. I've been asked to sign ndas for ridiculous things and when I've said "err... Is that really needed?", they've realised, yeah, it's a bit pointless. And most just sign them...
I know of examples where the NHS and charities are, which doesn't mean every NDA is an abuse
Digby wrote:Hain was wrong not to have checked a conflict of interest, wrong perhaps with it only being an interim injunction and perhaps simply wrong
Then again the use of NDAs by Green is also wrong, at least I'd hope the idea wasn't to cover crimes, so I'm maybe sliding off the fence a little on the side of Peter Hain. That others may use NDAs correctly isn't of relevance here, though I'm willing to bet plenty of others including charities and the NHS are also abusing the process
I don't think they know they're 'abusing' the process. I've been asked to sign ndas for ridiculous things and when I've said "err... Is that really needed ?", they've realised, yeah, it's a bit pointless. And most just sign them...
Digby wrote:Hain was wrong not to have checked a conflict of interest, wrong perhaps with it only being an interim injunction and perhaps simply wrong
Then again the use of NDAs by Green is also wrong, at least I'd hope the idea wasn't to cover crimes, so I'm maybe sliding off the fence a little on the side of Peter Hain. That others may use NDAs correctly isn't of relevance here, though I'm willing to bet plenty of others including charities and the NHS are also abusing the process
I don't think they know they're 'abusing' the process. I've been asked to sign ndas for ridiculous things and when I've said "err... Is that really needed ?", they've realised, yeah, it's a bit pointless. And most just sign them...
Stom wrote:
I don't think they know they're 'abusing' the process. I've been asked to sign ndas for ridiculous things and when I've said "err... Is that really needed ?", they've realised, yeah, it's a bit pointless. And most just sign them...
Ever been offered 7 figures with your nda?
Usually just the 2...
I guess your boss’s banter is not quite at the same high standard as Philip Green’s.
canta_brian wrote:
Ever been offered 7 figures with your nda?
Usually just the 2...
I guess your boss’s banter is not quite at the same high standard as Philip Green’s.
I just have better morals. Comes with working for myself. Turned down a client because he made several sexist comments and jokes during our meeting. Yeah, not gonna happen.
