NDAs aren’t an admission of guilt. Sadly, they are a pretty standard form of contract with anybody leaving any company under a cloud, whether that company believes they are in the right or wrong. It’s not just the preserve of capitalist, billionaire bastards. The NHS love an NDA.canta_brian wrote:Not been found guilty? I think that when you get your staff to sign a non disclosure agreement you are basically admitting your guilt.Sandydragon wrote:I agree. Again, not much sympathy for Green. But, should parliamentarians be discussing names who have not been found guilty? It’s easy on this instance to feel no sympathy for Green, but imagine it’s someone less odious, what right do they have to respond or seek redress?onlynameleft wrote:
Agree completely about Green but it does seems a wholesale abuse of Parliamentary privilege to reveal this in the face of the injunction, especially given that Hain is a paid advisor to the Telegraph's solicitors firm.
Whole thing is a shambles.
As to whether or not Peter Hain should have given away Green’s identity, I don’t have an issue with it. Green has signed 7 figure ndas apparently. Anyone have any idea how much it costs to take out an injunction in the high court? “Justice” should be available to people equally regardless of wealth. Especially when the wealth in question comes money that was never taxed in this country.
I agree that justice should be available to all, regardless of means, but I doubt your average joe would be splashed across the front of a national and therefore need an injunction at all.
None of this is a defence of Green, who is an odious ****, but there are numerous, more learned voices than ours who think Hain was wholly in the wrong.
