RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

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.

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?

Not been found guilty? I think that when you get your staff to sign a non disclosure agreement you are basically admitting your guilt.

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.

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.
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.

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

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:

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

Stom wrote:

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...

Ever been offered 7 figures with your nda?

canta_brian wrote:

Stom wrote:

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...

Ever been offered 7 figures with your nda?

Usually just the 2...

Stom wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

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:

Stom wrote:

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.