RugbyRebels

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

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...

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...

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?

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...

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.