By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
You need to remember something when reading this thread guys.
Hain is massive Labour - Bluey & Greeny are massive Conservative.
Another fuçking yawnfest.
Nothing to do with that, Dazzer.
NDAs aren't an admission of guilt anymore than taking the money and signing the NDA is an admission the complaints were fabricated for profit.
The reality of this case is simply that the reporting was blocked by a temporary injunction whilst a judge considered the merits of the allegations. That is the issue which Hain wants people to conveniently ignore.
What the supporters of Phillip Green in this thread are ignoring is that he (allegedly) has used NDAs to avoid the consequences of committing CRIMINAL offences.
There is a place for NDAs in the legal system such as, for example, a firm protecting its sensitive commercial information. However, they should be legally null and void where the proponent is attempting to evade the rightful attention of the police.
Whether or not you think the victim has waived their rights by accepting a financial deal is neither here nor there. Do you want to live in a country where a criminal can evade responsibility for their crime by paying off the victims?
Assume a wealthy pedophile assaulted a child in a playground but then paid off the parents with an NDA not to report it to the police. How would you feel if your child was the next one he assaulted in the same playground, and you found out about the previous incident. Would you say "oh, the parents in the first incident were subject to an NDA and they got paid off handsomely, so that's alright then"? I suspect not.
What the supporters of Phillip Green in this thread are ignoring is that he (allegedly) has used NDAs to avoid the consequences of committing CRIMINAL offences.
There is a place for NDAs in the legal system such as, for example, a firm protecting its sensitive commercial information. However, they should be legally null and void where the proponent is attempting to evade the rightful attention of the police.
Whether or not you think the victim has waived their rights by accepting a financial deal is neither here nor there. Do you want to live in a country where a criminal can evade responsibility for their crime by paying off the victims?
Assume a wealthy pedophile assaulted a child in a playground but then paid off the parents with an NDA not to report it to the police. How would you feel if your child was the next one he assaulted in the same playground, and you found out about the previous incident. Would you say "oh, the parents in the first incident were subject to an NDA and they got paid off handsomely, so that's alright then"? I suspect not.
What the supporters of Phillip Green in this thread are ignoring is that he (allegedly) has used NDAs to avoid the consequences of committing CRIMINAL offences.
There is a place for NDAs in the legal system such as, for example, a firm protecting its sensitive commercial information. However, they should be legally null and void where the proponent is attempting to evade the rightful attention of the police.
Whether or not you think the victim has waived their rights by accepting a financial deal is neither here nor there. Do you want to live in a country where a criminal can evade responsibility for their crime by paying off the victims?
Assume a wealthy pedophile assaulted a child in a playground but then paid off the parents with an NDA not to report it to the police. How would you feel if your child was the next one he assaulted in the same playground, and you found out about the previous incident. Would you say "oh, the parents in the first incident were subject to an NDA and they got paid off handsomely, so that's alright then"? I suspect not.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2018 13:20]
Your final paragraphs are absolutely correct but predicated on Green being guilty of the allegations.
Like it or not, NDAs/settlements are also used to deal with vexatious allegations. The "Green brand" is so toxic he's already guilty in everyone's eyes, after all - even if it went court and was found not guilty, that wouldn't change public perception. That's why celebs are advised to "settle, NDA" to prevent the "no smoke without fire" bs.
The only point I'd argue with in your "pedophile" example is that I'd struggle to find any moral level on which the parents behaviour would be acceptable in that case - taking the money would mean them profitting from child abuse.
BBC news saying that if the allegations are proven he should be stripped of his knighthood.
FFS. If the allegations are proven, he should go to jail.
Echoing what's said above. NDA's should never be used as a cover for criminal behaviour and I believe racial abuse is a criminal act even if sexual harassment isn't.
Your final paragraphs are absolutely correct but predicated on Green being guilty of the allegations.
Like it or not, NDAs/settlements are also used to deal with vexatious allegations. The "Green brand" is so toxic he's already guilty in everyone's eyes, after all - even if it went court and was found not guilty, that wouldn't change public perception. That's why celebs are advised to "settle, NDA" to prevent the "no smoke without fire" bs.
The only point I'd argue with in your "pedophile" example is that I'd struggle to find any moral level on which the parents behaviour would be acceptable in that case - taking the money would mean them profitting from child abuse.
These rich and powerful people/celebs are allowed to silence their accusers through these non disclosure agreements.
However the law doesn’t allow other sorts of criminals to buy their victims/accusers silence ... so why are sexual criminals/abusers allowed to do just that??
What the supporters of Phillip Green in this thread are ignoring is that he (allegedly) has used NDAs to avoid the consequences of committing CRIMINAL offences.
There is a place for NDAs in the legal system such as, for example, a firm protecting its sensitive commercial information. However, they should be legally null and void where the proponent is attempting to evade the rightful attention of the police.
Whether or not you think the victim has waived their rights by accepting a financial deal is neither here nor there. Do you want to live in a country where a criminal can evade responsibility for their crime by paying off the victims?
Assume a wealthy pedophile assaulted a child in a playground but then paid off the parents with an NDA not to report it to the police. How would you feel if your child was the next one he assaulted in the same playground, and you found out about the previous incident. Would you say "oh, the parents in the first incident were subject to an NDA and they got paid off handsomely, so that's alright then"? I suspect not.
[Post edited 26 Oct 2018 13:20]
You've put allegedly in brackets when that's the crux of the entire problem.
You don't have to be pro or anti Green (I'm largely indifferent) to see the issues with trying someone in the court of public opinion based on second hand information and a bit of self publicity from someone who until the emergence of Trump was the world's biggest orange f*ckwit.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
Hain is just the messenger. if he hadn't said it someone else would. Green has for many many years considered himself above the law. Take his knighthood away and throw him in the slammer for his previous. For this, just throw the key away.
Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
You've put allegedly in brackets when that's the crux of the entire problem.
You don't have to be pro or anti Green (I'm largely indifferent) to see the issues with trying someone in the court of public opinion based on second hand information and a bit of self publicity from someone who until the emergence of Trump was the world's biggest orange f*ckwit.
Doc, I put allegedly in brackets because I don't know whether he's committed any crimes or not. That's not the point.
I'm talking about the legal principle that no criminal should be allowed to evade the lsw through the use of NDAs. And it seems even the corrupt, millionaire friendly Tories agree with me, judging by Teresa May's remarks on the subject this week in parliament suggesting that the law may need to be changed.
Doc, I put allegedly in brackets because I don't know whether he's committed any crimes or not. That's not the point.
I'm talking about the legal principle that no criminal should be allowed to evade the lsw through the use of NDAs. And it seems even the corrupt, millionaire friendly Tories agree with me, judging by Teresa May's remarks on the subject this week in parliament suggesting that the law may need to be changed.
You don't know if he's committed any crimes or not, but criminals should not be able to evade the law using NDA's. Right.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.
You don't know if he's committed any crimes or not, but criminals should not be able to evade the law using NDA's. Right.
Doc, I assume that last word in your post is used ironically. I don't understand your issue. Are you saying, and I'm talking about anyone here, not Green specifically, that people who commit criminal acts should be allowed to evade the law by paying off their victims if said victims agree to accept 'hush money'?
Doc, I put allegedly in brackets because I don't know whether he's committed any crimes or not. That's not the point.
I'm talking about the legal principle that no criminal should be allowed to evade the lsw through the use of NDAs. And it seems even the corrupt, millionaire friendly Tories agree with me, judging by Teresa May's remarks on the subject this week in parliament suggesting that the law may need to be changed.
May is reacting to public sentiment, as most people in politics tend to.
The issue isn't about NDAs. That's just a pretence right now.
The real issue is that there's a temporary injunction on running the story placed by the court which an advisor to the legal firm representing the paper wanting to run the story has crapped all over by abusing parliamentary privilege to get the story out there.
If Green has done what some claim he has then he's utter scum and should be prosecuted for his actions. Any such prosecution should follow standard practice, ie innocent until proven guilty.
That doesn't mean Hain gets a free ride on his actions. Grandstanding politicians should not be allowed to get away with making comments without repercussions - Damian Collins for example got away scott free with his libellous comments about Warnock.
If Hain has any moral courage (yes I know he doesn't ) then he should repeat his claim without parliamentary privilege to hide behind.
Doc, I assume that last word in your post is used ironically. I don't understand your issue. Are you saying, and I'm talking about anyone here, not Green specifically, that people who commit criminal acts should be allowed to evade the law by paying off their victims if said victims agree to accept 'hush money'?
The key point is you don't know if someone is criminal or not until convicted in a court of law.
People are assuming Green must be guilty because of the presence of NDAs ( which mean no such thing ) and because people hate Green for many reasons.
One good point. Hain could be in the shit over this.
Given he referred to having been “in contact with someone intimately involved in the case”, the obvious intimation is it would have been one of the lawyers at the law firm he advises.
It'll be interesting seeing the blowback on Hain and the law firm.
Doc, I assume that last word in your post is used ironically. I don't understand your issue. Are you saying, and I'm talking about anyone here, not Green specifically, that people who commit criminal acts should be allowed to evade the law by paying off their victims if said victims agree to accept 'hush money'?
For me it would depend very much on the nature of the offence and the wishes of the victim, who tend to get overlooked in all of this. I don't see it as a black and white issue.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.