Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

seems whomever said Green...

... was right.

 

 

Let the trial by social media begin!

im no fan of these injunctions but I do think it can be a bit dodgy if basic contracts can be undone just because a politician feels in their own judgement that it should be in the public interest.  What next, naming victims of sex assaults in PMQs? 

Meh, something just feels a bit off about the manner in which this has been done.

parliamentarians should not use privilege to bypass a judicial decision save in exceptional circs

which don't seem to apply here

whatever one thinks of Mr Green, parliament should uphold the rule of law and protect court orders

You can imagine the imbalance between Green's lawyers and the individual involved in the signing of any NDA...

...I'm so happy that he has been exposed. Can we now start to drop the 'Sir'...

This is pretty key, though, Clergs:

 

"There is no evidence that any of the Settlement Agreements were procured by bullying, harassment or undue pressure by the Claimants. Each Settlement Agreement records that the employee was independently advised by a named legal adviser. Each Settlement Agreement contained provisions authorising disclosure to third parties in a range of cases, including to regulatory and statutory bodies.  They did not in the present case, therefore, on the face of the evidence at this interlocutory stage, have any of the unethical vices criticised by the WESC Report.

Moreover, employees may themselves wish to maintain confidentiality in relation to the settlement of the dispute with the employer.  In the present case, for example, two of the complainants have confirmed through their solicitors that they support the Claimants' application, a factor not apparently taken into account by the Judge. In the case of one of them, the express reason given was that the complainant would like to protect their privacy. "

This is pretty key, though, Clergs:

 

"There is no evidence that any of the Settlement Agreements were procured by bullying, harassment or undue pressure by the Claimants. Each Settlement Agreement records that the employee was independently advised by a named legal adviser. Each Settlement Agreement contained provisions authorising disclosure to third parties in a range of cases, including to regulatory and statutory bodies.  They did not in the present case, therefore, on the face of the evidence at this interlocutory stage, have any of the unethical vices criticised by the WESC Report.

Moreover, employees may themselves wish to maintain confidentiality in relation to the settlement of the dispute with the employer.  In the present case, for example, two of the complainants have confirmed through their solicitors that they support the Claimants' application, a factor not apparently taken into account by the Judge. In the case of one of them, the express reason given was that the complainant would like to protect their privacy. "

This is pretty key, though, Clergs:

 

"There is no evidence that any of the Settlement Agreements were procured by bullying, harassment or undue pressure by the Claimants. Each Settlement Agreement records that the employee was independently advised by a named legal adviser. Each Settlement Agreement contained provisions authorising disclosure to third parties in a range of cases, including to regulatory and statutory bodies.  They did not in the present case, therefore, on the face of the evidence at this interlocutory stage, have any of the unethical vices criticised by the WESC Report.

Moreover, employees may themselves wish to maintain confidentiality in relation to the settlement of the dispute with the employer.  In the present case, for example, two of the complainants have confirmed through their solicitors that they support the Claimants' application, a factor not apparently taken into account by the Judge. In the case of one of them, the express reason given was that the complainant would like to protect their privacy. "

Clergy, that there were ndas freely entered into as part of settlement agreements. No suggestion of coercion. Two victims wanted injunction. 

I see the secret bazza agrees 

I don't believe the parties made an equal bargain

And I think freedom of the press matters more in any case

Two people can't contract out of the public interest

 

There was no suggestion of coercion, the court of appeal make that clear. All complainants had been contacted at the judge’s request and there was no suggestion of coercion.

Are you in some way trying to suggest that the signees in question shouldn't have trusted the legal advice that their own lawyers provided?  As if their lawyers were in some way compromised on impartiality?  That's the bit which is bugging me at present, seems like the lawyers who advised are being seen as some kinds of lackeys of green.  If so they should be kicked out of the profession, no?

Clergs by your logic it is inherently impossible for a less powerful person to enter into a contract with a more powerful person because by definition the power differential means there must have been coercion even if the less powerful side had had independent legal advice etc. 

 

That makes no sense. The COA explicitly said there was no coercion. There hasn’t even been a suggestion that there was any coercion. They had independent legal advice. I don’t see the problem in this case. There are certainly similar factual situations where coercion might exist but we have no reason to think it did in this case. 

I don't think anyone should be able to make a contract with their victim for the concealment of the crime

Perhaps this stems from my Scottish legal background (we don't have the concept of "pressing charges" - prosecution is for the good of society, not just the victim) but I think that the idea is innately corrupt.

And obviosuly this situation is quite different from a generic privacy scenario - it's not two people who fell in love, it's a guy who mistreated a large number of women.

 

 

"Two people can't contract out of the public interest"

Normally I would agree but for centuries the public interest in prevention detection investigation and deterrence of sexual offences has itself been done in a way that has been harmful to women; and still is, albeit not always quite as terrible;  and I think they are entitled, at this stage of the game, not to bother their heads with the public interest, but to choose to get whatever restitution they can, and protect themselves from intrusion into their privacy as best they can. By an NDA if they choose.

My understanding is that the individuals in question are smart, independent, professional people who received independant legal advice prior to agreeing some kind of NDA/settlement agreement.  I believe some of them still work in his companies.  Don't get me wrong, I've always disliked the slimey creep esp. the way he fawns around KM. urgh. But something about this feels wrong, perhaps we should just declare anything relating to improper behaviour etc as immoral and prevent it from being legal that way, but while I used to be something of a  fan of Peter hain, I feel he hasn't covered himself in glory with this.

Clergs - yes, if it is established that there was a crime. I’m not asking for a criminal conviction but at least some kind of credible allegation/evidence  of actions that would clearly constitute a criminal offence (even if they hadn’t been proven in court). I agree with you. 

I have no doubt Green is a thoroughly unpleasant person but this is more like “unspecified allegations of unpleasant conduct which may or may not be true and which may or may not amount to a criminal offence even if they are true”. It seems a bit extreme to deny contractual protection of reputation in this context without more details (if more details come out and there are clear allegations of criminal activity I am open to changing my mind). 

Ray: absolutely. I’m not saying undue influence doesn’t exist. I’m saying you need to look at it case by case. You can’t assume that any agreement between a more powerful and less powerful party was obtained by undue influence. 

But what ifthe independent legal advice they received was

"He's got loads of money to drag this out so basically you're fooked, my advice is to take what's on offer and put it all down to experience"

I'd be leaning more towards"realistic"

 

Or "commercial" minded,

"Goto the police if you want but you'll  get nowt, this way you would at least pocket £xxxk"

I must it seems like obesity is at the heart of this. Weinstein, Green, DSK - what do they all have in common? Too fat to attract women.

 

On the NDAs where there is alleged criminal conduct - it's very hard./ Half the time neither side are sure they could prove their case so they just compromise with neither admitting anything. Sounds like now you would be better off forcing the alleged victim to take it to a public hearing in some cases and fighting it off as a matter of principle.

 

(The fact employees have a separate solicitor does not really in practice change the balance of power being against them but I certainly get the point that in some (probably not most) cases the alleged victim might want secrecy to apply)

Heh! My mum dislikes fat men because she says their fatness shows they don't care what anyone thinks of them (in a socioaths way). For some reason she's cool with fat women tho.

Hain isnt even elected, and has always been a grandstanding limelighter

i worked at a big city institition around 2001 and paying women off was seen as as part of life. I wasnt ever involved

different world back then

I trust those getting knickers in a twist about parliamentary privilege usurping the role of the courts aren't hypocrites and accept the expansion of judicial review is also wrong in terms of how that means the courts have usurped the role of parliament as well?  We have a system of checks and balances in the UK and that cannot mean judicial supremecy.

Would be happier if it was an elected MP who had done this rather than Hain I agree on that, but ultimately so long as politicians are elected and judges are not if push comes to shove parliament must be sovereign in the UK.

What it does show though (as whilst those are my views along with the view the law on injunctions/Contempt etc. simply is not sustainable/enforcable as it stands in a social media age I have some unease about this) is the law on NDA's as May promises needs to be altered.

No NDA should negate the right of an alleged victim to go to the police or limit anyone's ability to pursue matters in the criminal courts.  That said these NDA's did not contain such a clause it seems, which is mainly perhaps were my slight unease along with Hain being unelected comes from.

Hain has always had a tendency to grandstand no question, and iffy motives agreed.  He has also always been very anti authority, though not without some cause - he was fitted up by the police and judicial system quite badly in the 70's, all a matter of public record, when he was an anti apartheid activist.

Wow. What a moron for not realising this....!

its a shame, he’s done some good work at local level in Wales but this is scandalous really. 

Hand in his baron title? ;)

Lydia25 Oct 18 21:45

Weinstein, Green, DSK - what do they all have in common? Too fat to attract women.

Apart from the fact that the despicablee Green's wife is utterly smoking...yeah, gr8 point.

The firm has given a statement to Legal Cheek - seems pretty definitive unless they are lying outright  

”Peter Hain is a self-employed consultant who provides occasional advice to the firm relating principally to African affairs. Any suggestion that Gordon Dadds LLP has in any way acted improperly is entirely false. Peter Hain did not obtain any information from Gordon Dadds regarding this case. He has no involvement in the advice that we provide to The Telegraphnewspaper, and he had no knowledge of any sensitive information regarding this case.”

Doesn’t matter tbh, it still looks utterly shit, regardless of the fact that he didn’t get briefed by them.  I have no doubt what they say is correct, but isn’t it the sort of thing where he should take a view as to how it may be perceived?

I think the fact it’s now public domain means no one can be done for contempt for naming greene, even the fecker that did it in the first place. 

Also there still seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread about what an nda/settlement does legally, what it’s intended to do in these cases and how that interacts with criminal law. 

Join the discussion

Login Register