Do you think he did the right thing?

I totally disagree with Hain ..... What makes him judge and jury ...... Don't care who's involved, Hain had an agenda too!

You're right PECS. He certainly won't be the only one and I'll be surprised if this doesn't fizzle out while a few more will be keeping their heads down. You watch, something else will hit the headlines making this debacle fade into the background.

NDA's are common in out of court settlements, especially in employment! The main reason for this is where an employer may be facing multiple individual claims from (ex)employees.

However, where an NDA is used to pervert the course of justice or obtain a pecuniary advantage over a victim, these are the ones that should be illegal.

Whilst the accused should be entitled to protection whilst the investigation continues, a balance needs to be struck to ensure the truth comes out!

Are NDAs "dissolved" if a case goes to court or are the people still bound by them? I would imagine that you still have to tell the truth if called a s a witness in a case regardless of the money paid to you.

Could Hain's action damage any case being brought against Green? That would be my concern! Parliamentary Privilege , like diplomatic immunity , should be used rarely and with great care.

All in all nobody is coming out of this smelling of roses though I believe Green is decidedly dirtier!

I agree POGS

I think this is another case of the public believing the right thing was done because of the dislike/hatred of Phillip Green. In other words it is ' the man ' not ' the ball ' being played.

Whatever the public opinion Phillip Green is a citizen whom 3 judges had issued an ' Interim Injunction ' in his favour. The court of appeal had granted an ' Interim' Injunction because the complainants had signed ' Non-disclosure Agreements. Had NDA's not been signed then the 3 judges may not have given the ' Interim ' Injunction which would have allowed Phillip Green to be named by the media.
There was no thought as to the opinion of ALL those who signed the DNA by Hain in my opinion , he overruled their right to.

I think when Hain says :-

" I have no quarrel with the appeals court or with any members of the judiciary on this point. They have a job to do, but so do parliamentarians. What is the point of being a member of parliament, either in the Commons or in the Lords, if you don’t discharge your responsibilities and, where appropriate, use the privileges that you have in order to promote justice and liberty?”

He begs the question which holds the power , The Judiciary or The Parliamentarians ? When Parliamentary Privilege is used under circumstances that to my mind was not for the reason given ' standing up for human rights ' I think the Parliamentarians are of the belief they are above the Judiciary .

I think Hain could better have made his case over the use of NDA's and the wider use of them by trying to change the law over the use of NDA's which by the way are not as some believe ONLY used by wealthy people to hush up their wrong doings , although that is no doubt one of it's uses. I do have a tad of a concern over Hain and his connection to the law firm who were advising the Telegraph regarding this case and I hope that issue is cleared up quickly.

Hain as with others such as Labour Leader Tom Watson used Parliamentary Privilege because they know that shields them from any subsequent legal challenge. I will be surprised if Phillip Green can take Hain to court because of Parliamentary Privilege but it looks as though he may try.

I hold absolutely no respect for Phillip Green who I would assume is an arrogant character to boot but I am always shocked how easy the ' Kangaroo Court ' mentality kicks in and how easy the law can be challenged ' if and when ' the public dislikes/hates the person /company etc. involved. Surely the Judiciary is in place to hear the evidence and act accordingly on the publics behalf and if the public feel they have ' got it wrong' then it is up to Parliamentarians to change the law.

There is an allegation being made by someone that a crime has been committed. Why, because a person can afford to block the usual system should this be allowed. What Green has done is not meant to apply to crimes, its supposed to cover gossip like eg which footballer slept with whose wife, who has had plastic surgery and doesn't want it known. Peter Hain used Parliamentary privilege to protect others. Well done!

There are always two sides of a coin - and unless we know people personally we really don't know what has gone on - my husband and I disagree about many things, the me too campaign being one of them - and I always remind him that we cant believe what we read in the papers or see on television - there is too much gossip and scare mongering going on in my opinion just to make a headline

telling women they were overweight and should go on a diet
I should throw you out of the window, but you’re so fat you’d probably bounce back in again

Everything he is alleged to have said is outrageous but these two remarks just take the biscuit (low calorie biscuit)

Initially I was delighted that the loathesome Green had been outed, but, and this is a significant “but”, Hain may have thrown a spanner in the works which ultimately denies justice to Green’s victims, according to the i
The law is a complex thing and Hain must have been aware of what he was doing.
Read this and see what you think

inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/

The papers are reporting that some of these payouts were in the seven figure range.

What the hell can you do to your employees that you have to pay them a seven figure sum to keep quiet about it??

If you have done nothing wrong why would you need to gag the press? Why should innocent men have to speak out to protect themselves from being suspect, while the wrongdoers hide under gagging orders. If these gagging orders were completely outlawed which in my book they should be, then it would be interesting to see how close to the wind some of these people would be prepared to sail.
I believe Lord Hain did the right thing. Green and the likes of him need to learn that just because you are loaded it can never buy you good morals, good reputation and respect. These things have no monetary value but are worth far far more.

The Guardian has this:

walking into meetings and giving women present a lingering hug
asking women in meetings if they were “naughty girls”, and if they needed their bottoms slapped
creeping up behind women in corridors to make them jump, before caressing their shoulders to “reassure” them
calling women “sweetheart”, “darling” or “love”, rather than by their names
telling women they were overweight and should go on a diet
flying into expletive-ridden rages abusing male and female staff in front of colleagues
One woman who asked Green to use her name in a meeting rather than “sweetheart” and darling” was told to “shut the fuck up”. The source said they had witnessed an incident in which Green made a comment about a woman’s weight and said she “must be a lesbian because no man would marry her”, and another in which he asked an Asian woman if she had been “eating too many samosas.

In an unofficial biography published earlier this year, Green once said to a female buyer at one of his firms: “You’re absolutely fucking useless. I should throw you out of the window, but you’re so fat you’d probably bounce back in again

No signs of sexist abuse, racism or bullying there then is there?

Parliamentary Privilege is just that. You can't have it with conditions attached.

Vacillating.

I think Peter Hain is wrong.

He has opened the floodgates of 'trial by press' not a jury.

We (i.e. the public) are once again subjected to a flurry of 'juicy' reports and speculation. These people are often found not to be as guilty as the newspapers (selling, don't forget) make them out to be.

However, the subject is Peter Hain and I think he was mistaken in using his Parliamentary privilege as he did.

Charge and jury trial in any case, not speculation and innuendo.

Hmm..I don't think PG is claiming complete innocence..just saying he has not done anything illegal! So no illegal sexist or racist behaviour but maybe legal and racist behaviour! He claims he can't be racist because he has a black chauffeur ???

Peter Hain has done what a lot of us wish we could have done.

If Mister Green is completely innocent - as he states - then I hope Peter Hain will go on to ask him if he's in the habit of throwing very large amounts of money at lawyers to obtain a court order which he obviously doesn't need - IF he's the saint he purports to be.

Jalima I knew he was no longer an MP..should have said was. DH was at school with him and still meets him at footie!

Think Hain made a mistake - he should not have said anything while there is civil legal action still in process. And he should have known of this having links with one of the legal firms involved.

Well done Ros Altmann for speaking up (*kittylester's link*)

I think we knew at the time he was bullying those in charge of trying to ensure BHS pensioners received their due and did not want Green to 'cut and run' with his riches. His appearance before the HoC Select Committee says a lot, too.

How long before this man is stripped of his undeserved title?

Peter Hain, so I gather, is a good local MP. Centre Left politically
He's not a constituency MP any longer PECS as he did not stand in, I think, 2015, and is not in the HoL.

Peter Hain has been a high profile campaigner, MP for very many years, since the 1960s - he did campaign against apartheid and yes, someone brought a spurious private prosecution re that when he spoke against apartheid - however he was convicted and fined. He came originally from SA so knew what he was talking about.
He was a Liberal, later Labour and served as NI Secretary, Welsh Secretary amongst other Cabinet posts.

He's a well-respected campaigner and ex-MP, now member of the HoL and, even if Green "had something on him" anniegold I doubt very much if it is anything near Green's shameful actions.

I continue to be bewildered by your post.

I am very pleased that he was named as there should not be one law for the rich and famous and another for the rest of us. Either name everyone or nobody. Money should not buy special treatment when it is a legal matter.

The majority of MP’s support Peters decision .

Thank you kitty

I think that while we have such a court system that leans to anyone with money being able to stop their name being put out into the public I agree with Peter Hain did. The law needs to be changed and to make the same rules for everyone