Do you think he did the right thing?

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

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?

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 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??

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/

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)

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

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!

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.

I agree POGS

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!

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!

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.

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

Funny how only the wealthy can take out injunctions against their accusers. Why is it not made public when certain celebrities silence their victims. If they are innocent they could sue in open court. People tell online the abuse they’ve received. I know who I believe and it’s not the famous protesting their innocence. Not all of us are naive. Anyone with enough money can buy their way round our legal system. We have to wait until they have popped their clogs before we hear about their dirty deeds.

Remember when the footballer Ryan Giggs had a court order to stop papers printing of an affair he was having. A Lib MP used Parlimentry Privilege to name Giggs and that was because of an affair.

The DT had no right to print this story and the very arrogant Mr Hain nad no right to name Green. Parliamentary privilege?, leave it to the courts.

Hains has not acted as " judge & jury" that is overstating it. He has named a person that journos & others have been investigating for a while. I do not necessarily condone what he had done but let's not over egg it!

IMHO P Green should not have used the NDAs for the purposes he allegedly did and likewise P Hain should not have used parlimentary priv in the way he did, especially as the PG case was ongoing and PG could have been outed in the end anyway.

My dd who is a lawyer said that parl priv is outdated - used to be used in the days, long gone, when it did not mean that what anyone said there was immediately was sent worldwide.

Maybe this will mean there is a change in the laws - for NDAs and Parl Priv - so right outcome by wrong means.

Chewbacca
Regarding the story in the Guardian, it's magnified.
I personally wouldn't make a fuss if I had any of those comments or observations levelled at me.
It says much about the person making the remark and I would ignore all of it. Only words after all and I'm well able to turn the other cheek and laugh it off or agree with the ridiculous statements.
If you are confident and know your worth, nothing can undermine your sense of self.

Bullies have an inate ability to say and do things like that to people who are lacking confidence and a sense of their own worth, Gabriella.

Or you could just be exceedingly arrogant & controlling and be so used to getting your own way because of a position of power/ wealth you behave in appalling ways. And when the protection starts to crack & there are people accusing you who have similar position of power...
Sometimes we have to face up to our bad behaviour and attitudes no matter how much confidence / self esteem we may have... & that may be part of the problem.

I personally wouldn't make a fuss if I had any of those comments or observations levelled at me.

Now why doesn't that surprise me Gabriella?

gabriella, It is not what he said, but the way that he said it. Unless you have ever worked with a large powerful coarse boorish oaf like Philip Green is, you can have no idea how intimidating such tactics and language can be to many people.

Like you I am not easily intimidated, but I can assure you that people like that can make life very uncomfortable, and if you are happy being squeezed and touched at work by a large sweaty man, who happens to be your boss, then you are probably in a minority of one.

I notice from today's paper, he is retreating into the excuse used by every bully from time immemorable^ it was only banter^. The other phrase he will no doubt use in time is: I was only teasing, why can't you take a joke. That is not how those persecuted by bullies see it, being constantly verbally or physically harassed by someone, intent on crushing or intimidating them.

Surely if one has self worth they would find those remarks deeply offensive