Do you think he did the right thing?

I was part of Peters campaign in the sixties to stop whites only in sport in S.A. he was prosecuted .

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6322295/BARONESS-ROS-ALTMANN-Sir-Philip-Green-bullied-menacing-late-night-texts.html

This is an interesting article - sorry it's from the Daily Mail!

In answer to annie's question - the theory is that mud sticks so you are not admitting guilt, just saving you reputation.

And, I think a woman mp had threatened to do what Peter Hain did.

* named in, not named was in

IMO, NDAs should be outlawed.
There is no hiding place for the (wo)man on the street, should (s)he be falsley accused or have their name bandied about in the media as a suspect where no firm evidence corroborates the articles.
You may say that there is no smoke without fire but there is often a mist shrouding some printed news which can be, erroneously, mistaken for smoke.
If Green was named was in other countries with different privacy laws (indeed, it was widely viewable on the internet) then it was better that Peter Hain put an end to speculation. He did the right thing. One law for ALL.

Absolutely believe he did the right thing. Powerful people using their wealth and influence is unacceptable. NDAs should very rarely if ever be used and certainly not in such circumstances.

Chewbacca with you there. Money should not buy you exemption from legal process..if there is a legal case to answer. All should be equal under the law. Peter Hain, so I gather, is a good local MP. Centre Left politically. Comes from a family background of fighting inequality of course.

If Peter hadn’t done it would there be any talk of a change in the law for the likes of Green to pay for silence

cones should be comes.

I'm on the fence about whether Peter Hain did the right thing in exposing Philip Green, but there might be one good thing that cones out of this: it might deter wealthy, influential, predatory men, who think that they can buy their way out of facing up to their actions by seeking super injunctions in the future. Vastly wealthy people should go through the same judicial processes as anyone else imo.

Good post POGS. I agree with everything you have said.

I have been looking at various press articles about this man. He sound awful! He and his spokespeople are careful to say he did nothing " unlawful" but are not denying absolutely the claims of racist/ sexist behaviour. It seems his money is in his wife's na.e. She lives in Monaco and business is registered in Jersey. Legal but not, imo, a very moral choice if one alsp accepts to be a Lord in the British parliament! He won't be the only one!

If he is innocent why did he pay the alleged abused women

I think Lord Hain did the right thing. Why just because you have money should you be able gag the press and protect yourself when the same does not apply to a person without the means to do the same, example a man accused falsely of rape. Also after selling BHS for a pound and trying to dodge paying his employees their pensions I think he should be stripped of his title (how he was ever given it in the first place beggars belief) he is in my opinion a smarmy spiv.

Green does not appear to be a very moral sort of person. He possibly manages to stay just on the right side of the law... maybe! His actions with BHS were not laudable. If you need to invoke NDAs it makes me think there is certainly bad behaviour going on. It is not morally right that you can avoid public judgement because you are rich. Peter Hain has exposed a member of the HoL as an unpleasant person. It is for the judiciary to decide if he is guilty. I hope the exposure does not jeopardise any legal process.

What evidence does Green have ?

Green has enough evidence to shame him on many occasions.
Does Green know the meaning of the word shame *anniegold195^?
I would be surprised if he did.

Well, I can't say that I agree with you about Peter Hain anniegold195, but I'm not sure that he has done the right thing in this case.

My main concern is that, should there be any further enquiries or procedures at any point, this could prejudice a possible trial.

Green being able to silence the press could affect other women who have been abused from coming forward if their abuser is wealthy.

Hain has been a troublemaker since he became a politician. Google his past actions. Green has enough evidence to shame him on many occasions.

I should add that I in no way condone anything that anyone who has coerced people into signing NDAs may have done and that Green is amongst my least favourite people. However, that is because of his other actions.

either noone should be named or everyone should be named

Should anyone be named at all if not charged with any offence?

On reflection, I think that Hain was wrong.

It is reported it cost Green half a million

I don't like the fact that super-injunctions can be obtained by the rich in order to gag the news of allegations. The law should be equally applied to everyone - either noone should be named or everyone should be named

On balance, I think Hain was wrong to speak out in this case.

I cannot help but think of the naming and shaming of Phillip Green and how Parliament has behaved over the Dame Laura Cox Inquiry into bullying and harassment in Parliament. Hypocrisy? Yes a tad in my mind.
Yes, that is true, it is hypocritical POGS. Some MPs have allegedly used NDAs, as has the BBC and other institutions.

How can we hope to stop harassment and bullying when it is all swept under the carpet by using what is essentially bribery?