Do you think he did the right thing?

I do not agree with Peter Hain.

The use of Parliamentary Privilege was used by Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson in October 2012 to allege there was a peaodophile ring in Westminster.

As we all know Watson went on to make life hell for many Tory MP's such as Leon Brittan and Watson's at times scurrilous claims were proven to be lies. I don't think many were not convinced Watson was doing damage to reputations probably for political reasons.

Peter Hain used Parliamentary Privilege because he knows he cannot be held accountable for what he says, like those who have used Parliamentary Privilege before him.

It is the case 3 judges made a decision based on evidence and Hain has overruled their decision. There is more than one party involved in the Non Disclure Agreement and there is no apparent consideration by Hain as to their wanting to remain anonymous as per the Non Disclosure Agreement they too signed. I feel sorry for them if they now become publicly known because of Hain.

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.

It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth to know wealthy people can ' pay off ' some, not all, with money to possibly cover up their wrong doing. It also leaves a nasty taste in the mouth Parliamentary Privilege can be used as easy too and not always as innocently as it first appears at times.

Both Parliamentary Privilege and Non Disclosure Agreements need looking into because it is evident you can't have both.

Just said on the news Peter is an advisor to the lawyers who work for the Telegraph . Can it be the person he spoke to was an alleged victim .

I believe that the application of No Disclosure Agreements used by Philip Green's lawyers is at present under investigation, and that Peter Hain's action in naming Philip Green has now compromised this.
I am not clear what his motivation is.

There was an interview on Radio 4 with a woman who had been attacked by Harvey Weinstein and complained and was put in a position where she was told she either had to file a criminal prosecution against Weinstein, with no support and the big guns against her and her reputation torn to shreds, or make a financial claim for being forced out of her job by the accusations (which she did not want to do) and sign a no-disclosure agreement, which eventually she did.

I can see nothing in that that wouldn't happen in the UK in a case like Kings. Bully the accuser until they accept a financial pay off for the loss of their job with a mandatory non-disclosure clause.

I too am conflicted. I really hate the fact that wealthy & powerful employers can use NDAs in effect to gag people. However I believe that this was a temporary injunction with public interest to be decided at trial, so I don’t think the law should be pre-empted in this way. Perhaps the question we should be asking is about NDAs?

I haven't read much about it yet - is that what Green did, ie coerce alleged victims into signing non-disclosure agreements?

It is wrong if others are getting the blame and denying it can even fan the flames even more, although I cannot imagine Alan Sugar sexually harassing anyone.

I agree with Peter, untill there is a change in the law and no one is named because of allegations. He didn’t take the law into his own hands, he spoke under Parliamentary Privilege.

kittylester. I am with you. I can see the arguments for both sides and agree with both.

However now that I read here that other people were being named for this and have had to make denials and given that I do not think bullies should be able to coerce their victims into signing non-disclosure agreements and then use these as a reason for not being named, the scales are tipping ever so slightly towards Peter Hains - but I am still uneasy.

That's a good point fennel Alan Sugar had to deny that it was him.

I think he did right.
Otherwise the blame would be put on many others, and the gossip would spread like wildfire.

court ie I mean the judicial system

They are allegations so may not be true.

I am conflicted too - whilst I do not believe that someone should be able to bring undue influence to bear to hide such behaviour, on the other hand other men's lives have been ruined by unfounded allegations being spread about them in the media.

If there is a case for Green to answer, is court not the right place to do so?

I agree with you but I am not happy with someone taking the law into their own hands as Peter Hair did - so I'm conflicted!