Do you think he did the right thing?

needs a good kick up the rear end...

Another point re Hain and the media.

I find it odd that he is seen as being a principled spokesperson for the ' Freedom of the Press ' to write naming an individual to the extent he used Parliamentary Privilege to go against the judiciary decision to grant an ' Interim Injuction' .

Yet the Lords are steadfastly often calling for Leveson 2.

Leveson to some was the opportunity to stifle the Freedom of the Press .

Jalima they are like an indulged child usually! Can only see anything from their own egocentric perspective.. which is why they ended up in a bloody tribunal! However, that manipulative behaviour sometimes makes even experienced managers/leaders make silly errors in trying to alleviate situations.. and so the tangle of he said/she said begins!

I did work with someone who could have been described as a malicious litigant and we were all very wary of her.

As you know from previous posts I am not convinced this was the best decision by Hain. However if you have been humiliated / abused (we do not actually know!) by a dynamic, wealthy and powerful person you may be reluctant to take a 'principled' decision. You may feel powerless, unable to imagine you could ever win against the money and power.

I have chaired various HR grievance tribunals and often part of these have included both a pay out and a NDA. I can see their use if you have malicious litigants who have had their day in court but then want to argue on if the decision goes against them. However these NDAs are to stop a grievance or legal procedure taking place. That is for me a big difference.

they need to grow a pair,
I don't think that is the answer, sorry, especially if growing a pair would make women as unpleasant as Green.

I take your point, but I don't actually think that you can ignore the personalities. Bullies have an inbuilt ability to home in on people who won't stand up to them. That's also why they would sign an nda.

I can’t help thinking about cliff Richard and how he was named in the media. Why is there one rule for him and another for Philip green. I don’t think people should be named until they are charged

If you take ' personalities ' out of the equation and the question is asked should Non - Disclaimer Agreements be used / accessible then the answer is surely it is up to the person to make that decision. They can choose to either take a financial payment in return for their silence/ not taking anything further OR take a principled stand against an individual, a company, an organisation etc. and take them to tribunal or court of law to receive a verdict on their complaint. Their choice.

If a court of law, which has the opportunity to make a decision in accordance with the law and having seen and heard the evidence decides to provide an ' Interim ' Injunction , as it did , then the Non Disclosure Agreements should not be in the public domain and that should be upheld whether it is a palatable decision or not . There are after all others who signed the Non Disclosure Agreements and do not want their Agreements broken nor their names made public where are their voices in all of this..

Hain chose to defy the judgement of a United Kingdom Court of Law using Parliamentary Privilege which he knew shielded him from prosecution , he cared not a jot for the court decision to grant the ' Interim ' Injunction . He does have a question mark hanging over his head with his connection to the law firm involved in the case and that needs clarification for Parliamentary reasons alone in my opinion because it reflects on Parliament and how this is being viewed by the public, at least by some of the public.

Non Disclosure Agreements are not the sole domain of the wealthy to hide their wrong doings but if an individual signs an NDA then they chose to take the money in return for not disclosing an issue that has taken place, or not . Perhaps it is time to question DNA's full stop and put principle before
financial pay offs . I think there will certainly be debates over this episode in Parliament.

I have to say I think the hypocrisy shown between Green and Bercow by some parliamentarians says a lot about them too.

The way some parliamentarians are treating The Dame Laura Cox Inquiry into bullying, sexual harrassement and intimidation in Parliament is pure hypocrisy when they are seemingly defending their own...

A well known Lord prior to the Cox Inquiry in defence of a fellow parliamentarian implied the motivation behind the ' ' bullying ' allegations was resistance to essential parliamentary reforms and nothing to do with ' bullying'.

Talk about being selective.

I agree with your comments MOnica! I think Gabriella is not very understanding of how these things happen - which is great fir her. It doesn't help the people who are not supremely confident when they meet a bullying, manipulative man (like Green, Weinstein and countless others) who has their livelihoods in their hands

Sorry the above is garbled. I am not sure why. The paragraph containing the second Gabriella and the following paragraphs are meant to be the last two in the post.

Skip them read the last two paras and then go back to them.

Gabriella, It would only happen once, thereafter I would have placed myself out of reach. People only have done to them what they permit. If each of those women are talking about a one off 'incident', why make a fuss?If it happened several times, why did they not absent themselves from the area around him.

What sort of world did you work in? I am more than capable of dealing with workplace bullies but if your boss/director/manager is like Green and you have to work closely with him, exactly how do you place yourself out of reach? I have had to work with men like this, thankfully never as senior or quite as objectionable as Green, and it is really hard work and at times impossible to keep the distance you think so easy.

Gabriella you may be glad that I'm an assured woman and not afraid to speak my mind. I am another, but that doesn't mean that you should dismiss so out of hand those people who are not fortunate enough by nature or nurture to have those qualities.

I have comforted and advised such people and suggested courses of action that would help them deal with the problem, but they lack the courage. Not every soldier is brave enough to win the VC. That does not make them weak soldiers.

Nor are all the women round him as senior as you think. Even today there will be secretaries, junior bringing up papers etc for him. cups of tea, doing photocopying. For younger women starting on careers, it may take a time to build the carapace to be unaffected by these events. Men like this pick on junior staff because they are easier prey, they do not try it on with older more senior women. They will say it is because they are unattractive, it is really because they will give as good as they get

I worked in male dominated industries all my working life and my work often took me into the presence of directors and senior managers many grades above me. I didn't have a choice as to whether

Chewbacca
I have no idea. You don't know me, only the 'me' on GN.
I wonder how many GNers could correctly name any of us if we were all silently standing in a line.
I'm glad that I'm an assured woman and not afraid to speak my mind.

It would only happen once, thereafter I would have placed myself out of reach.
People only have done to them what they permit. If each of those women are talking about a one off 'incident', why make a fuss? If it happened several times, why did they not absent themselves from the area around him and if it was verbal, they could ignore those plainly ridiculous remarks.
You (and others) mention thst PG may have targeted those with weak self esteem or similar frailties.
I would venture that women in top jobs (whom I assume to be those in board meetings) would be made of sterner stuff. Why females let a bully get under their skin, I'll never understand.
I'm no beauty nor am I rolling in the green stuff but my confidence can never be dented, nor can words ever get under my skin, not one iota.
If women want and expect to be treated as equals in the workplace and at home, they need to grow a pair, not reach for the tissues and phone a lawyer.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.