Kind of, kind of not. I think part of it is whether it's just 'bad' behaviour, whatever that means nowadays, vs illegal / criminal behaviour, and also whether the public interest to expose such behaviour outweighs the right to privacy. as always, the secret barrister covers it well (link on prev page)
As someone on there pointed out as well - are NDAs illegal contracts and thus void if they bury a potential criminal act or amount to a bribe?
Also interesting - there are 5 'victims' of the allegations, and 2 of these apparently don't want to break the NDA's / have their names and stories (potentially) revealed.
Good job we have some senile old buffers in woolly hats to unpick this for us 😉
- also define 'duress'
'This is a big offer, might be more than you'd get if you take this to court if you win at all, and you don't have to have your private life raked over in public'..... might not be arm twisted behind the back duress, but is a form of. IMHO.
😂
I thought sex crime victims had a right to anonymity anyway? Thus, this feels remarkably like one rule for the upper classes and another rule for the rest of us. NDA's still being in effect after criminality sounds a lot like people looking after their old school mates. They seem to get lesser sentences as well, for being upstanding members of thier own social circ....I mean community.
I'm faultly ignorant of the law though.
In which case, I’m off the view that if consenting adults want to come to their own private agreement regarding a payoff, good luck to them and it’s not my business.
Dunno it seems a bit like buying justice. Not really the way society should work. That said as problems with NDAs go I would rate it at the less concerning end. The really worrying ones are those where people are brought off reporting things which could whilst probably not illegal certainly have a major impact on others. For example the occasional reporting in Private Eye about doctors being paid off regarding bad practice.
I'm not aware of the specific offences alleged here, but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that's their right and it shouldn't be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.
Obviously, other cases will have different circumstances and my view may well be different. From having read parts of the judgement and heard independent commentators talking about it, this was not the case to be making a stand over.
I’m not aware of the specific offences alleged here, but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that’s their right and it shouldn’t be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.
what kind of specific offences do you draw the line at ? can a rapist buy a victims silence, how about a pussy groper, tit fondler....
But sex crime victims don't get named anyway, do they? Unless they choose to be. So the point is a bit moot isn't it?
But as the can’s opened; despite NDA’s and hush money exchanging hands, this is criminal activity (bullying, sexual harrassment and intimidation acc to the paper)
Intimidation might be a criminal act. I'm less sure about "bullying". Intimidation would need some qualification.
but if a victim, after legal advice, takes money and an NDA rather than take criminal or civil action, that’s their right and it shouldn’t be overturned to satisfy media curiosity.
1/ if it's a criminal act, it's a criminal act, media curiosity doesn't come into it. As I asked before (ok, passed on someone else's question) is paying money to hush up a criminal act, whether under duress or not, an illegal contract.
At extreme. Someone commits a big crime, someone else knows about it and doesn't inform the police. Under normal circumstances they are an accessory of sorts (accessory, obstruction, whatever). If a tenner exchanges hands in return for their silence, are they then absolved of being an accessory because they had an agreement that was entered into voluntarily.
2/ Is it just media curiosity or public interest, that workplace bullies, potentially sexual harassment, etc. can buy silence?
A friend of a friend told me that the businessman in question is.... [name removed -Mod edit] 🙂
Cougar
Subscriber
Hm. It seems they can’t name him as there are only “allegations” currently and it’s going to trial later - and his name isn't Alex Salmond. Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone’s name through the mud before they’re proven guilty?
FTFY
and his name isn’t Alex Salmond
I know. He must be kicking himself for not thinkng of using the cash all the fanatics have given him to fund some NDA's. (It would've been a bit late obvs)
I'm obviously not making my point very well. My point relates to these particular cases, as I've heard the judgement reported.
I've got no idea what these crimes were supposed to be. But not all bullying and harassment is actually a crime, so I'm assuming it's at the lower end of the scale, and as I said, the victims were happy with a deal after independent legal advice (according to the reported judgement) so I don't thinks it's for us to call in these specific cases.
Obviously more serious harassment, bullying etc raises wider questions - crimes should be punished, criminals exposed, but nothing I've heard about these particular cases from what the judges discussed in the judgement makes me think we are at that level of criminality. I like some facts before I sharpen my pitchfork.
Very fair points, but the counter is that we haven't heard what the actual offences are, so to simply say 'They signed an NDA, case closed' is not correct either.
I mean I heard an interview on the Radio that alleged some quite serious stuff, sexual harassment, racism, etc.
This might not be the best case / example - the appeal court has admitted as such by requesting that a higher court reviews, rather than ruling immediately - but the use of NDA's by the rich and powerful to gag victims is broadly speaking, wrong. That is not what they are for, whether they are entered into 'voluntarily' or not.
But again; are NDAs illegal contracts and thus void if they are used to cover up a criminal act
Saying they were happy with a payout at the time so should back off now is a bit disingenuous.
If you're told that the rich powerful person is likely to get off due to lack of evidence and him being able to afford the best legal advice, "but here's some cash to make everyone's life easier" , you're probably going to take the cash.
Once you're aware that it isn't just you, and that the weight of evidence is now in your favour, it changes things.
A legal expert interveiwed on the radio that NDAs could not be used to cover up criminal acts.Criminal law trumps legal confidentiality agreements.You can break an NDA anyway but you may be liable to repay any sum received.
What about that slimy guy who bankrolled Brexit?
What about that slimy guy who bankrolled Brexit?
Whoever it is I’ll guess he’s not a Virgin?
Exactly the same thoughts...
Been named in Parliament as Philip Green.
Which I'm sure comes as a surprise to precisely no-one.
Scumbag is, as Scumbag does.
Soon to lose the “Sir” - one hopes
Absolutely no surprise at that
🤣🤦♀️
Whodafunkit..
If it is actually him..obvz
Wow Green, really I am amazed, he seems like one of the good guys *
* sarcasm
pretty shitty action by Hain.
The matter is currently under legal proceedings. i.e. there's some smart people who know lots about this stuff and paid to pass judgment on it, chewing it over at the moment.
But no. Mr Hain think's he knows better. Im sure his legal thought process and logical analysis of the situation will stand up to scrutiny when he publishes it. What's that you say? He's not actually thought this through just jumped on a bandwagon? Well colour me bright orange. Arrogant ****.
Stoner - I am sympathetic but for most people someone who's rich enough to buy the silence of people they've abused and then spend half a million on legal fees to keep it hushed up deserves a bit of a name and shame.
I'd rather Hain had waited until after the court case had finished otherwise it's all a bit Tommy Robinson shouting outside an ongoing trial but I also don't think an NDA should be used to protect someone's vanity. I won;t say his good name because he doesn't have one.
Bit disappointed it's not Branson.
So thats what he needed the pension money for......
So what happens to the money that he paid for the NDA does he get a refund? Do the people he paid to silence have to send the money back?
the people he paid to be quiet haven;t had anything published yet, have they?
I'm sure the Telegraph have good advice that either they won;t have to pay it back or will cover any costs they run up defending a case.
The cosig to the NDAs havent breached their personal contract with him so no need to pay anything back unless one of them passed PGs name on to Hain. People seem to be confusing the NDA with privacy injunctions. All that was in place was an interim injunction while a higher court weighed up the merits of private commercial contract disclosure versus public interest publication. It seems some people cant wait for justice to take its course. Maybe its time for a good ol lynching to make a return.
ww - the telegraph are not party to any contract with PG. There's no liability to them if there is disclosure except in doing so against a court order. Hain has used PP to go around that TEMPRORAY court order. Because he's a dick.
If at the end of the show the final court had decided that the NDA is more important than publsihing, THEN Hain might have a case for circumventing a final court order. But jumping the gun is just a dick move.
while a higher court weighed up the merits of private commercial contract disclosure versus public interest publication.
Or as others might see it, whether a NDA is a proper or even legal means to cover up criminal acts.
[edit] but I don't disagree; once a court has decided to grant a temporary injunction so a higher court can think about it, to then use PP to blurt it out is wrong.
the telegraph are not party to any contract with PG.
this is true but it doesn't mean they don't have a contract with those who signed NDA's saying they'll cover any costs associated with accusations of breaching them.
If at the end of the show the final court had decided that the NDA is more important than publsihing, THEN Hain might have a case for circumventing a final court order
hence me saying:
I’d rather Hain had waited until after the court case had finished otherwise it’s all a bit Tommy Robinson shouting outside an ongoing trial
Thanks for the explanation of what's going on Stoner. Now I understand I agree with your take on this.
It would be nice if people now boycotted his shops.
this is true but it doesn’t mean they don’t have a contract with those who signed NDA’s saying they’ll cover any costs associated with accusations of breaching them.
I can hear Telegraph counsel choking on their afternoon tea and biccies from here!
Didn't think he could go down in anyone's estimation but, wow!
Surely anyone with a Supernoodle Mullet must be a bit dodge, eh?
youre not wrong jef, youre not wrong
I can hear Telegraph counsel choking on their afternoon tea and biccies from here!
well if you're in the room with them maybe you can get confirmation?
It would be nice if people now boycotted his shops.
I, for one, shall never enter a BHS again...
That's the last crop top from Topshop I shall buy for myself.
Steve
That’s the last crop top from Topshop I shall buy for myself.
Try saying that after a few shandies.
