Who's this then?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45964165
Will JHJ be along to tell us shortly, or do we have to do our own research? makes you think......
Dunno, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he turned out to have a face which resembled Sid James scrotum.
Spent 10 mins messing about with a VPN and trawling the International news agencies and it seems only the Torygraph knows and they can't say.
Well it’s #notme
"They say the five staff making the claims had been "compromised by settlement agreements" and received "substantial" payouts to stay silent."
But but.. he must be dragged over the coals and put in the public stocks for our satisfaction!
Hm. It seems they can't name him as there are only "allegations" currently and it's going to trial later. Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone's name through the mud before they're proven guilty? Wait till the court case, then string the bastard up.
Wait till the court case, see if they're proven guilty, then, and only then string the bastard up.
Hm. It seems they can’t name him as there are only “allegations” currently and it’s going to trial later. Which seems right and proper to me, why drag someone’s name through the mud before they’re proven guilty? Wait till the court case, then string the bastard up.
The argument usually follows that by releasing details more victims come forward, which brings more evidence, which makes a conviction more likely. Holding the trial in secret should only really be necessary if there's a risk the jury could be influenced.
Will JHJ be along to tell us shortly
If JHJ (or anyone else) blabs on here Mark and Chipps are going to get taken to the cleaners and STW will be no more.
There appear to have been 5 x payments and non disclosure agreements put in place, would seem fairly damning to me 🤔
The naming of the person / JHJ comments were supposed to be tongue in cheek; apologies if taken wrong. Definitely not looking to name them and cause problems for the site owners.
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). You shouldn't be able to buy silence in this sort of of instance. While I also find it morally wrong that footballer X can buy someone's silence because they can't keep it in their pants but don't want their wife to know, that isn't illegal.
Whoever it is I'll guess he's not a Virgin?
So how would this go if one of the employees who signed an NDA decided to speak up anyway? Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they're reporting a crime?
Maybe he is old school and thinks he is entitled to a little of the sugar sugar since he was the one paying wages.
Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they’re reporting a crime
Being interviewed by a newspaper journalist is a rather circuitous way of reporting a crime?
Some MP will probably blab during PMQ’s tomorrow.
Parliamentary privilege innit.
Whilst I don't think the non-disclosure agreements should prevent people being held to account, I can't help but feeling that having decided to go public those concerned should pay the money back. (Or at least donate it to charity)
Whoever it is I’ll guess he’s not a Virgin?
i thought that too.
There's an article on the Telegraph site by Jenson Button......
I'll bet he's got a vacuum cleaner in his house or maybe a hand drier.
!?
The reality is that rather than a well known name it’s more likely to be some guy who the general public have never even heard of but , when eventually outed, will become a household name synonymous with “ pervy scumbag”
Taking out the injunction was probably the worst mistake they could have made
Some MP will probably blab during PMQ’s tomorrow
Only if you can find one who's not already getting their personal/party income "augmented" by said captain of industry
So how would this go if one of the employees who signed an NDA decided to speak up anyway? Can you sue someone for breach of contract if they’re reporting a crime?
I do know someone who has been sued for an NDA breach, wasn’t a massive case nor payout in damages but it did make the middle pages of the FT back in 09’
He didn’t seem to mind and hopped into another well paid job on the back of the case...
was the NDA to keep them quiet about a crime though, or an NDA covering trade secrets?
But after the boss facing the accusations was contacted for comment by the paper in July, he and a number of his senior staff applied for an injunction to stop the details being published.
So if the paper hadn't contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?
was the NDA to keep them quiet about a crime though, or an NDA covering trade secrets?
It was both.
There was fraud involved and the way the organisation ran that side of the business.
So if the paper hadn’t contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?
The press need to offer a right to reply before publishing
Is that Captain Slow ?
🤣😳🔥
Father Jack.
Thought I'd posted this;
Good primer on the legal side of things here - Synopsis: Legally: judges aren't certain that the NDA's will trump the public interest but think it's 'likely' - full decision in the new year. Really: it'll get out anyway.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1055068630671679488
Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour
May not be too long to find out: https://www.ft.com/content/79528cde-d75c-11e8-ab8e-6be0dcf18713
I find myself thinking of a figure at a certain large media agency conglomerate who recently parted ways with his employer over an investigation of allegations of misuse of company resources for entertaining women, and other claims not unrelated to the above.
ETA: sounds like the Telegraph has been working on this for 8 months(?), fwiw. Also seems like other non-British news outlets don't actually know who it is.
Yes, women collectively getting together en mass and planning on getting sexually assaulted and coerced so that in a couple of years time they can start a hashtag movement to make a little money.
Eh? Sarcasm ??
😳🤷♂️
Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour
No mention of money changing hands between the paper and the alleged victims. And if you were the victims would you
a) just post it on STW and be done with it and hope it went viral with no corroborating investigation and no support to defend against the inevitable blowback
b) Go to a paper who can do the investigation to corroborate your story, contact other victims, get lawyers involved and generally give you support through the process rather than potentially having to fight a court case over the breach of the NDA on your own?
So if the paper hadn’t contacted him for comment could they have just published the story?
I wonder if he received it on his e-mailer? (on the assumption that as it's the torygraph it's more likely to be a labour peer/donor than anything likely to damage May).
My cashly?
on the assumption that as it’s the torygraph it’s more likely to be a labour peer/donor than anything likely to damage May
Unlikely given that Jess Phillips is the Lab MP willing to make it public if a victim asks her to.
i reckon its captainflash, expect paperclips shares to plummet.
Don't be silly a_a, Flash has to beat them off with a shitty stick.
I know this because I looked it up on my Amstrad computer... hmm?
Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour
Lawyers advice given to them at the time - you are a minnow and likely to get nowhere against this shark and sharks lawyers won't sit at the table unless you put a financial figure on the table - as far as I could make out from R4 news item
Flash has to beat them off with a shitty stick
no wonder he gets them to sign NDA's...
Unlikely given that Jess Phillips is the Lab MP willing to make it public if a victim asks her to.
Given the state of both parties at the moment I wouldn't be surprised if either party had a lot of MP's who'd happily stab eithers leadership in the back.
Why has the person making the allegations not gone public anf5tsken the money instead? It seems to me that the meetoo thing is all about money rather than dealing with inappropriate or illegal behaviour
Two main reasons. 1) he's a "big hitter" and you're a nobody, so we're doing you a favour by offering you money. Now go away and be quiet.
2) Guaranteed pot of money to shut up, or huge risk of losing a ton of money by pursuing it further.
It's well-established in all sorts of circles. For example, several former employers (FTSE 100 type firms) had a nasty habit of not welcoming back women who'd gone on maternity leave. They'd go on maternity leave with all sorts of assurances (and obviously British law), come back and find they were out of a job. In every single case, the company paid them just enough to ensure they didn't want to take it any further. Surprisingly common, and is a large part of the modern HR department's job...
Two main reasons. 1) he’s a “big hitter” and you’re a nobody, so we’re doing you a favour by offering you money. Now go away and be quiet.
2) Guaranteed pot of money to shut up, or huge risk of losing a ton of money by pursuing it further.
& don't forget number 3 - unwanted fame/notoriety for the victim see the recent Brett Kavannagh stuff
The key word in NDA is 'agreement' . Provided that both parties entered into it without duress and after legal advice, then that's that. My understanding of the ruling is that this was the case in all five of these, with no evidence of duress and legal advice provided.
If the people involved have taken the money willingly and know what the NDA means, then I can't see how anyone could successfully apply to get the agreement voided.
Commentators today have all said these particular cases were not the ones to run to court with - all parties had legal and financial advice before signing, no evidence of any pressure, duress or abuse of power to coerce them into signing. 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.
If journalists and MPs want to earn their salaries and my respect, maybe they should investigate those who have bullied their victims into unwilling silence rather than going for an easy one.
