Sir Philip Green named over harassment claims

I think investigations should be kept confidential until they conclude. Then name and shame. For a public figure especially, a mere accusation can be career ending. Even if you're innocent, the damage is done.

I wouldn't want to be Lord Hain if it turns out there's no truth to these allegations, I can tell you.

I think investigations should be kept confidential until they conclude. Then name and shame. For a public figure especially, a mere accusation can be career ending. Even if you're innocent, the damage is done.

I wouldn't want to be Lord Hain if it turns out there's no truth to these allegations, I can tell you.

Except in this instance, an injunction is recorded, so a known thing. The injunction will reference the people he's paid off, so a known thing.

So, as long as the Lord has the right Philip Green, I don't really see how he could get the details wrong?

He's not talking about incidents that are unproven, he's talking about a very much real thing; a man who took out an injunction to prevent the reporting of having paid off 5 employees.

If I'm wrong on my interpretation, please let me know, but that's what I've taken from reading the pieces.

He presumably got the injunction because he didn't want his name dragged through the mud

He presumably got the injunction because he didn't want his name dragged through the mud, which is understandable.

He presumably got the injunction because he didn't want his name dragged through the mud, which is understandable. Identifying him by name in the Lords was a circumvention of that. Lord Hain took it upon himself to reveal his identity because he felt it was his moral duty. But it's a knobbish thing to do in my opinion, because this guy potentially might not have sexually harassed or abused anybody. We don't know yet, and neither does Hain.

I think investigations should be kept confidential until they conclude. Then name and shame. For a public figure especially, a mere accusation can be career ending. Even if you're innocent, the damage is done.

I wouldn't want to be Lord Hain if it turns out there's no tr tuth to these allegations, I can tell you.

I think investigations should be kept confidential until they conclude. Then name and shame.

He presumably got the injunction because he didn't want his name dragged through the mud, which is understandable.

The injunction isn't worth the paper it is written on. These allegations are all over the net (perfectly legally). They can be discussed at length in every other country in the world bar England. Lord Hain has only used his parliamentary privilege to mention the elephant in the room. And when allegations are made against the businessman who owns half the high street, I think there is a reasonable cause for public interest. Are we suggesting Jimmy Savielle should have had the right to anonymity in his death?

Another example of the mob mentality overriding the rule of law, the John Warboys case was another one. Politicians trampling over it because they are no good for much better, joined-at-the-hip media because that is what what they are good for too. It's all about emotions these days, the left have succeeded in dragging it down to that level by design.

It was the pressure by Labour MPs threatening to disclose it in the House that really killed that supposedly legally binding document. MPs defying the legislation passed by the House just to make themselves look 'tough' on harassment because that's the flavour of the month. Why does anyone care so much about any of this, it's going through the courts. Why are the media and Labour so concerned about it all? It's all nauseatingly self-serving, that's my humble opinion.

Was there an NDA blocking people from reporting crimes? This simply should not exist, at all, and it's corruption that someone can buy the courts to silence potential victims from coming forward. Yes he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but he's certainly not helping himself by corruptly silencing people under his power.

You mean that an NDA is a way of corruptly silencing victims, some people will see it as an agreement between two parties and that for one of them to renege may be legally questionable, it is all that vagueness that makes it a matter for the courts and best leave them to it. I think equating NDAs to corruption is probably a bit extreme, that's where we go different ways.

It was the pressure by Labour MPs threatening to disclose it in the House that really killed that supposedly legally binding document. MPs defying the legislation passed by the House just to make themselves look 'tough' on harassment because that's the flavour of the month. Why does anyone care so much about any of this, it's going through the courts. Why are the media and Labour so concerned about it all? It's all nauseatingly self-serving, that's my humble opinion.

I agree that there is a balance between those in power and the judiciary. This sort of thing should not be allowed to happen all the time.

But are you are saying that if someone harasses someone, if they are sufficiently wealthy they can take out an injunction against them / pay them off so that the harassment remains unreported? Are you saying that harassment is acceptable and people who report it are just political correctness gone mad?

Lord Peter Hain, who identified him in the Lords, said it was his duty to name him, given the "serious and repeated" nature of the allegations.