To tell you that it's Phillip Green who gagged the media! Named by MP using parliament privileges

[shouldidoitspoilt]

Disgraceful .

BOF that made me shudder.

First of all people don't really mean an NDA. A stand alone contract known as a non disclosure agreement is used before you do a deal when you want both sides to keep trade secrets confidential and that kind of thing.

What people mean is a non disclosure clause within a settlement agreement in relation to a dispute. Often the victim wnts confidentiality as the alleged PG "victims" did - they support his application to the court to keep secrecy. And you can understand why. I meant pragmatic in the sense that most settlements are for pragmatic reasons - either side might win at court but you just decide to pay someone £5k and they write off the sum they might claim from you over that or vice versa rather than incur £5k or £500k or whatever costs of going to court. Tht is the pragmatism that is at play when people compromise claims.

The reason either or both sides wants secrecy depends on the case. Eg most divorce settlements both sides do not want their personal financial details spattered all over social media so not surprisingly most mumsnetters who divorce want a secrecy clause.

The problem with every settlement is it is not clear who won and who did what. James may be late for work every day and no one wants to work with him but he's quite hard to sack without a tribuanl claim so you get rid of him, pay him and make sure both sides keep it secret otherwise janice in typing who is lazy so and so as well might think the company is a walking cheque book.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/7585526/sir-philip-green-rants-bullying-harassment-claims/

Xenia,

I am not sure I accept that about ‘pragmatism’. The reason most employees accept a non disclosure clause is that they are fighting a David and Goliath battle.

Employee requests e mails relating to him and company somehow produces 10,000 e mails, mostly irrelevant. So he/she needs to spend 100s of hours (or pay a lawyer 10s of thousands of pounds) to sift through them.

A large company also has the luxury of unlimited time, so delay, delay, delay is generally the tactic, while holding out an offer of money with an NDC to make it all go away and allow the employee to carry on with their lives.

NDCs are used to cover up bullying, racism, harassment etc. They are very rarely in the interest of EITHER side; they are, however, very much in the interest of the generally senior employee who has behaved egregiously. This is absolutely not the same as being in the interests of the actual owners of the company.

Seen enough of these to know how it works..

bette, that last post is laughable. I’m not wasting my time cutting and pasting when even a few posts back people can see you berating posters for what you perceive as misogyny. And your arguments that she’s not as much to blame for tax evasion are clear too. You have a back button. Use it.

And as for disliking name calling, you’ve repeatedly called other posters misogynists.

You’re making a bit of a fool of yourself because everyone else can see what you posted even if you seem to have a bad case of selective amnesia this morning.

LakieLady : I think it's in the public interest....So in this instance, I don't think parliamentary privilege has been abused.

Agree with first bit, and I am pretty sure the courts would've come to the same conclusion in a few weeks.
The second comment, no. See my earlier post. There was no need to do it now (except for Hain's profile)
and has just set up the way for potential parliamentary provision restrictions.

And guess who will be the ones to suffer?
The only ones who have been played are the public.

Xenia, it’s been made very clear these are not just clauses in a contract, they are separate, standalone NDAs. That’s done to protect the non-disclosure element by meaning any breaches or errors or issues elsewhere in the contract won’t mean the contract is voided including any NDCs. An NDA always stays in place regardless of any other developments in the case.

If this was a case of a non-disclosure clause being stuck in a larger contract you might have a point. It’s not, it’s a standalone NDA which over a million pounds was spent on. So the idea the major shareholder wouldn’t know about it is pretty implausible too.

That is interesting but not common. Usually there will be one document - the settlement of the dispute whether employjment law, contract law, your divorce or whatever and one clause in there says both sides will keep it secret. I agree there may well be stand alone NDAs. One man reportedly doesn't sleep with a girl friend until she signs an NDA even but I suspect that has not yet caught on as standard dating practice.

I don't think these are very easy issues at all. What about Cliff Richard? if someone is innocent why should they not get confidentiality? I certainly would not be against a law saying where a major crime is proven a secrecy clause is invalid however.

Ginger What a huge surprise. You've failed to give One. Single. Example. of the ridiculous vitriol you've been firing off. Not one. A bit more personal abuse, but otherwise, nada.

Of course you didn't, because you can't. In 11 years of Mn-ing, I don't call people names. I just don't do it. You picked the wrong poster, I'm afraid.

You’re making a bit of a fool of yourself because everyone else can see what you posted

The irony. . Anyway, I will still wish you a pleasant day and hope that draws a line underneath it.

Peter Hain was wrong to do this. I'm no fan of Philip Green and professionally it's great for me. But Hain should not have interfered in a judicial process and he was grandstanding - probably before Jess Phillips could beat him to the punch in the Commons.

I reluctantly accept that the Appeal Court was right to come down on the side of PDAs. There are good reasons for them in terms of business arrangements. You can't just sign things with the fingers of your other hand crossed behind your back.

However, having signed one, I know the pressure people are under from a mighty company. And they should not be used to override allegedly criminal behaviour or a public interest disclosure - for instance in warning someone from accepting a job where they might be exposed to harm.

But the Daily Telegraph would have taken this to the Supreme Court they have money and would have been given moral support from other media outlets. In the meantime Green would have trended on Twitter so the judge who imposed the injunction would have probably overturned it because it was no longer effective. This has happened before.

These are the Arcadia Group brands, if anyone would like to boycott them or write to them to explain why they won't shop there until SPG is removed (people say shopworkers might suffer, I think that shareholders will look after themselves by removing him if there is enough pressure)
Topshop
Topman
Burtons
Outfit
OutfitKids
Evans
Dorothy Perkins
Miss Selfridge
Wallis
#pinknotgreen

I mentioned upthread that he is unlikely to suffer as he’s already paid him self a 1bn dividend. Not to say that he shouldn’t be ousted though.

limited, my concern about this is where we would draw the line about criminal acts. So whilst probably every one accepts secrecy clauses are appropriate in all kinds of agreements if the allegation might be a crime (eg calling a parent at school he when James is wearing his dress today and has adopted his female persona because it's Tuesday) or Jim got a bit too close to Janice in the filing room although never touched her I sitl feel secrecy could prevail, same with the Cliff Richard type cases.

Whereas if it is pretty certain someone raped someone the right to disclose that perhaps to the police rather than all and sundry on twitter may be should be allowed. We have to remember however that a lot of women who are abused at work do not want to be exposed all over the newspapers so want the confidentiality as much as the accused. If NDAs cannot have secrcy in them in employment situations then a lot of women would never come forward at all and just leave for another job except they would have no payment even so would be worse off.

Xenia I don't understand your point.

People sign NDAs as a routine course of leaving employment where nothing untoward has happened but there may be a conflict of interest. Sometimes they do that where there is bad blood but nothing actionable.

As someone who has done that under different circumstances, I can confirm it is very stressful and we earn every penny. In fact, I guess I'm not alone in thinking I should have got more and the damage to my career prospects far outweighed the settlement.

But I still think the principle of PDAs, or Compromise Agreements, as mine was termed, should be upheld as it was in this judgment.

That's not to say that coercing someone into signing a PDA should be regarded as a Get Out Of Court Free card in the case of alleged criminal acts or to silence matters of public interest including 'whistleblowing'.

So is an Injunction the same as a NDA then? Or a Super Injunction?

An injunction is the court ordering something eg that you stop selling fake cartier goods or that you do not disclose a trade secret.

An agreement with someone - that you will keep secret customer lists confidential or whatever is just a contract between two sides.

I agree with the point above that it rarely pays to whistleblow however which is why most women and men shut up about corruption, pollution financial fraud, sex pests and the like as they want another job.

So is an Injunction the same as a NDA then? Or a Super Injunction?

Different things jux.

A NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement or Compromise Agreement) is something you might be expected to sign at the conclusion of termination of employment.

In the vast majority of cases it's quite normal and even in the case of bad blood, does not cover criminal activity, just that neither party can disclose company secrets or bitch about the other.

An injunction is a court order that can be reported subject to restrictiohs. So we can say it exists and what the gist of it is about and the parties involved even if those parties have to be anonymous.

A super injunction is where no one is allowed to report on the existence of an injunction.

Not surprised in the slightest. I think there is another billionaire who is equally abusive to women though. His daughter’s recent relationship with the married hot felon shows very poor judgment as well.

What evidence do we have that Philip Green has committed any sexual or racist crimes? I'm not saying he hasn't, but the fact is, I don't know. He has had people making allegations and they have signed NDA and taken money to keep quiet. That's all we know. Allegations are not proof.

Unfortunately, in his position, he has a target painted on him for people to throw allegations at. Look at how ready people were to believe the other names that were being thrown about.

I don't agree with what happened regarding the BHS pensions and I'm not suggesting that he is whiter than white in terms of his business deals and tax affairs but none if these things automatically make him a sexual predator.

The people who made the allegations could have chosen to not sign the NDA and not accept the money and gone to the police to make a formal complaint. People only have power if other people allow them to.

He may well have paid them off simply for a quiet life as he knows full well that if allegations are made, mud sticks. Just because he paid them to keep quiet doesn't mean he's done anything wrong.

Again to repeat, I don't know the situation so I will avoid judgement until more is known.

Hain- "I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case."

Title page of judgement he is talking about (in bold)- "instructed by Gordon Dadds LLP for the Respondent"
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/2329.html

Either Hains is lying or he has criticised the judgements before reading it.
Which one, I wonder??

It now appears that Hain is a paid adviser to the Telegraphs lawyers.

He claims he had no idea that they were the company working for the Telegraph in this case, which is most surprising, as the law firms name is writ large on the front of the court judgement.

He either did not even read the judgement, yet still declared it his "duty" to name Green, or hes in cahoots with Telegraph + lying.

Sorry ConcreteUnderpants, was typing mine up when you posted!

I know some absolutely shocking stories about him as many of my friends have worked or still work for him. I hope they ALL come out! He has ruined some of my friends lives and careers.

He is the nastiest of the nasty!!!!

Louisianna
What a fucking joke, right!

Innit.😀

His sense of "duty made him do it, indeed......man's either a fool or a liar. Or both.