Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Also ran off with millions of the BHS Pension fund ... don't ever forget that .. scum
Particularly as the 2 people who've signed NDAs didn't want his name making public anyway.Without defending what Green may have done in any way, I must say I'm a bit uneasy with the way Peter Hain has circumvented the courts using Parliamentary privilege like this. Whatever I might think of that court decision, the judiciary is there to apply the law.
Deciding to just ignore it and do so from the safety of the chamber is not something to be done lightly. There's no limit on that absolute privilege.
Particularly as the 2 people who've signed NDAs didn't want his name making public anyway.
Without defending what Green may have done in any way, I must say I'm a bit uneasy with the way Peter Hain has circumvented the courts using Parliamentary privilege like this. Whatever I might think of that court decision, the judiciary is there to apply the law.
Deciding to just ignore it and do so from the safety of the chamber is not something to be done lightly. There's no limit on that absolute privilege.
Does surprise me this always thought of sir Philip, assuming he is still a sir, as being a true gent
Been going on for years mate - goes back the Bill of Rights of 1689. It is perhaps being used for purposes other than were intended originally however would be a big step to make substantial changes
You misunderstand - Parliamentary Privilege is really, really important. Absolutely essential in fact. That's why I'm uneasy with it being used like this to essentially undo a court decision. It's far more important than that. Hain has set himself above the courts here, and that's a bit dangerous - what if everyone decides to do that? What if some random Lord decides to name an alleged victim in some case or other?