Philip Green

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.

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
 
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?
 
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?

No I don't misunderstand mate thats why I questioned its use in cases like this. Clearly if an MP became aware of say the cover up of a business that was doing something which endangered the general public or of an individual stealing money then clearly its important that MP's do have the right and ability to speak out and be safe from action from the other party - ie Parliament. Its been a long standing right. But cases like this and the Giggs one etc do I agree seem to be more about MP's or in this case a Lord possibly abusing the privilege more for their own notoriety and maybe the thrill of their own moment in the sun. Clearly with something around for so long the world has changed so much that it is open to be used in a manner that just could not have previously been conceived but I cannot imagine MP's considering any changes or curtailment now.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.