Bulletguy Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-27 7:53 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 6:23 PM...............….He's using the only procedure allowed legally ;-) ...... The fact that the procedure has been hijacked by the loony lefty liberal brigade is a moot point *-) .......... So, what procedure should be followed instead, Dave? It is less than perfect, but it offers the opportunity to appeal, for review in the light of new evidence, and the final decision is, in the vast majority of cases, made by a group of 12 jurors selected at random, any one of whom can be objected to if bias is suspected. Do you know a better system? Yes ;-) ........It's called natural justice :-| ........ Fascinating......please link to a credible source, preferably legal or government, defining precisely what 'natural justice' is. Or have you just made this up? :-| Dont bother Bullet even looking Bullet ;-) ........ Not only does your post not make any sense whatsoever, you'd obviously got no logical or credible answer. It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle but descends into utter nonsense when you're drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 colin - 2018-10-27 9:19 PM I don't like to be seeing as defending Green, but Hain is a complete idiot, or a liar, or maybe just after some cheap publicity. It was a 'interim injunction', the torygraph had every opportunity to take it further with their lawyers, but no, another person employed by their lawyers (Hain), raises it in the lords, saving the torygraph a lot of money. It appears the main reason the judges made a interim injunction was that the NDA's contained clauses which allowed the complainants to go to the authorities if there was anything illegal such as racial or sexual harassment, they choose not to. As Brian said upthread it will all be blown over and forgotten about by next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:24 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-27 7:53 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 6:23 PM...............….He's using the only procedure allowed legally ;-) ...... The fact that the procedure has been hijacked by the loony lefty liberal brigade is a moot point *-) .......... So, what procedure should be followed instead, Dave? It is less than perfect, but it offers the opportunity to appeal, for review in the light of new evidence, and the final decision is, in the vast majority of cases, made by a group of 12 jurors selected at random, any one of whom can be objected to if bias is suspected. Do you know a better system? Yes ;-) ........It's called natural justice :-| ........ Fascinating......please link to a credible source, preferably legal or government, defining precisely what 'natural justice' is. Or have you just made this up? :-| Dont bother Bullet even looking Bullet ;-) ........ Not only does your post not make any sense whatsoever, you'd obviously got no logical or credible answer. It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle but descends into utter nonsense when you're drinking. Yeah........but tomorrow I'll be sober ;-) ..........and you'll still be Bullet 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:32 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:24 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-27 7:53 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 6:23 PM...............….He's using the only procedure allowed legally ;-) ...... The fact that the procedure has been hijacked by the loony lefty liberal brigade is a moot point *-) .......... So, what procedure should be followed instead, Dave? It is less than perfect, but it offers the opportunity to appeal, for review in the light of new evidence, and the final decision is, in the vast majority of cases, made by a group of 12 jurors selected at random, any one of whom can be objected to if bias is suspected. Do you know a better system? Yes ;-) ........It's called natural justice :-| ........ Fascinating......please link to a credible source, preferably legal or government, defining precisely what 'natural justice' is. Or have you just made this up? :-| Dont bother Bullet even looking Bullet ;-) ........ Not only does your post not make any sense whatsoever, you'd obviously got no logical or credible answer. It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle but descends into utter nonsense when you're drinking. Yeah........but tomorrow I'll be sober ;-) ..........and you'll still be Bullet 8-) ........ You obviously couldn't see this bit, It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle.... *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:47 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:32 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:24 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-10-27 9:07 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 9:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2018-10-27 7:53 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-27 6:23 PM...............….He's using the only procedure allowed legally ;-) ...... The fact that the procedure has been hijacked by the loony lefty liberal brigade is a moot point *-) .......... So, what procedure should be followed instead, Dave? It is less than perfect, but it offers the opportunity to appeal, for review in the light of new evidence, and the final decision is, in the vast majority of cases, made by a group of 12 jurors selected at random, any one of whom can be objected to if bias is suspected. Do you know a better system? Yes ;-) ........It's called natural justice :-| ........ Fascinating......please link to a credible source, preferably legal or government, defining precisely what 'natural justice' is. Or have you just made this up? :-| Dont bother Bullet even looking Bullet ;-) ........ Not only does your post not make any sense whatsoever, you'd obviously got no logical or credible answer. It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle but descends into utter nonsense when you're drinking. Yeah........but tomorrow I'll be sober ;-) ..........and you'll still be Bullet 8-) ........ You obviously couldn't see this bit, It's bad enough when you aren't on the bottle.... *-) You obviously couldn't recognise irony ;-) ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Here's a good article on this issue from a legal perspective. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/ It shows that to characterise this case as an example of a fat cat being able to use his wealth to suppress publication of what the public interest demands should be disclosed is a massive oversimplification. The arrogance of Peter Hain that he knows what the result of the case should be is staggering when he cannot possibly know or be in a position to consider all the arguments for and against publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Hi Veronica. You seem to know a legal thing or two, so can you explain the concept of "natural justice" for Dave Pelmet's benefit? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 With pleasure. In this particular context it means -everyone has a right to a fair hearing- even people we don't like very much ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 10:02 AM Here's a good article on this issue from a legal perspective. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/what-lord-peter-hain-didnt-consider-when-he-rushed-to-name-name-philip-green/ It shows that to characterise this case as an example of a fat cat being able to use his wealth to suppress publication I missed the bit where it dealt with a rich man beiong able to buy silence where the rest of us could not. *-) I wonder why - can't be anything to do with that being how lawyers make their fortunes *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I think there is a flaw in your reasoning John. It is not only the super-rich who can buy the silence of people who have a grievance against them in the work place due to the availability of Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). People need to use their imagination a bit more and put themselves in the place of either an alleged perpetrator or alleged victim. An alleged perpetrator who is innocent may be the owner of an SME and not a member of the super-rich. They may be someone who has every reason to believe that others will think that there is “no smoke without fire” if allegations made against them or one of their employees are made public. They may be advised that it would be better to enter into an NDA as there are often commercial considerations that are more important to them than fighting a case through the courts however unfounded an allegation may be. The same applies to a genuine victim who may have to weigh up whether it is best to go public with the allegation or enter into an NDA. Being branded a “trouble maker” or fantasist if the case doesn’t go your way could ruin your career prospects. Two of his alleged victims also didn't want his name to be published in case it enabled their identities to be discovered. It hasn't been established that the NDAs he entered into were examples of a rich man being able to bully a poor man into silence. That may have been something for the court to consider when all the evidence was heard. It certainly wasn't appropriate or necessary for Peter Hain to preempt the court's judgement. And don't forget, two of his alleged victims are supportive of his action as they fear they may now be facing identification due to people putting " two and two together" others might be suspected of being his victims wrongly if some believe that two and two makes five. It was for the courts to decide the whether public interest demanded the Telegraph be allowed to name him despite adverse consequences that may befall him or his alleged victims not Peter Hain. The court might have decided the case in the Telegraph's favour who knows? Remember this was an interim injunction not a final one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 12:04 PM With pleasure. In this particular context it means -everyone has a right to a fair hearing- even people Dave doesn't like very much ;-) With apologies for editing your text, yep!! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 6:34 PM....................Being branded a “trouble maker” or fantasist if the case doesn’t go your way could ruin your career prospects. …………….. In the case or a fairly senior employee in a niche market, being branded a trouble maker could be a career wrecker even if their case succeeded. One could never prove it, but a phone call in parallel with a non-committal reference would be enough. No written disclosure, of course, but nods and winks. The more I think about what Hain did, the more uneasy I feel. I'm coming to the conclusion that he's seriously exceeded the bounds of parliamentary privilege. Be interesting to see what happens next. That old maxim about thinking before speaking still has great value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-28 6:55 PM Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 6:34 PM....................Being branded a “trouble maker” or fantasist if the case doesn’t go your way could ruin your career prospects. …………….. In the case or a fairly senior employee in a niche market, being branded a trouble maker could be a career wrecker even if their case succeeded. One could never prove it, but a phone call in parallel with a non-committal reference would be enough. No written disclosure, of course, but nods and winks. The more I think about what Hain did, the more uneasy I feel. I'm coming to the conclusion that he's seriously exceeded the bounds of parliamentary privilege. Be interesting to see what happens next. That old maxim about thinking before speaking still has great value! In a nutshell it's dispensing with due process and irrelevant of wealth, gender or whatever else, i can't support that path otherwise we may as well close the judiciary down and bring in a lawless society. However where guilt has been proven in cases of false allegations, those people must lose the right to anonymity and should face the law.....but that hasn't been happening in many cases which is totally wrong. How this particular case could be seen as 'being in the public interest', i'm not sure. Had it involved someone with access to state intelligence then yes, maybe, dependent on the nature of the offence/allegation. Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens used parliamentary privilege to name Sir Peter Hayman involved in a paedophile network which Thatcher had kept the lid on because Hayman was a diplomat. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/thatcher-peter-hayman-named-paedophile-archives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I agree with BG in part however, I can see how it might be argued that it is in the public interest for Philip Green to be exposed as someone who has been accused of sexual harassment or bullying in the work place. I don’t doubt that the concerns that his considerable financial resources have led to him to be able to hide behind NDAs are genuine and may have some merit. Whether those concerns have merit cannot rightly be decided by politicians and/or readers of news reports about this case. Their opinions are a poor substitute for the learned opinion of Judges who have take an oath that they will apply the law without fear or favour, malice or ill-will and who have the benefit of hearing all the evidence and full argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 12:04 PM With pleasure. In this particular context it means -everyone has a right to a fair hearing- even people we don't like very much ;-) When did the human rights act make justice fair? *-) ............ It's nothing but a expensive meal ticket for lawyers and a get out of jail free card for criminals >:-) .......... Human rights should be earned :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Now I see why Bullet started this thread :D .......... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6325761/Labour-forced-dozens-members-staff-sign-controversial-gagging-orders.html Hypocrite Corbyn strikes again (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-29 7:31 AM Violet1956 - 2018-10-28 12:04 PM With pleasure. In this particular context it means -everyone has a right to a fair hearing- even people we don't like very much ;-) When did the human rights act make justice fair? *-) ............ It's nothing but a expensive meal ticket for lawyers and a get out of jail free card for criminals >:-) .......... Human rights should be earned :-| ........... I think you are selecting only the parts of this news story that reinforce your world view Dave. It’s such a common phenomenon that there is a name for it…”confirmation bias”. Most of us are guilty of it on occasion especially when it comes to things that annoy us. As for your question When did the human rights act make justice fair? I am afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Human Rights Act incorporated most of the 1950 Human Rights Convention into our law so that people could argue from the perspective of the fundamental rights they already enjoyed under that Convention in our courts rather than having to go directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to enforce them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-29 8:45 AM As for your question When did the human rights act make justice fair? I am afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Human Rights Act incorporated most of the 1950 Human Rights Convention into our law so that people could argue from the perspective of the fundamental rights they already enjoyed under that Convention in our courts rather than having to go directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to enforce them. So human rights laws aren't being used by criminals to evade or delay justice? :-| .......... BTW have I won my bet yet? ;-) .......... Or have those folk from Rochdale actually been deported? 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-29 10:03 AM Violet1956 - 2018-10-29 8:45 AM As for your question When did the human rights act make justice fair? I am afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Human Rights Act incorporated most of the 1950 Human Rights Convention into our law so that people could argue from the perspective of the fundamental rights they already enjoyed under that Convention in our courts rather than having to go directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to enforce them. So human rights laws aren't being used by criminals to evade or delay justice? :-| .......... BTW have I won my bet yet? ;-) .......... Or have those folk from Rochdale actually been deported? 8-) ........ Human rights laws are part of our justice system. There are delays in it some are caused by maladministration and some by manipulation. However I don't see that those features undermine the value of those laws themselves Dave. You should read the Human Rights Convention as I think you will find that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it As for the bet I haven't heard anything. You may remember the Court of Appeal upheld the decision made by the Home office to deprive three of them of their citizenship the next step would be for the Home Office to serve them with deportation papers. We would only hear about that if they had been served with them and appealed against them. You may also remember that having read the initial judgement of the lower Tribunal upholding the decision to deprive them of citizenship I mentioned that the senior Judge there observed that the procedures were too clunky and the Home Office need to revisit and if possible amend them because of this cumbersome and expensive two-stage procedure rather than just one appeal against both deprivation of citizenship and deportation. I've not heard that the government has done anything about that. So in short you haven't won the bet yet but it is woefully slow in being decided because of poor procedures that need to be looked at. The courts aren't generally slow to criticise an abuse of process but they can't do much about it if the mechanisms under which it is allowed to take place are inadequate to prevent it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-29 12:50 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-29 10:03 AM Violet1956 - 2018-10-29 8:45 AM As for your question When did the human rights act make justice fair? I am afraid I don't understand what you're getting at. The Human Rights Act incorporated most of the 1950 Human Rights Convention into our law so that people could argue from the perspective of the fundamental rights they already enjoyed under that Convention in our courts rather than having to go directly to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to enforce them. So human rights laws aren't being used by criminals to evade or delay justice? :-| .......... BTW have I won my bet yet? ;-) .......... Or have those folk from Rochdale actually been deported? 8-) ........ Human rights laws are part of our justice system. There are delays in it some are caused by maladministration and some by manipulation. However I don't see that those features undermine the value of those laws themselves Dave. You should read the Human Rights Convention as I think you will find that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it As for the bet I haven't heard anything. You may remember the Court of Appeal upheld the decision made by the Home office to deprive three of them of their citizenship the next step would be for the Home Office to serve them with deportation papers. We would only hear about that if they had been served with them and appealed against them. You may also remember that having read the initial judgement of the lower Tribunal upholding the decision to deprive them of citizenship I mentioned that the senior Judge there observed that the procedures were too clunky and the Home Office need to revisit and if possible amend them because of this cumbersome and expensive two-stage procedure rather than just one appeal against both deprivation of citizenship and deportation. I've not heard that the government has done anything about that. So in short you haven't won the bet yet but it is woefully slow in being decided because of poor procedures that need to be looked at. The courts aren't generally slow to criticise an abuse of process but they can't do much about it if the mechanisms under which it is allowed to take place are inadequate to prevent it. So your blaming the government for the complexity of the laws written by lawyers for lawyers? :D ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 The government decides what laws it wants to pass and the legal draftsmen have to comply with parliament's wishes. It’s not unusual for courts to point out where the law is proving to be inadequate. However there is only so much parliamentary time that can be given to law making and preparing for Brexit has resulted in suggested improvements being of low priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-10-29 4:23 PM The government decides what laws it wants to pass and the legal draftsmen have to comply with parliament's wishes. It’s not unusual for courts to point out where the law is proving to be inadequate. However there is only so much parliamentary time that can be given to law making and preparing for Brexit has resulted in suggested improvements being of low priority. "Legal draftsman/woman/person".......That would be a lawyer? ;-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-10-29 4:52 PM...…………..."Legal draftsman/woman/person".......That would be a lawyer? ;-) ......... So, if you want a new house built, who would you employ to draw up the plans? Architect, Surveyor, or the local garage mechanic? In the same way, if you want a legal document drawn up, who do you employ? Tough question, no? Really, really hard, that. Can't think who'd be best qualified for the job. I know, let's ask Dave pelmet; it'll be more legally watertight than a duck's bum! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-29 5:04 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-29 4:52 PM...…………..."Legal draftsman/woman/person".......That would be a lawyer? ;-) ......... So, if you want a new house built, who would you employ to draw up the plans? Architect, Surveyor, or the local garage mechanic? In the same way, if you want a legal document drawn up, who do you employ? Tough question, no? Really, really hard, that. Can't think who'd be best qualified for the job. I know, let's ask Dave pelmet; it'll be more legally watertight than a duck's bum! :-D So if the so called professionals are incompetent ;-) ........... Who's fault is that?.......The governments or the so called professionals? *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 29, 2018 Share Posted October 29, 2018 Brian Kirby - 2018-10-29 5:04 PM pelmetman - 2018-10-29 4:52 PM...…………..."Legal draftsman/woman/person".......That would be a lawyer? ;-) ......... So, if you want a new house built, who would you employ to draw up the plans? BTW the last lot of plans I had done were basically copies of what I'd given the Architects ;-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.