zaci Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 How do I go about takeing out a super injuction, how much will it cost, and who do I pay!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 How do I go about takeing out a super injuction, how much will it cost, and who do I pay!! If you have to ask then you probably can't afford one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron99 Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 The injured parties may or may not be happy to accept 'substantial non disclosure payments' for their silence but the public and particularly those employed by him or likely to be employed by him have a right to know if he is likely to sexually or racially abuse them. It is not in the gift of those who signed those disclosures, to prevent anyone else from knowing what has gone on. Then those harassed / abused should not have accepted his cash but gone to the police & let the CPS decide if a trial was required. Now former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve has accused Hain of arrogance. It also turns out that the law firm used by the Telegraph, Hain is also an advisor for, though, it is claimed, no information was passed to Hain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45989404 It think this story still has a long way to run? ---------- Post added 26-10-2018 at 19:45 ---------- How do I go about takeing out a super injuction, how much will it cost, and who do I pay!! Apparently it cost Green £500,000 so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 Apparently it cost Green £500,000 so far. And Schillings is the law firm. Not to be confused with shilling, which is definitely a lot less than £500,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron99 Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 (edited) Strange that before Hain named Green, both Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne (Dragons' Den) both thought they needed to issue statements, confirming the businessman involved, was neither of them? Edited October 26, 2018 by Baron99 Amendments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted October 26, 2018 Share Posted October 26, 2018 Strange that before Hain named Green, both Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne (Dragons' Den) both thought they needed to issue statements, confirming the businessman involved, was neither of them? Not really. If people are speculating that they might be the businessman referred to by the Telegraph on social media they might feel the need to clarify is wasn't them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 There is now talk of some of the NDA's being for seven figure sums. If this is true then surely it can't be for a pervy comment or a quick grope. I know the guy is loaded but he is also a tight wad so if he's prepared to pay a million quid or more to keep something quiet, it does make you wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Super Injunctions should only be used in matters of national security, and not just because some unsavoury character doesn’t want details of their unsavouriness made public. And good on Peter Hain for using Parliamentary Privilege for exposing the greedy and shameless ‘Sir’ Philip Green. Injunction that, you tax-dodging exile It wasn't a superinjunction. If it had been the Telegraph wouldn't even have been able to report that an injunction was in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockdoctor Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Then those harassed / abused should not have accepted his cash but gone to the police & let the CPS decide if a trial was required. Now former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve has accused Hain of arrogance. It also turns out that the law firm used by the Telegraph, Hain is also an advisor for, though, it is claimed, no information was passed to Hain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45989404 It think this story still has a long way to run? Some really good points and information made there. A point which has been overlooked on this thread is that Peter Hain is no longer a MP and so has the parliamentary privilege without the corresponding responsibility of being answerable to his electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Some really good points and information made there. A point which has been overlooked on this thread is that Peter Hain is no longer a MP and so has the parliamentary privilege without the corresponding responsibility of being answerable to his electorate. If you believe in secrecy, then you will be supporting Green, I believe we should have more openness. Why do you think the wealthy should have the privilege of secrecy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now