I also have also signed NDAs many times as a condition of employment as a consultant. Having a modicum of integrity I feel myself bound by them and consider them to be enduring.

Pointing out your mistakes Shaw is hardly insulting you. Believe me if I wished to waste my time on such pastimes there would be no confusion

As to sub judice I refer you again to :
https://inforrm.org/2018/10/27/lord-hain-and-privilege-when-power-wealth-and-abuse-combine-to-subvert-the-rule-of-law-paul-wragg
within my post of
From: Iains - PM
Date: 28 Oct 18 - 01:29 PM
Personally I would take the House of Lords definition of what comprises matters bound by sub judice, rather the the meanderings of an ignorant amateur, who freely admits his contempt for the law. If your word is worthless, wherein lies the merit of your views?
The law protects such people as Green and Tommy Robinson. But equally they, like everyone else are shackled or constrained by the same laws.
The action of Hain subverts the law.

The only alternative in the world of shaw, where laws are ignored when it suits, is anarchy.