The world according to the well educated scientist/ex teacher/union activist shaw:
Peter Hain didn't abuse parliamentary privilege. He USED parliamentary privilege,

By contrast. The world according to former attorney general Dominic Grieve QC who said: Lord Hain’s behaviour had been “clearly arrogant” and he had abused parliamentary privilege in deciding he knew better than the courts.

Now who do we suppose knows a thing or two about the situation as opposed to an amateur that thinks he does?


Somebody here doesn't know what "sub judice" means.
you are quite correct Shaw you obviously do not. Hains exploited a power which frustrated the independence of the judiciary in an ongoing case;(Sub Judice) undermining the court.

I leave it to specialists in law to argue the merits, but I think the ayes have it to be sub judice

https://www.insider.co.uk/special-reports/sir-philip-green-lord-hain-13488994
" The principle of parliamentary privilege is at odds with the “sub judice” rule. This rule is meant to balance freedom of speech with freedom or responsibility; and to prevent MPs or Members of the House of Lords from referring to a current or impending court cases in parliament.

According to a Commons Library briefing, this rule is subject to the discretion of the Speaker, and is balanced against the right of parliament to discuss any matter it sees fit.

In this case, Lord Hain said the matter was in the public interest and the “felt it was his duty” to identify the party involved. Ultimately this will be a matter hotly in debate over the next few weeks.