Somebody here doesn't know what "sub judice" means. An injunction is not a process. There is no judicial process going on here. No charges, no trial, no jury. Once that gets under way, sure, we all have to shut up, including Peter Hain. Sub judice applies when the process is under way. But it isn't. And, once again: here we have a man who has clearly got so much to hide that he's paid millions of pounds out to shut people up. You stiffly po-faced defenders of this already-proven charlatan are utterly incomprehensible. You appear to have no interest in exposing bad people. You'd rather cling to your faux-technicalities. In fact, you're all wrong. Peter Hain didn't abuse parliamentary privilege. He USED parliamentary privilege, and you don't like it because he's a bit of a leftie (not much, actually). I'll be watching for your reaction when the Daily Mail next does something similar to a sexually naughty boy, but to a leftie instead of a big, powerful establishment man. That'll be very interesting.