As far as I'm aware, a trial of Green, fair or otherwise, is not in the offing, so the point falls as a red herring. You chaps who are resorting to this "rule of law" argument are saying, in effect, that protecting Green's reputation, which seems from his admissions and the amounts he's paid to his victims be be not worth defending, is far more important that letting victims of sexual abuse step forward. You're going back a couple of decades, aren't you, in protecting the rich and powerful from scrutiny. You are, in effect, arguing for the perpetuation of abuse by such people. If we have laws that say you can put your hand up skirts without permission then avoid scrutiny merely by using your wealth to buy off the victims and get an injunction, then the law is an ass. And it can be: within living memory, for example, there was a law saying you couldn't buy a pint in pubs in Wales on Sunday. One more thing: the rule of law has not been breached. It was within Hain's gift, and within the laws of the land, for him to invoke parliamentary privilege. You'd better find some other way of standing up for your grubby establishment hero, I'm afraid.