I see my last post was well founded!

A well reasoned argument below!

" Lord Hain has effectively asserted that the allegations against Sir Philip are the “truth” despite the fact that there has been no judicial finding on this point. The Judge at first instance simply stated that the allegations against Sir Philip were “reasonably credible” (a view which the Court of Appeal accepted had force), but this is plainly not the same as determining their veracity. Lord Hain, however, appears to have interpreted the signing of a non-disclosure agreement as an admission of wrongdoing by Sir Philip. This is not a safe inference to draw given that non-disclosure agreements can be signed for various reasons (e.g. to avoid incurring the costs and time of litigation) and we do not know Sir Philip’s motivation for signing such agreements in this case. In the slightly distorted war on NDAs, it is often not appreciated that many complainants welcome or seek confidentiality provisions – because they want to resolve disputes quickly and privately (naming and shaming is not for everyone) and/or in consideration for a higher settlement payment. In this case, two of the complainants supported the application for an injunction. Where they are not ‘forced’ on individuals (which one suspects, in this country at least, is in the vast majority of cases), the just principles of certainty and finality should normally be observed.

What makes Lord Hain’s disclosure even more unjust and unfair is that Sir Philip cannot properly defend himself because he is himself precluded from divulging details of the information protected by the non-disclosure agreements. There may be information that helps to put into context some, or all, of the allegations made against Sir Philip, but at present the agreements mean that he is restricted to issuing a bare denial.

In assuming the role of judge, juror and executioner, Lord Hain has made a grave mistake. He has presented the public with an incomplete picture and, in so doing, has caused serious and arguably irreparable harm to Sir Philip’s reputation – and deprived him of his right to confidentiality. It simply cannot be in the public interest for the public to be supplied with limited information, which contains only one side of the story.   As the Court of Appeal recognised, delay in the publication of matters of public interest is undesirable and to counter this they ordered a speedy trial. Lord Hain should have waited for the judicial process to run its course before deciding whether it was appropriate to comment on the case.   In making such a decision he ought to have been guided by the judiciary, who, apprised of all relevant facts, would have been able to carry out the balancing exercise between the public interest in preserving confidentiality and the public interest in disclosure properly.
Whilst it is not perfect, the English justice system prides itself on being fair and observing due process – this applies equally to those accused of wrongdoing. It is unclear why a speedy trial was not good enough for Lord Hain.
Lord Hain has taken it on himself to deprive Sir Philip of a fair trial, instead forcing him to face trial by media. Sir Philip may be a controversial character – and may have upset some politicians and many members of the public in the manner he responded to questions by MPs over the collapse of BHS – but he is still entitled to a fair hearing.
Parliamentary privilege, is not intended to give politicians carte blanche to circumvent court orders. In this regard, Lord Hain’s naming of Sir Philip Green was wholly gratuitous. His explanation on BBC’s Newsnight for this abuse of privilege was woefully inadequate, with him seemingly being unable to go beyond a vague and generalised soundbite:” I’m discharging my function as a parliamentarian – and what concerned me about this case was wealth, and power that comes with it, and abuse.” Such a response merely serves to reinforce the impression that Lord Hain did not appreciate some of the salient facts of this case – that the contracts were freely entered into and two of the alleged victims supported Sir Philip’s application for an injunction.
It is perhaps somewhat ironic that Lord Hain has accused Philip Green of abusing his power, when he has arguably done just that.
full article