Most NDAs contain a clause which allows them to be broken if sticking to them would break the law. At least, all the ones I've seen have been written like that. The law needs changing anyway. Currently, rich people can use their money to avoid being punished for alleged criminal offences, by buying silence. That cannot be right in a civilised society. You're either a criminal or you're not.
Allegation by the paper, identity released in the lords this aft. It would dodgy to mention any names on here though, I reckon.
I'm pretty sure that they cannot buy silence in a criminal context - that would be contrary to public policy. You're a criminal when proved so beyond reasonable doubt.
Its odd how parliamentary privilege is being used to out someone who has used an NDA outside of parliament..... yet they don't do the same for MP's and Lords alike who they know may have broken the law or taken part in deeply dodgy practices.
As for NDA's, I'm regularly asked to sign them by clients. Nothing strange about the practice at all in business... however, when its used to gag someone to not report crimes, that's not what they should be allowed to do in my view.
My point is that in criminal cases, proven or alleged, there should be no role for an NDA. An NDA should apply to commercial or financial issues, including business deals, football club takeovers (!), divorce, employment issues etc.
2 things that need to go pronto: 1 - Parliamentary privilege 2 - These unattributed comments to MPs etc. which fill up the front pages of all newspapers. Like noosing the P.M. (which has a certain merit - but let's hear who the hangman is). Ban it.
You may be right. But it's a bit rich to sign one, take the cash, and then spill the beans later on. Pay the cash back first, then off you go with your complaint.
Agree completely. And the latter is commonly believed to be Andrew Bridgen... the media joined in with the condemnation, but continue to feature him and his ridiculous drivel in interviews none the less.
Agreed, but it should be made illegal to offer money to someone in return for them agreeing not to bring allegations of a criminal nature. However, in cases where NDAs have already been legally agreed, in some cases many years ago, it should be made possible for people to break them if there is reasonable grounds to suspect a criminal offence may have occurred, whether or not the money is returned.
I agree. Although I do believe that this particular Philip Green NDA acknowledged as such. There is however something sniffingly pernicious about those who have taken hush money before, then squealing now. It can end up a double payout. Perhaps they should have had the courage of their convictions to expose these felons at the time. I must say however that if there was a list of detestables to pick out up against a wall, Mr Green would be easy to point the finger at.
If I was someone in the public eye and someone made an untrue allegation about me and I thought it could harm my reputation/business, I would spend my money on a court case for libel, defamation etc to prove the allegations wrong and unequivocally clear my name not to get a NDA.
I would also apply the rules that apply to corporate boards to the government. So if government action (or inaction) results in death then the ministers responsible (including the PM) can face charges of corporate manslaughter. The same for government data breaches, etc.
You should remain bound to it. She would have been legally advised on the settlement agreement so knew exactly what she was signing up for.