[Wills2]

I wonder how long it will be before someone names the guy splashed all over the front pages this morning? I do wonder why he bothered with the 500k he's spent trying to shut this down as the truth always comes out in the end.

[Tengocity]

Give us a clue then... I've been out the country for the best part of two weeks!

[creepy coupe]

Zuckerberg?

[Bibbles]

The claimant doesn't want it to come out so really the papers should just leave it alone. They won't as they can whip it up into a frenzy to sell papers but we shouldn't really give a shit. It was settled out of court, the claimant got something they were happy with and signed an NDA so we should all just move on.

[TimMcC]

Something to do with David Schwimmer allegedly stealing beer?

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by Bibbles

The claimant doesn't want it to come out so really the papers should just leave it alone. They won't as they can whip it up into a frenzy to sell papers but we shouldn't really give a shit. It was settled out of court, the claimant got something they were happy with and signed an NDA so we should all just move on.

NDAs shouldn't be used my rich folk to buy liberties inappropriately.

Depending on the extent of the allegations there is a reasonable argument that it's in the public interest.

What you're saying is partly what allowed Weinstein to get away with his behaviour for decades.

[Bibbles]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

NDAs shouldn't be used my rich folk to buy liberties inappropriately.

Depending on the extent of the allegations there is a reasonable argument that it's in the public interest.

What you're saying is partly what allowed Weinstein to get away with his behaviour for decades.

The NDA doesn't stop a criminal case being brought against anyone. The claimant has decided to settle out of court and sign an NDA. I think it should be left there unless they decide to take criminal proceedings.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Bibbles

The claimant doesn't want it to come out so really the papers should just leave it alone. They won't as they can whip it up into a frenzy to sell papers but we shouldn't really give a shit. It was settled out of court, the claimant got something they were happy with and signed an NDA so we should all just move on.

Except that, like Weinstein, it relates to the same 'defendant' who has apparently used NDAs and settlements to hide a series of abuse including racism and sexual assault.

NDAs in Compromise Agreements, for example, are fine but there may be a public interest angle regarding this individual.

[Bibbles]

Originally Posted by Watsey

Except that, like Weinstein, it relates to the same 'defendant' who has apparently used NDAs and settlements to hide a series of abuse including racism and sexual assault.

NDAs in Compromise Agreements, for example, are fine but there may be a public interest angle regarding this individual.

I still think it needs to be a criminal case to be in the public interest and if there really are this many claims the police should be looking into it. I'd like to know the thoughts of the claimants and if they would want theirs and the dodgy bloke's name to be out there in public and if they do, what made them sign the NDA. That's the bit that needs to be looked at in my opinion. How these claims are brought to court, how much it costs, what the times scales are and if that pressures people into settling out of court and signing NDA's rather than concentrating on the NDA's themselves.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Absolutely, how does an NDA protect the next person in line from their abuse?!

An NDA to try protect against accusations of probable illegal activity should be banned, even if technically charges can still be brought, they are doing their very best to minimise the chance of that happening.

[Tengocity]

So no idle speculation from anyone?

The obvious ones are Lord Sugar, or one of those off Dragons Den, maybe Mike Ashley or Philip Green. Outside bet on Martin Sorrel perhaps...

[Wills2]

I wouldn't be the one to speculate on an open forum, it'll only get the thread closed down, I was just wondering why they try and hold back this stuff as it always gets out.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Absolutely, how does an NDA protect the next person in line from their abuse?!

An NDA to try protect against accusations of probable illegal activity should be banned, even if technically charges can still be brought, they are doing their very best to minimise the chance of that happening.

I agree, NDAs are useful for sensitive commercial stuff, but signing NDAs to cover up sexual and racial abuse allegations is crazy I'm surprised it's allowed.

[Bibbles]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I agree, NDAs are useful for sensitive commercial stuff, but signing NDAs to cover up sexual and racial abuse allegations is crazy I'm surprised it's allowed.

But it's an allegation not an admission of guilt or a conviction against someone. We need to make it easier for people to bring these claims and see them through to the rightful conclusion rather than spending time worrying about what an NDA can and can't do.
I'm married to a former employment solicitor so I've seen lots of examples of both sides where it either takes far too long for someone to bring a legitimate claim to an employment tribunal or where claims are such a load of shite that they should just be thrown out however if it got into the public domain it could cause the person accused irreparable damage as press retractions aren't in 80 font on the front page like the accusations are.

[Watsey]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

So no idle speculation from anyone?

The obvious ones are Lord Sugar, or one of those off Dragons Den, maybe Mike Ashley or Philip Green. Outside bet on Martin Sorrel perhaps...

Given his sudden exit from the company, and rumours of inappropriate behaviour, Sorrel is a valid suggestion.

[TodmordenLad]

Whoever it is has a lot of money (£500k spend on the gagging orders?) and a lot to lose from the sounds of it. Cant see the silence lasting that long, in spite of the NDA's, as the press will get hold of his identity before too long, as they always do. Gagging orders seem pretty unethical in these contexts, as others have said.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Bibbles

But it's an allegation not an admission of guilt or a conviction against someone. We need to make it easier for people to bring these claims and see them through to the rightful conclusion rather than spending time worrying about what an NDA can and can't do.
I'm married to a former employment solicitor so I've seen lots of examples of both sides where it either takes far too long for someone to bring a legitimate claim to an employment tribunal or where claims are such a load of shite that they should just be thrown out however if it got into the public domain it could cause the person accused irreparable damage as press retractions aren't in 80 font on the front page like the accusations are.

I didn't say it was an admission of guilt or a conviction and I think we're all aware of previous malicious claims being brought forward in this area.

For me it's about balance and it's not balanced if someone can, because they are rich and powerful offer these NDAs, if you or I were in the same situation we wouldn't be able to seek such a remedy, we'd have to defend the allegation on its merits.

And that would be really inconvenient if we had actually committed the allegations.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by TodmordenLad

Whoever it is has a lot of money (£500k spend on the gagging orders?) and a lot to lose from the sounds of it. Cant see the silence lasting that long, in spite of the NDA's, as the press will get hold of his identity before too long, as they always do. Gagging orders seem pretty unethical in these contexts, as others have said.

The press will know exactly who it is. It's when it becomes common knowledge everywhere else, i.e. Social media, that the press then argue that the gagging order is now unenforceable and they should be allowed to go public.

[sahajesh]

My money is on Sorrell as he was well-known as being a twat in WPP.

[mikeoz]

Dyson? Branson?
No doubt it will be on twitter before long?

[Bibbles]

Philip Green or so it appears. Who knew he could be even more of a twat that we thought already.

[mikeoz]

Yeah being reported Phillip Green....seems about right
Been announced in Parliament under Parliamentary privilege ..