It was nothing of the sort. Firstly, it was an interim decision, not a final determination. Secondly, the CoA quite rightly pointed out the problems with being able to override non disclosure agreements. In most litigation, if an NDA is not enforceable, getting a settlement will become far less practical. In employment law, it may encourage well resourced business executives and companies to simply fight every complaint into the ground rather than make a settlement that both sides accept. Since many of these cases in fact involve differing interpretations of facts and often a lack of corroborating evidence, there is every chance that getting rid of the NDA may mean that victims are unable to practically obtain a settlement and compensation and will lack the financial resources to fight their cases to Court.
The CoA simply said that this matter needed to be heard and considered properly to determine a final position.
If parliamentarians suddenly (because there are press headlines) don't like the application of NDA's, they can pass a new law. But Hain's behaviour, putting himself above the Court of Appeal, is unacceptable and he needs to be removed from the Lords immediately.
I don't see how that is a proportionate response. How is, for the sake of argument, cavalier usage of parliamentary privilege corrected by removing a lawfully appointed legislator? It's not as though even formal criminal conviction is legally a barrier to holding office (though in practical terms it almost certainly would lead to a resignation) depending on sentence length.
I can certainly see the argument that politicians take the privilege too far, when they have the ability to amend the law if they feel the law is unreasonable on what they want to talk about, but I don't see that, in the meantime, that even if it were possible to remove him because of this that that would be a reasonable response. Two wrongs do not make a right after all.
"a Conservative elected as a LibDem" Ho ho ! Hijinks in local Gov't.
That should be an easy Lib Dem regain - it is part of the county council ward won by the former MP Tessa Munt last year. The deceased councillor was a funeral director!
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
The Guardian, BBC, and Sky have named him so we’ll let PBers discuss it.
However if any one goes too far, we’ll withdraw that privilege.
Cf Ryan Giggs.
I would be interested if any lawyers are around to advise on this. As I said earlier, the qualified privilege to report on what Hain has said, under absolute, applies iirc only to news outfits.
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
As I understand it Privilege does include speaking such that it would be a contempt of court.
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
The Guardian, BBC, and Sky have named him so we’ll let PBers discuss it.
However if any one goes too far, we’ll withdraw that privilege.
Cf Ryan Giggs.
I would be interested if any lawyers are around to advise on this. As I said earlier, the qualified privilege to report on what Hain has said, under absolute, applies iirc only to news outfits.
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was both idiotic and troubling.
It was nothing of the sort. Firstly, it was an interim decision, not a final determination. Secondly, the CoA quite rightly pointed out the problems with being able to override non disclosure agreements. In most litigation, if an NDA is not enforceable, getting a settlement will become far less practical. In employment law, it may encourage well resourced business executives and companies to simply fight every complaint into the ground rather than make a settlement that both sides accept. Since many of these cases in fact involve differing interpretations of facts and often a lack of corroborating evidence, there is every chance that getting rid of the NDA may mean that victims are unable to practically obtain a settlement and compensation and will lack the financial resources to fight their cases to Court.
The CoA simply said that this matter needed to be heard and considered properly to determine a final position.
If parliamentarians suddenly (because there are press headlines) don't like the application of NDA's, they can pass a new law. But Hain's behaviour, putting himself above the Court of Appeal, is unacceptable and he needs to be removed from the Lords immediately.
I do not understand why you are so outraged. Hain decided to name him and Jess Philips was considering the same.in the HOC
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
The Guardian, BBC, and Sky have named him so we’ll let PBers discuss it.
However if any one goes too far, we’ll withdraw that privilege.
Cf Ryan Giggs.
I would be interested if any lawyers are around to advise on this. As I said earlier, the qualified privilege to report on what Hain has said, under absolute, applies iirc only to news outfits.
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
Hold up, the other day you were banging on about courts won't interfere with Parliamentary procedure.
They probably won't here, as I said. But Hain committed Contempt of Court, which is a criminal not a civil matter. I do wonder if parliamentary privilege is absolute. Parliamentarians cannot be above the law.
Criminal or civil, does not matter. The Privilege seems clear as far as I can see.
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
The Guardian, BBC, and Sky have named him so we’ll let PBers discuss it.
However if any one goes too far, we’ll withdraw that privilege.
Cf Ryan Giggs.
I would be interested if any lawyers are around to advise on this. As I said earlier, the qualified privilege to report on what Hain has said, under absolute, applies iirc only to news outfits.
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
Hold up, the other day you were banging on about courts won't interfere with Parliamentary procedure.
They probably won't here, as I said. But Hain committed Contempt of Court, which is a criminal not a civil matter. I do wonder if parliamentary privilege is absolute. Parliamentarians cannot be above the law.
And if the privilege is absolute under our law? The references to it in Erskine May are extensive. Some rest solely on the law and custom of Parliament, while others have been defined by statute. In relation to freedom of speech it states that the Speaker has ruled that parliamentary privilege is absolute, though for all I know other references within Erskine May clarify things further.
Nevertheless, whether you are correct to feel it should not be absolute, and they cannot be above the law, it seems possible at least that they are, intentionally so.
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
The Guardian, BBC, and Sky have named him so we’ll let PBers discuss it.
However if any one goes too far, we’ll withdraw that privilege.
Cf Ryan Giggs.
I would be interested if any lawyers are around to advise on this. As I said earlier, the qualified privilege to report on what Hain has said, under absolute, applies iirc only to news outfits.
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was both idiotic and troubling.
It was nothing of the sort. Firstly, it was an interim decision, not a final determination. Secondly, the CoA quite rightly pointed out the problems with being able to override non disclosure agreements. In most litigation, if an NDA is not enforceable, getting a settlement will become far less practical. In employment law, it may encourage well resourced business executives and companies to simply fight every complaint into the ground rather than make a settlement that both sides accept. Since many of these cases in fact involve differing interpretations of facts and often a lack of corroborating evidence, there is every chance that getting rid of the NDA may mean that victims are unable to practically obtain a settlement and compensation and will lack the financial resources to fight their cases to Court.
The CoA simply said that this matter needed to be heard and considered properly to determine a final position.
If parliamentarians suddenly (because there are press headlines) don't like the application of NDA's, they can pass a new law. But Hain's behaviour, putting himself above the Court of Appeal, is unacceptable and he needs to be removed from the Lords immediately.
I do not understand why you are so outraged. Hain decided to name him and Jess Philips was considering the same.in the HOC
The problem is the number of beds. This leads to premature discharge of recovering patients.
I agree it is poor care, but we do not have the bed or nursing numbers to keep patients in while they recover. If your friend was kept in, then someone elses prostate cancer operation would be cancelled.
It is only going to get worse. Our winter bed crisis is now year round.
The problem is not the number of beds.
I recently had experience of a friend who went in to hospital with a condition that needed admittance under blue lights to a stroke unit. After a CT scan, an MRI was performed. They ruled out a stroke but had to wait for a radiographer (?) to look at the MRI. They waited for 72 hours without said radiographer looking at the MRI and then, as all seemed to be well, the friend self-discharged. All the time they were in a much needed bed and tbf the nurses were as powerless as anyone else in getting any report that the ward doctor could act on.
I can't believe this is an isolated example and hence there is not a shortage of beds. There is either a shortage of radiographers, or there is a shortage of radiographers who can manage their workload, or there is a woefully bad process for radiographers to come to examine MRI scans.
It is a problem of STAFFED beds. Radiographers are technicians who take images Radiologists interpret them. There is a national shortage of radiologists:
I don't know the QA personally, but this is from the CQC report on the Portsmouth Trust April 2018:
"We found that the trust had significant capacity issues and were not addressing the concerns regarding the acute medical pathway in a timely or effective way. The pressure on beds meant that patients were allocated the next available bed rather than being treated on a ward specifically for their condition placing patients at risk of harm. Across all areas inspected there were significant concerns regarding the care for vulnerable patients"
Contempt of Court Members of the House of Commons have been fined and imprisoned for contempt of court, and on examination of the circumstances of the cases, committees have not recommended that the House involve the privilege of freedom from arrest. The Committee of Privileges in 1831 reported that the claim of privilege....ought not to be admitted. Similarly, the Committee of Privileges reported against a claim made in 1837...
It may therefore be generally deduced that in cases of quasi criminal contempts Members of either House may be committed without an invasion of privilege. The extent of protection in other cases is likely to depend on the circumstances. As Scarman J held in Stourton v Stourton ' each case will depend on its facts, the distinction being between process to compel performance of a civil obligation and process to punish conduct which has about it some degree of criminality, some defiance of the general law'.
Excepts, p.246-7 Erskine May
The examples provided in this section don't seem to include matters of freedom of speech of members.
She's a student, Morris, and students are allowed to do crazy, offensive things; that's that free speech we keep hearing about. She has issued a fulsome apology and if she was completely insincere in issuing it, that's between her and her conscience.
What would you do with her? Have her resign?
These days Union presidents aren't students. It is a full time paid role during which they don't do any studying (in fact most apply for the role for the year after their studies have finished).
That was the case when I was a student back in the 80s, and seemed to have been well established even then.
Ah, the bits on speech have their own section. p222
Subject to the rules of order in debate, a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by parliamentary privilege from any action for defamation, as well as from any other question or molestation...
The possibility of imposing constraints on or penalties for the exercise of freedom of speech in statements which, if made outside the House, might be found defamatory or even criminal, has been considered but rejected by successive committees....although [these] stressed the obligation upon Members to exercise their privileges responsibly. In a case in 2002 the ECHR concluded that the absolute nature of parliamentary privilege did not violate articles 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human rights, however objectionable the statements complained of. However, the presiding judge expressed a reservation that free speech should be tempered by some regulation recognizing individual rights which should be put in place by national parliaments themselves.
Far too much to transcribe though - there truly are dozens upon dozens of sections relating to it.
Intriguing. What sort of things are the warning signs you look for?
- Lies, of any kind, however small. Amazingly frequent. Usually ignored on the grounds that they are only small or unimportant lies. I usually asked: "So, if they were prepared to lie about something important, what gave you confidence that they wouldn't lie about something important?" I then waited. Sometimes for quite a long time. - Whistleblowing or warnings by former colleagues. (There was one for one very famous prisoner and it makes your eyes goggle to think that it was ignored.) - Any discrepancy in names / registration at addresses / in the credit checks etc. - Evidence of being bad with money e.g. gambling debts - Previous criminal convictions - Applicants repeatedly promising you documents and then claiming that they don't have them. - Unexplained periods when they are doing nothing. It's not the doing nothing that matters but what they tell you about it. If someone has been ill that's fine but if they won't tell you or tell you bullshit that can be an issue. - People claiming that they have done this that and the other but leaving no digital trace. Unusual. Bullshit - as opposed to actual lies - can be a problem. - Previous disciplinary issues. Again, people can get past this but you need to assess whether they have learnt and moved on or whether they are still in denial.
Oh and interviews need to be taken seriously. None of this:"Tell me about your brilliant CV" nonsense.
Thanks, So just standard due diligence around checking out the claims in the CV really then.
I've done interviewing many times in my current and previous jobs and I just assume the CV that HR/recruitment has sent me has been checked out. I wonder if they are though!
What's the legal position regarding repeating comments made under parliamentary privilege?
Hain's behaviour was a disgrace. Parliamentary privilege is designed to allow freedom of speech in Parliament in particular to avoid circumstances where members are sued for defamation for making comments in good faith or to stop politicians suing each other.
It does not exist to allow showboating little turds to superimpose their judgement over that of the Courts.
I hope, although I do not expect, that the Court of Appeal finds that Parliamentary Privilege is not an unlimited right to commit Contempt of Court (which is what he has done) and jails him.
The decision of the Court of Appeal was both idiotic and troubling.
It was nothing of the sort. Firstly, it was an interim decision, not a final determination. Secondly, the CoA quite rightly pointed out the problems with being able to override non disclosure agreements. In most litigation, if an NDA is not enforceable, getting a settlement will become far less practical. In employment law, it may encourage well resourced business executives and companies to simply fight every complaint into the ground rather than make a settlement that both sides accept. Since many of these cases in fact involve differing interpretations of facts and often a lack of corroborating evidence, there is every chance that getting rid of the NDA may mean that victims are unable to practically obtain a settlement and compensation and will lack the financial resources to fight their cases to Court.
The CoA simply said that this matter needed to be heard and considered properly to determine a final position.
If parliamentarians suddenly (because there are press headlines) don't like the application of NDA's, they can pass a new law. But Hain's behaviour, putting himself above the Court of Appeal, is unacceptable and he needs to be removed from the Lords immediately.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this. It was idiotic because it wasn’t going to work. Twitter had named Green repeatedly along with others not involved. He was going to be named furth of the jurisdiction. It was also clearly in the public interest that such conduct be disclosed. Whether or not any of the alleged victims broke their NDAs will remain to be established but they are not the only potential source of this information. Further it appears that much of this information was already in a book in the public domain.
The problem is the number of beds. This leads to premature discharge of recovering patients.
I agree it is poor care, but we do not have the bed or nursing numbers to keep patients in while they recover. If your friend was kept in, then someone elses prostate cancer operation would be cancelled.
It is only going to get worse. Our winter bed crisis is now year round.
The problem is not the number of beds.
I recently had experience of a friend who went in to hospital with a condition that needed admittance under blue lights to a stroke unit. After a CT scan, an MRI was performed. They ruled out a stroke but had to wait for a radiographer (?) to look at the MRI. They waited for 72 hours without said radiographer looking at the MRI and then, as all seemed to be well, the friend self-discharged. All the time they were in a much needed bed and tbf the nurses were as powerless as anyone else in getting any report that the ward doctor could act on.
I can't believe this is an isolated example and hence there is not a shortage of beds. There is either a shortage of radiographers, or there is a shortage of radiographers who can manage their workload, or there is a woefully bad process for radiographers to come to examine MRI scans.
It is a problem of STAFFED beds. Radiographers are technicians who take images Radiologists interpret them. There is a national shortage of radiologists:
I don't know the QA personally, but this is from the CQC report on the Portsmouth Trust April 2018:
"We found that the trust had significant capacity issues and were not addressing the concerns regarding the acute medical pathway in a timely or effective way. The pressure on beds meant that patients were allocated the next available bed rather than being treated on a ward specifically for their condition placing patients at risk of harm. Across all areas inspected there were significant concerns regarding the care for vulnerable patients"
My point is it's not beds. Staffed beds what does that mean it is a shortage of radiologists.
Comments
I can certainly see the argument that politicians take the privilege too far, when they have the ability to amend the law if they feel the law is unreasonable on what they want to talk about, but I don't see that, in the meantime, that even if it were possible to remove him because of this that that would be a reasonable response. Two wrongs do not make a right after all.
Why do you want to protect the rich and powerful
Nevertheless, whether you are correct to feel it should not be absolute, and they cannot be above the law, it seems possible at least that they are, intentionally so.
Well said big g.
https://www.rcr.ac.uk/posts/rcrs-annual-workforce-report-highlights-uks-radiologist-shortfall-and-escalating-millions
I don't know the QA personally, but this is from the CQC report on the Portsmouth Trust April 2018:
"We found that the trust had significant capacity issues and were not addressing the concerns regarding the acute medical pathway in a timely or effective way. The pressure on beds meant that patients were allocated the next available bed rather than being treated on a ward specifically for their condition placing patients at risk of harm. Across all areas inspected there were significant concerns regarding the care for vulnerable patients"
https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1055499006518931457
Members of the House of Commons have been fined and imprisoned for contempt of court, and on examination of the circumstances of the cases, committees have not recommended that the House involve the privilege of freedom from arrest. The Committee of Privileges in 1831 reported that the claim of privilege....ought not to be admitted. Similarly, the Committee of Privileges reported against a claim made in 1837...
It may therefore be generally deduced that in cases of quasi criminal contempts Members of either House may be committed without an invasion of privilege. The extent of protection in other cases is likely to depend on the circumstances. As Scarman J held in Stourton v Stourton ' each case will depend on its facts, the distinction being between process to compel performance of a civil obligation and process to punish conduct which has about it some degree of criminality, some defiance of the general law'.
Excepts, p.246-7 Erskine May
The examples provided in this section don't seem to include matters of freedom of speech of members.
Subject to the rules of order in debate, a Member may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by parliamentary privilege from any action for defamation, as well as from any other question or molestation...
The possibility of imposing constraints on or penalties for the exercise of freedom of speech in statements which, if made outside the House, might be found defamatory or even criminal, has been considered but rejected by successive committees....although [these] stressed the obligation upon Members to exercise their privileges responsibly. In a case in 2002 the ECHR concluded that the absolute nature of parliamentary privilege did not violate articles 6 or 8 of the European Convention on Human rights, however objectionable the statements complained of. However, the presiding judge expressed a reservation that free speech should be tempered by some regulation recognizing individual rights which should be put in place by national parliaments themselves.
Far too much to transcribe though - there truly are dozens upon dozens of sections relating to it.
I've done interviewing many times in my current and previous jobs and I just assume the CV that HR/recruitment has sent me has been checked out. I wonder if they are though!
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1055430622334906370
https://twitter.com/JohnnyMercerUK/status/1054471560986267648
NEW THREAD
Why is that?