Verdict first, trial laterOctober 26, 2018 Tim WorstallCrime21 CommentsOpposition MPs call for tycoon’s knighthood to be revoked after Peter Hain uses Lords speech to name him previousDoesn’t quite worknextThere’s a step being missed here 21 thoughts on “Verdict first, trial later” firefoxx October 26, 2018 at 8:46 am Yes I thought that too when I heard it on BBC radio. They didn’t really think it through. Mr Ecks October 26, 2018 at 8:56 am Socialism in action. The Orange Arsehole Hain needs to be arrested. For he has done, has he not, what Tommy Robinson was framed for supposedly doing? Pisspot Parliamentary Privilege? Itself pissed on and abused to enable marxist femminist scum to kick off a UK firestorm of lying , evidence-free leftist boo hoo cockrot accusations. An attempted Yewtree re-start. And another string to the bow of subjectivist ” facts/evidence are white male patriarchy” leftist bullshit Hain should be punished. But the FFC loves wallowing in Marxist femmi-shit and a distraction from her betrayal of Brexit is just what Doctor Marx ordered. Hain will not be in HMP Onley, cell opposite the mosque, anytime soon. NielsR October 26, 2018 at 9:13 am What trial? Who will be able to judge him dispassionately by the time this comes to court? Wonko the sane October 26, 2018 at 9:36 am Removing Hain’s gong would seem entirely appropriate Rob October 26, 2018 at 9:39 am Tommy Robinson’s mistake was not being enobled and abusing, sorry using Parliamentary Privilege to make his point. Shin has shown clear contempt for the Law here. Rob October 26, 2018 at 9:40 am Shin=Hain, stupid spell checker PJF October 26, 2018 at 9:47 am He looks the part. What more do you want? JuliaM October 26, 2018 at 10:13 am @Wonko: Removing Hain’s head would be preferable… rhoda klapp October 26, 2018 at 10:17 am Who breached their NDA? jgh October 26, 2018 at 12:49 pm Rhoda: we’re not allowed to disclose that. isp001 October 26, 2018 at 12:50 pm Will be interesting to see if they argue that a fair trial is now impossible. Thanks Mr Hain – justice served. Rob October 26, 2018 at 4:07 pm Will be interesting to see if they argue that a fair trial is now impossible. Thanks Mr Hain – justice served. If he doesn’t have a trial then he is ‘guilty’ forever. With a trial there’s always the chance he could be found innocent, and that would never do. Rob October 26, 2018 at 5:46 pm Hain is paid by the law firm fighting the injunction, but of course that’s nothing to do with it: https://order-order.com/2018/10/26/hain-paid-adviser-telegraphs-lawyers/ All honourable and above board. Pcar October 26, 2018 at 9:08 pm Humour https://twitter.com/Glazedovernow/status/1055554581290237957 Phil October 26, 2018 at 10:02 pm Meanwhile now isn’t the time to get rid of a bullying speaker. It’s like they’re making it up as they go along… KJ October 27, 2018 at 7:44 am How did I know you lot would defend this scumbag… BiG in Japan October 27, 2018 at 9:13 am Sure, verdict first. But was his knighthood ever for services to anything but his own bank balance in the first place? Chris Miller October 27, 2018 at 10:16 am @KJ I doubt that many on here would deny that he’s a scumbag (I certainly don’t). Do you believe that means he’s not entitled to a fair hearing? It’s almost as though Peter Hain thinks the law should not apply to him personally, if he’s doing something he perceives to be right. A belief that has been evident in his actions since he was a student. Chris Miller October 27, 2018 at 4:44 pm @BiGiJ What are any knighthoods for? They’re for sports players or thesps or businesspeople who’ve made lots of money from doing something they’re good at (plus a horde of public ‘servants’ who’ve spent a lifetime deciding which drawer to keep their paperclips in). People who’ve selflessly spent decades actually helping their local communities might get an MBE, if they’re really lucky. nautical nick October 28, 2018 at 12:55 pm As Tim has said before, legal rights are there to cover those we don’t like, as well as those we do. I’m pretty sure Hain didn’t know about the law firm’s involvement. The problem for him, is that (apparently) the firm’s name was on the first page of the judges’ judgement. Which rather suggests he hadn’t read it. Which rather suggests he is just gunning for Green, doesn’t it? And that’s besides all three judges coming to the opposite conclusion, as well as some of those covered by the NDA. I think Hain has some questions to answer. john 77 October 31, 2018 at 4:14 pm @ nautical nick Sir Thomas More should be referred to as “Tom” not “Tim” Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.