Yes I thought that too when I heard it on BBC radio. They didn’t really think it through.
Mr Ecks
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
What trial? Who will be able to judge him dispassionately by the time this comes to court?
Wonko the sane
Removing Hain’s gong would seem entirely appropriate
Rob
Tommy Robinson’s mistake was not being enobled and abusing, sorry using Parliamentary Privilege to make his point.
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
How did I know you lot would defend this scumbag…
BiG in Japan
Sure, verdict first. But was his knighthood ever for services to anything but his own bank balance in the first place?
Chris Miller
@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
@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
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
@ nautical nick
Sir Thomas More should be referred to as “Tom” not “Tim”
Yes I thought that too when I heard it on BBC radio. They didn’t really think it through.
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.
What trial? Who will be able to judge him dispassionately by the time this comes to court?
Removing Hain’s gong would seem entirely appropriate
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.
Shin=Hain, stupid spell checker
He looks the part. What more do you want?
@Wonko: Removing Hain’s head would be preferable…
Who breached their NDA?
Rhoda: we’re not allowed to disclose that.
Will be interesting to see if they argue that a fair trial is now impossible.
Thanks Mr Hain – justice served.
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.
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.
Humour
https://twitter.com/Glazedovernow/status/1055554581290237957
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…
How did I know you lot would defend this scumbag…
Sure, verdict first. But was his knighthood ever for services to anything but his own bank balance in the first place?
@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.
@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.
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.
@ nautical nick
Sir Thomas More should be referred to as “Tom” not “Tim”