FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

non disclosure agreements

Jump to newest
 

By *good-being-bad OP   Man
over a year ago

mis-types and auto corrects leads cock leeds

I've never signed one never needed to for whatever reason.

In the news is the use of these agreements by a "chief executive" stopping a newspaper promoting the name of the chief executive .. the silence about his alleged racist and sexual behavior.

If you've lodged a complaint and then accepted a settlement with the proviso of a non disclosure agreement should you then take further action are you in the wrong..?

If you feel so strongly about the complaint would you not settle and pursue other avenues ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Likewise I’ve never had the need to sign one, but I guess by definition if you’ve signed one and accepted something in return for that non disclosure (perhaps a financial settlement) then you have a contract.

If you then proceed to ‘disclose’ against the non disclosure agreement, then you’re in breach of that so open to have any settlements recovered.

If you feel so strongly about the complaint then I guess no form of non-disclosure agreement would be enough.

Not sure if that answers your questions OP, really, but I guess it ultimately becomes a contractual dispute.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They are widely used in business, but often for example when giving disclosure of sensitive docs that would be required for a deal to be done to a potential purchaser or partner. Say lease details or contract values.

The issue is clearly that something that is fundamentally not a bad thing in a wider business context, has been applied to potentially cover up inappropriate or illegal practices.

Hopefully this will be dealt with in a sensible and pragmatic way. Clearly hiding illegal activity behind an NDA is wrong, but in the context of market sensitive information and prevention of insider trading laws they are required in other contexts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have signed the Official Secrets Act..does that count?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I have signed the Official Secrets Act..does that count? "

*whisper stuff to me over here....I’ll tell no one*

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

I think you may be conflating two issues.

My understanding is a number of employees complained of racial abuse and sexual harrasment.

The company settled the claims with pay-outs. In return for the pay-out, the employees were asked to sign NDAs to keep it all confidential.

The Daily Telegraph subsequently heard about it and rang Arcadia for comment. That was when the company sought an injunction to prevent the story being published.

The Telegraph obviously had not signed any agreement, so I was puzzled how the gag on staff was also deemed to apply to the newspaper.

That said, it was a temporary ruling pending a full hearing. All water under the bridge now.

I imagine the Telegraph and other newspapers will be hunting high and low for the five complainants with offers of cash to break their NDAs and speak about what happened to them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"I have signed the Official Secrets Act..does that count? "

That’s classic.

I work in an occupation where they used to do that. Now they just draw your attention to it.

The Act applies to everyone in the country. The idea that by signing something it suddenly applies to you . . . well, it is an intimadatory tactic by the state to reinforce your compliance.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocks99Man
over a year ago

Reading


"I have signed the Official Secrets Act..does that count?

That’s classic.

I work in an occupation where they used to do that. Now they just draw your attention to it.

The Act applies to everyone in the country. The idea that by signing something it suddenly applies to you . . . well, it is an intimadatory tactic by the state to reinforce your compliance."

Rubbish. I handled performance measurements for military kit. You obviously don't want that getting to unfriendly eyes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocks99Man
over a year ago

Reading


"I have signed the Official Secrets Act..does that count?

*whisper stuff to me over here....I’ll tell no one*

"

I could. But then I'd have to kill you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

What is “rubbish”?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ocks99Man
over a year ago

Reading


"What is “rubbish”?"

Appologites, it would seen you're right about all being bound by default. Begs the question why sign it then?

If you need to be intimidated into keeping state secrets, you're probably in the wrong line of work.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've often signed NDA's for work related stuff.

A contract is a contract. Breach of any contract comes with its own issues

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *good-being-bad OP   Man
over a year ago

mis-types and auto corrects leads cock leeds


"I think you may be conflating two issues.

My understanding is a number of employees complained of racial abuse and sexual harrasment.

The company settled the claims with pay-outs. In return for the pay-out, the employees were asked to sign NDAs to keep it all confidential.

The Daily Telegraph subsequently heard about it and rang Arcadia for comment. That was when the company sought an injunction to prevent the story being published.

The Telegraph obviously had not signed any agreement, so I was puzzled how the gag on staff was also deemed to apply to the newspaper.

That said, it was a temporary ruling pending a full hearing. All water under the bridge now.

I imagine the Telegraph and other newspapers will be hunting high and low for the five complainants with offers of cash to break their NDAs and speak about what happened to them."

Philip green has been named under parliamentary privilege I'm guessing the court is trying to figure out where the story came from..not sure what legal arguments were put forward for the injunction...

if you've signed an non disclosure agreement you shouldn't be telling any one. I doubt Mr Green was telling folk .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top