I shall be most interested in receiving information about Mr Hain and his activities.
I had the dubious experience of some of his activities many moons ago when I was a research fellow at the Institute of Race Relations,London.
Unfortunately there seem to be some difficulties with your website.

info please or a link whats the score with Peter Hain?

why not start with Mr hain's featuring in yesterday's edition of the dispatches programme presented on Channel 4 by peter oborne.

Hain is one of the mps making use of the moneymaking opportunities. Staggering amounts of our money are being pocketed by these mps. Mr hain is one of them.

then rewind back to the time when he was suspected of theft by a bank - and a high profile campaign to clear his name

fast forward to this week and read the details of the deal he has made with the Australian company that will be used to force claimants to work or destitution.

In between, hain was on a fast track to career within the British trade unions. ucw and then the Kinnock labour party. oops. he was a liberal party politician for a bit. also an anti Nazi Leagye star speaker.

poor.

Thanks for the further info. We don't all give house room to televisions though, perhaps people would remember that. I will certainly read more on this man.

There is plenty of written material about that shows Peter Hain to be a truly opportunistic man in a position of exercising state power over the human rights of other people

. He will not hesitate to back any action against innocent people if that action would give him career points. And to think that he was paraded in front of the world media as probably one of the most famous campaigners against apartheid!


This[below] is a sample record of the Hansard from the year 2003 . An exchange between Hain and others on a House of Commons select committee. Notice how he uses the pejorative term 'back door' to disqualify the argument for the incorporation of human rights into the British courts system

"
Select Committee on European Scrutiny Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)

TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003

RT HON PETER HAIN MP, MR NICK BAIRD AND MR RICHARD WESTLAKE


Mr Tynan
40. At the last evidence session we discussed the Charter of Human Rights. Has the Government received assurances with respect to the Charter which it was looking for, especially the strengthening of the "horizontal clauses"? How would these limit the effect of the Charter?
(Peter Hain) No, not yet. The legal commentary in its place in the new Constitution and also the place of the Charter, if it is to be in the Constitution at all, is still a matter of argument, and the extent to which the horizontal articles genuinely are a fire break against extending competence down into Member States law, are still issues which are subject to negotiation. Sometimes we seem to be getting to where we want to be, sometimes people seem to row back on it. So I think the jury is out, frankly, on whether we can find an agreement on this.

41. So a long term aim is obviously to strengthen the horizontal clauses. If we do so, would we then be able to accept that the Charter was incorporated?
(Peter Hain) I do not want to dodge the question, but I equally do not want to anticipate something which we are not sure we can achieve. We genuinely are in some fairly hard negotiations in order to protect our position, which is the same as it was at Nice in 1999. The Charter itself is an admirable collection of aspirations, but if it became justiciable in our courts, changing our employment law, for example, or giving new rights which were enforceable through the judicial system, which were really not agreed to but came in through the back door, then that is not acceptable. And there is big negotiation to be had as to where the Charter, if it is agreed at all, appears. If, for example, it is a separate protocol rather than embedded in the existing Constitution, then that is much better in terms of achieving our objectives, but we are a long way from securing that.


Mr Connarty
42. In terms of the European Convention of Human Rights, is the Government in favour of the accession by the EU itself into the European Convention of Human Rights?
(Peter Hain) Yes, we are but provided that it preserves national states' positions. This is essentially the principle that we are going to adhere to.

43. Do you think that is achievable?
(Peter Hain) Yes, I do.


Mr Cash
44. I am a bit puzzled on the basis of what I recall this particular clause to refer to because where it says that the European Court of Justice would subscribe to the general principles of the Convention, as I recall it, you effectively would thereby be handing over the justiciability to the European Court. There is an argument going on about the overlap between the Convention on the one hand and the Charter on the other. I hear what you say, but without any great confidence, about not making it legally binding with these horizontal arrangements, but the bottom line is, are you in fact prepared to accept that part of the Article which refers to the European Court having responsibility for applying the general principles of the European Convention of Human Rights?

(Peter Hain) Can I just consult over here, if I understand your question correctly. Perhaps I will just ask Nick to explain what he is explaining in my ear.

45. This is very rare that Mr Hain cannot answer a question.

(Peter Hain) No, I want a more authoritative answer than I could have given you.

(Mr Baird) The key issue in terms of EU accession to the ECHR is that we want to have, with the ECJ and the Strasbourg Court, a consistent case law. Therefore we do not want the ECJ interpreting the Charter, if it were to be in the Treaty, in ways that are different, or those Articles, that are in the ECHR, that are different to the Strasbourg Court. That is why, in principle, we would favour EU accession to the ECHR so that the ECJ would follow Strasbourg case law. But the key point also there is that if the EU does accede, it must be with respecting the national derogations that already exist to the ECHR. A number of Member States have derogations on aspects of the—

Mr Cash: If I may just, Mr Connarty—this is very, very important.

Mr Connarty: I am conscious of the time.

"

anyone who watched jon snow presenting tonight's edition of the dispatches programme would have been forgiven for thinking that Mr slow was a card-carrying member of some sort of cult racist organisation. why didn't he give any research back up from the very department that actually has most of the data on joblessness?

I think I am going to have to do that job for all those viewers who may have been left thinking that Peter hain's department for work and pensions does a good job!

It doesn't and about time some hard facts on the dwp were brought out into the open.

like how the dwp is a duping department which spends more on its own spins than on addressing the 'work and pensions'

I am preparing a comment on actual cases brought against the dwp.

My point being that courts don't encourage challenges by claimants who want to show the dwp is not following human rights.

My view is that most of the anti-discrimination laws that are in the statutes don’t get applied in Britain. I believe that this is in part due to the established discriminatory attitude being perpetrated within the legal professions and inside the courts.

So the legal establishment and the courts are participating in breaching the laws that are on paper parts of the British legal framework.

Then we have the media that are doing their bit to also flout those laws and to violate some of the very people who are supposed to be protected by those statutes.

What the popular TV and tabloid tell us about dwp is the benefit scroungers.

They are not the main offenders. It is the law-abiding majority of benefit claimants that get violated.

Their story is not told in the mass media.

So it would be interesting to learn from active groups or persons what their experiences of the law on 'benefits' and of bringing court cases against the dwp have been.

Thanks for your responses

[Please assume that I do not need any references at this stage to what the CPAG has or has not done. In my view, the CPAG is part of the problem

“Peter Hain may still make Gordon brown come unstuck - 'let us all down'!”

Remembering that we first broke the news here about Peter Hain. On 25 September 2007. Nine weeks ago when there was no sign of any sleaze, any money grabbing corruption…

We are confident that in time Peter Hain will be found to have been the lethal liability that the evidence of his conduct make him to be.

As the second confession by Hain of receiving ‘donations’ hits the news desks, moves are afoot to cover up the corruption.

By a strange coincidence, it is Peter Hain who has been given the media protection tonight when his second confession has been wrung out of him by disclosures that he ought to have made himself but didn’t.

It is interesting that the media has begun to treat the donations scandal as if it were an issue not of embarrassment but of national consensus and reconciliation!

This is seen in itv news [that used t be called ‘itn’ news] at 1030 pm tonight.

ITV News political editor Tem Bradby was at pains to underplay the scandal and was at ease as he contradicted himself by saying that Gordon Brown needed Peter Hain’s second confession like a hole in the head!

The case and evidence against peter Hain and dwp cumulative22

Thursday 24 January 2008

On 25 September 2007 [a week less than four months ago] we broke the news of a peter Hain scandal. That was well over two months before any other posts in the internet or anywhere else in the public domain had said anything like that whatsoever.

And we here mean Ian Dale and his parasitic partners who have been bragging today that it was Dale’s blogging that ‘secured’ Peter Hain’s resignation.

That is not true.

Ian Dale was nowhere to be seen or heard when we researched, investigated and published en the UK Indymedia our word exclusive prediction and comments about Peter Hain.

Much more will come out in due course than Ian Dale can even recognise, far less ‘report’.

We have compiled over 1000 instances if the department for work and pensions staff lying to benefit claimants.

As we said in September 2007 that we would do, we are now going to publish a selection of the cases on this web site and on other web sites.


Watch this space

The case and evidence against peter Hain and dwp cumulative22

Thursday 24 January 2008

On 25 September 2007 [a week less than four months ago] we broke the news of a peter Hain scandal. That was well over two months before any other posts in the internet or anywhere else in the public domain had said anything like that whatsoever.

And we here mean Ian Dale and his parasitic partners who have been bragging today that it was Dale’s blogging that ‘secured’ Peter Hain’s resignation.

That is not true.

Ian Dale was nowhere to be seen or heard when we researched, investigated and published en the UK Indymedia our word exclusive prediction and comments about Peter Hain.

Much more will come out in due course than Ian Dale can even recognise, far less ‘report’.

We have compiled over 1000 instances if the department for work and pensions staff lying to benefit claimants.

As we said in September 2007 that we would do, we are now going to publish a selection of the cases on this web site and on other web sites.


Watch this space

The case and evidence against peter Hain and dwp cumulative22

Thursday 24 January 2008

On 25 September 2007 [a week less than four months ago] we broke the news of a peter Hain scandal. That was well over two months before any other posts in the internet or anywhere else in the public domain had said anything like that whatsoever.

And we here mean Ian Dale and his parasitic partners who have been bragging today that it was Dale’s blogging that ‘secured’ Peter Hain’s resignation.

That is not true.

Ian Dale was nowhere to be seen or heard when we researched, investigated and published en the UK Indymedia our word exclusive prediction and comments about Peter Hain.

Much more will come out in due course than Ian Dale can even recognise, far less ‘report’.

We have compiled over 1000 instances if the department for work and pensions staff lying to benefit claimants.

As we said in September 2007 that we would do, we are now going to publish a selection of the cases on this web site and on other web sites.


Watch this space