Rangers shareholder Mike Ashley claims his human rights are being violated

[govan_derriere 3]

Rangers shareholder Mike Ashley claims his human rights are being violated by Westminster committee probing his affairs

THE Sport Direct billionaire is furious letters detailing his attempts to avoid appearing in front of Scottish MPs have been published.

 

RANGERS shareholder Mike Ashley has claimed his human rights are being violated by the publication of letters detailing his attempts to avoid appearing in front of a Commons committee.

 

The Sports Direct boss has been summoned by the Scottish Affairs Committee to explain the closure of the company’s USC business in Scotland and the use of zero-hours contracts.

 

Billionaire Ashley, whose allies have been suspended from the Rangers board, told the Westminster committee he is too busy for the entire month of March to appear before them to answer questions about 200 job losses.

 

In further exchanges published by the committee, publicity-shy Ashley’s representatives claim his human rights are being violated by the publication of correspondence.

 

 

 

 

The committee has taken legal advice that the publication is in order and view the complaint as another time-wasting technique by Ashley – whose influence at Rangers led to a backlash from fans.

 

 

 

 

The committee, chaired by Glasgow South MP Ian Davidson, calls on Ashley’s representative to “provide, without further delay, the information that the committee has asked for on what immovable commitments Ashley has throughout the entirety of March which are preventing him from appearing before the committee”.

Keith Hellawell, the former government drugs czar who is now chief executive of Sports Direct, is due to appear before the committee next week.

 

 

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-shareholder-mike-ashley-claims-5366096

[govan_derriere 3]

Published correspondence

 

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/scottish-affairs-committee/sports-direct-employment-practices-and-the-sale-of-usc/written/18623.html

 

 

Written correspondence between RPC and the Scottish Affairs Committee

 

 

Letter received from RPC

 

We refer to your letter dated 4 March 2015 (only received in correct form on Friday 6 March 2015).

 

We intend to reply substantively but only subject to your satisfying the concerns over confidentiality which we refer to below.

 

You said that "…the Committee has agreed to publish the correspondence relating to this matter on our website". Please confirm who this was agreed with.

 

We believe that this is a highly unusual decision, particularly in light of our client volunteering its Chairman of the Board to give evidence and the Committee accepting this. We note that you published the correspondence on the Committee's Parliament.uk web page within a day, without even waiting to hear what our client had to say on the matter. Accordingly, please specify the purpose of publication and why you considered you were entitled to publish without our client's consent.

 

This material has now been widely reported and speculated upon in the press as you surely must have anticipated if not intended. See the article on page 39 of The Guardian dated 7 March 2015 as an example.

 

As you know, we have expressly marked our correspondence to the Committee as confidential and you have therefore been on notice that our client treats the contents as confidential. SDI has not agreed to waive that confidentiality.

 

We can see no basis on which you were entitled to publish any of that confidential correspondence without SDI's consent. The fact that you have done so is considered likely to amount to a breach of our client's confidence as a matter of law and we fully reserve all of SDI's legal rights.

 

Please confirm that any subsequent correspondence from us or our client on these matters will be treated as confidential and not disclosed without prior written consent from our client. If you are not prepared to give that confirmation going forward, please explain the basis upon which you maintain you are entitled to do so.

 

As referred to above, we will respond further once we have your full explanation in response to the concerns set out in this letter.

 

We look forward to hearing from you as a matter of urgency.

 

11 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email from Committee Staff to RPC

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter.

 

In this context ‘the Committee agreed’ means that the Committee has taken a formal decision as a select committee. Select committees and their powers are established by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

 

The remainder of your letter deals with matters which form part of the proceedings of the Committee, and are therefore covered by Parliamentary privilege. Further information on the powers and privileges of Parliament can be found in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice.

 

I note your comments and will ensure a copy of your letter is circulated to members of the Committee.

 

 

12 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

Letter received from RPC

 

 

 

We refer to the email sent by your [Committee staff] member to our [RPC staff member] at around 2.02pm yesterday afternoon.

 

Thank you for the clarification of your position.

 

Could you please refer to the passage in Erskine May where correspondence with a select committee is said to constitute ‘proceedings in parliament’? At present we do not consider that such correspondence does constitute ‘proceedings in parliament’.

 

In our view, even if such correspondence did constitute ‘proceedings in parliament’ the defence of parliamentary privilege would not necessarily provide a defence to a claim that to publish correspondence that was clearly marked as ‘confidential’ violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of those whom the confidentiality was intended to cover. We have in mind the reasoning of the Strasbourg Court in A v UK (Application 3537/97) (2002) 36 EHRR 917 ECHR and see Erskine May, opp. 301 where, although the defence of parliamentary privilege succeeded on the facts, the Court dismissed the claim on grounds of proportionality rather than jurisdiction.

 

We look forward to receiving your response to these points.

 

13 March 2015

 

Email from Committee staff to RPC

 

Thank you for your letter of 13 March.

 

There appears to be some confusion on your part as your letter of the 11 March sought further information on the decision and authority of the Committee to publish the correspondence, while your latest letter seems to suggest your questions were about the letters themselves. To make matters entirely clear, it is the decision taken by the Committee in regards to the letters that form part of the Committee's proceedings which are covered by privilege.

 

The Committee is entitled to act in the way it has. The Committee is advised by Speaker’s Counsel that the relevant correspondence does not contain personal or intimate information and there is therefore no question of the rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights being engaged.

 

Please provide, without further delay, the information that the Committee has asked for on what immovable commitments Mr Ashley has throughout the entirety of March which are preventing him from appearing before the Committee.

 

19 March 2015

Edited March 19, 2015 by govan_derriere

[rbr 1,266]

Fucking scumbag

[colinstein 294]

so 200 job losses and zero hours contracts.

there's more to it surely.

Didn't he close down one company then another of his companies bought the assets and the workers got shafted !

 

it must be quite unusual for a capitalist to be summoned before parliament for this type of thing.. They do it all the time !

[Laudbertz 0]

He's human?

This is the first im hearing of it.

[pmu 0]

Well I have no sympathy for the @#$*. Will they summon the oil firms that are paying off workers by the hundreds despite being given a huge tax break? Nah I doubt it...

[Bearman 9]

A thread on politics in Rangers Chat.

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

A thread on politics in Rangers Chat.

 

A great opportunity for me to speak up in favour of zero hour contracts.

[Bearman 9]

A great opportunity for me to speak up in favour of zero hour contracts.

 

The Lounge for that type of discussion...see the post in there about Glasgow lighting up Russia

[compo 7,193]

he will lose some of that fat if the lock him up were he should be, IN JAIL .