MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35864037
I detest the guy, but I can't help admiring him for refusing to be publicly ridiculed by some half wit committee, usually chaired by Margaret Hodge or the like.
I think I agree although I possibly could be swayed if good contrary arguments are forthcoming.
The bloke is an odious little *. Looking forward to seeing [i]his[/i] side drop into the Championship. Hopefully he'll then * off thus allowing someone of not only greater capability, but also of a higher moral standing, come in and get them back in the PL.
What has he done?
Has he broken the law?
Surely if he has broken the law he should be prosecuted? Ya? 😯
If he has not broken the law he can tell the MPs to fly kites. 😆
Yes I think he's doing the right thing by telling MPs where to go . Spacemonkey do football fans really care about the morality of the owner ? IMO if Hitler was the manager and won something for Newcastle he'd be hailed as the new Messaiah .
I think he has a point (about them visiting the premises instead of just grandstanding for parliament tv) - and that he's probably an odious little (whatever that was)
He doesn't rank as low on my list as a stereotypical MP, so I'm with him on this
dislike the man also.
And to the extent he is answerable to shareholders I've not been best impressed with his witholding information from them.
However he is not answerable to a bunch of whiny headline grabbing MPs on a committee, so they can go swivel and I hope he continues to give them the cold shoulder.
I disagree, I think he should be held accountable and he should justify the actions of his companies obnoxious working practices. The fact that he is refusing to attend speaks volumes.
Perhaps the government could legislate to the benefit of the workers rather just than summon him to a meeting so they can frown at him or whatever it is they do.
He doesn't rank as low on my list as a stereotypical MP
This is a man who is widely accepted to be running a modern-day sweatshop, exploiting vulnerable low paid workers, showing blatant nepotism and generally being an unpleasant toad. And still better than the average MP. Sounds about bloody right.
jekkyl - Member
I disagree, I think he should be held accountable and he should justify the actions of his companies obnoxious working practices. The fact that he is refusing to attend speaks volumes.
What has he actually done? Really ...
Superficial - Member
He doesn't rank as low on my list as a stereotypical MP
This is a man who is widely accepted to be running a modern-day sweatshop, exploiting vulnerable low paid workers, showing blatant nepotism and generally being an unpleasant toad. And still better than the average MP. Sounds about bloody right.
You need sweatshop!
What? You want everyone to be paid £20 per hr? 😮
I disagree, I think he should be held accountable and he should justify the actions of his companies obnoxious working practices. The fact that he is refusing to attend speaks volumes.
Has he actually broken any laws ?
If he has then he should be in court , not in front of a Parliamentry committee .
Lets see how big he is when the Sarjeant at Arms turns up carrying a f-off big Mace to make him attend...
edit:
he should be in court , not in front of a Parliamentry committee
IIRC, technically Parliament is a court.
He is running his company in line with employment law, if the MP's aren't in favour with this then they should change the laws (they can do that can't they? Lol). Starting with the zero hours contracts!
ninfan - Member
Lets see how big he is when the Sarjeant at Arms turns up carrying a f-off big Mace to make him attend...
That should be fun but how does that work as I have no clue of the tradition here ... 😆
Does the Sarjeant at Arms wack the fellow with the mace? I think s/he should ... more blood etc 😆
What has he actually done? Really ...
Well... the T-shirts go all faded and bobbly after just a couple of washes and the cheap soft trackie bottoms allow lots of very fat people to leave the house in comfort. Heads should roll goddamit.
jekkyl - Member
What has he actually done? Really ...
Well... the T-shirts go all faded and bobbly after just a couple of washes and the cheap soft trackie bottoms allow lots of fat people to leave the house in comfort. Heads should roll goddamit.
😆 Think of the people needing work in foreign countries ... thinkkkk of the poorrrr ... without him they would be eating mud ... 😆
ninfan - Member
IIRC, technically Parliament is a court.
Really! Damn! I should be a member of Parliament so I can sentence ZM to death by drowning ... I mean waterboarding ... 😈
So all you lot don't care for democracy? Presumably you have some better suggestion?
He should be made to only dress in the clothes his stores sell as punishment.
It would probably help if when these cross examinations are conducted that politicians didn't try and act like the big swinging dick/internet hard man/playground bully. It doesn't lend itself to improving the credibility/integrity of the process.
[quote=aracer ]So all you lot don't care for democracy? Presumably you have some better suggestion?
A better suggestion has already been made. Up there ^
thegreatape - Member
Perhaps the government could legislate to the benefit of the workers rather just than summon him to a meeting so they can frown at him or whatever it is they do.
Select committees aren't part of the government, they're supposed to be a way for parliament to scrutinise what the government gets up to. One thing they seem to do is to kick up a fuss about issues in order to encourage to get the government to do something about them. So getting Mike Ashley in for a public grilling is a way for MPs to put pressure on the government to do something about workers' rights.
This is a man who is widely accepted to be running a modern-day sweatshop, exploiting vulnerable low paid workers, showing blatant nepotism and generally being an unpleasant toad.
so still more trustworthy than cameron/osbourne et al.
thegreatape - MemberPerhaps the government could legislate to the benefit of the workers rather just than summon him to a meeting so they can frown at him or whatever it is they do.
He hasn't been summoned by the government. The Commons Business Committee is independent of the government. In fact any politician who is in the government isn't allowed to sit on the Commons Business Committee.
Showboating and grandstanding dressed up as 'seeking answers'. I'm not surprised that someone like Ashley has declined that particular opportunity. Parliament now has to work out whether the chance to browbeat him is worth exposing the impotence of various possbily-defunct legal powers.
Surely there's nothing to stop someone on the Commons Business Committee (or any other MP) from starting/supporting a Private Members Bill if they are so concerned about workers rights?
USC bankrupcy order? imposed a company owned by him into insolvency but carried on trading, and almost instantaneously bought it back off the receiver just so that he could close a warehouse and ditch a load of jobs - horrible man
Chris L, Ernie - much obliged for the clarification.
Contemptuous fat [swear filter meltdown]
Dancing on the line of the law potentially, perhaps the commons want to know why, how and what. Then look at proposals to fix the loop holes he is exploiting.
As for prosecution I guess his legal team are a lot better paid and everything he is doing will just about stand up enough to get away with it.
Of course it is always hard for STW to decide of they had Ashley, The Government or the Man the most....
If he is found in contempt of parliament that he can be imprisoned for the term of the parliament according to wiki.
He does however make a valid point about showboating, select committees can and do excellent work if they focus on forensic questioning rather than just haranguing witnesses. They shouldn't be a modern version of the Stocks.
He does however make a valid point about showboating,
He might do but it's only to deflect from the fact he is in a lot shit. Perhaps a select committee can get enough answers to form better employment laws, or if he refuses to play ball make sure he looks like the arse that he is. In some ways the select committee is an opportunity to speak and answer if he doesn't put his point across that's his problem.
He is a shit. But, frankly, he's just a symptom. It should be those responsible for making the laws he exploits that are being pulled up.
[i]ChrisL - Select committees aren't part of the government, they're supposed to be a way for parliament to scrutinise what the government gets up to. One thing they seem to do is to kick up a fuss about issues in order to encourage to get the government to do something about them. So getting Mike Ashley in for a public grilling is a way for MPs to put pressure on the government to do something about workers' rights.'[/i]
+1 Select Committees aren't the Government, they're made up of members from a cross section of parties. Select Committees are often critical of Government policy and can bring about change by highglighting problems with current Government policy. To do this they need to gather evidence - written and verbal. It is a shame that people's low esteem of MPs (often justifiable) completely trashes the perception of all the work that goes on in Parliament.
Re MA there is a prevailing view that he may consider himself to be above the democratic system. Maybe he could use it as an opportunity to tell everyone how great his company really is...
He might do but it's only to deflect from the fact he is in a lot shit.
I doubt it.
It should be those responsible for making the laws he exploits that are being pulled up.
So do you ask the people who can't make laws or those that work out how to exploit them how it works?
He can certainly give very useful insight. Though of course he may not be minded to do so, since he's profited so much from exploiting the laws as they stand- would you expect a thief to give the police good advice?
But if he does attend, it won't be in the form of simply giving evidence, will it? He'll be under attack, and very publically and newsworthily.
IIRC, technically Parliament is a court
The House of Lords was a court; and I suppose you could say parliament is a court if the h of l is; but j don't know whether that's all changed now we have the Supreme Court; and I'm not going to look it up
We shouldn't be penalising people who are operating within the law, especially on the grounds of not liking them or what they do.
If the law is wrong, change the law.
At no point is this a penalty, it's an invitation to discuss stuff. If you were going to change the law wouldn't you want to consult? If the law changes were going to impact you wouldn't you like to give your input.
If your snaking through loop holes and operating on technicalities I could see why you would be wary.
Any upstanding business man who had got the moral high ground would clearly want to waltz in there and give them a solid show boating performance of the highest common decency.
The fact that he doesn't means he prefers being beyond scrutiny in the race to the bottom, and basically saying hands off my workhouse.
I've no idea why these sorts of places can't just run as decent models of business.
Actuslly I do ... they can't because they sell cheap shit to us.
Just up the road from me. On the upside Shirebrook has got a booming little micro economy not seen since the pit was in full swing.
If the law is wrong, change the law.
You've got to understand what the problem is (or if there is one) before you legislate to fix it, and best way to understand a problem is to speak to the people that are in the thick of it.
Shouldn't the Government change employment law to stop 'him'?
Does it need a public charade to show it is doing something.
Are you required by law to attend the house of commons for these inquiries? If not, **** them.
I'd be damned if I'd be held to account by those corrupt, self serving ****ers that make up our government.
Put your own house in order first. They're still on the fiddle and getting away with it.
[i]You've got to understand what the problem is (or if there is one) before you legislate to fix it, and best way to understand a problem is to speak to the people that are in the thick of it. [/i]
Agree. But he offered to show them his business at his business.
They'd get a far better understanding of it there, than asking questions on TV.
I disagree. It's a warehouse in the middle of nowhere. It's easier for more people if he goes to them.
they wouldn't [i]all[/i] have to go. Any one or two competent members would suffice
oh
[i]Are you required by law to attend the house of commons for these inquiries? [/i]
Yep. Next question.
He's used to bullying people to work the way he wants and the way he's behaving towards the Commons is an extension of this 'my way or no way' attitude.
He's trying to say he's more powerful than the House of commons, that they should turn up at his door and see if he deigns to let them in.
That's not the way it works. Even Rupert Murdoch understood that in some things you accept the law of the land and turn up in a committee room and face some MP's for questioning. Who knows maybe this bloke will escape a pieing.
He's used to bullying people to work the way he wants and the way he's behaving towards the Commons is an extension of this 'my way or no way' attitude.
Well, quite. What we're seeing is a clash of egos.
If these occasions were purely about fact-finding, then they should be prepared to take evidence in private session or in writing. But then, of course, they'd lose the ability to get people in front of the cameras and publicly harangue them.
I'm interested to see how far they are willing to test their centuries-old powers of summons/arrest etc in a modern setting. If he carries on telling them to piss off, they would have to send a bloke in stockings and lace up to the North East to drag him to Westminster.
Agree. But he offered to show them his business at his business.
This would be on the special day when everyone is happy and their control collars hidden.
At what point does he fail the fa fit and proper person test.
if Hitler was the manager and won something for Newcastle he'd be hailed as the new Messaiah .
Turning water into wine, feeding the 5000, walking on water would pale into insignificance in comparison to winning something with Newcastle!
The Guy's an arsehole, whether you like the Commons / MPs or Westminster or not, you're not allowed to decide what laws apply to you in the UK - only very arrogant people think they can.
However much money he's got, he's just begging to be made an example of and this won't end well for him.
Avdave Chris H and King Kevin both won the 1dt division....
mikewsmith - MemberAt no point is this a penalty, it's an invitation to discuss stuff. If you were going to change the law wouldn't you want to consult?
I'll just repeat myself, that's not what it'll be. it'll be a very public slagging session. No doubt there'll be some parts of discussion and evidence gathering but that won't be what's reported, it'll be "Margaret Hodge (*) says Mike Ashley is a ****" (* other people are available, but whoever it is, they're likely to call him a ****). It's going to be damaging for him and could be damaging for his business.
If that weren't the case, he'd have no excuse for not wanting to attend. But being realistic, it is. I think it's a situation created by the conduct and manner of select committees. No winners there.
Some interesting replies. I think I am with the majority who see it as political grandstanding.
As a Newcastle supporter I have little time for him. He's belatedly realised that you can't run a football club along normal business lines but ultimately he thinks that money and money alone will get him what he wants - in football it doesn't. Ultimately this has disenfranchised many, many supporters/'customers' with his so called running of the club.
He's a proper product of Tory economic and employment policy in my view and all those who voted for them in the past 2 elections should consider that - don't tell me you didn't expect things like zero hours contracts? However, he is becoming a cause celebre and is far from the only one. I don't see the MD's of Benetton or Primani being called to Parliament.
Government needs to enforce the law (Sports Direct/agencies are widely flouting minimum wages) Parliament needs to change the law.
Wherher he appears before Parliament is irrelevant
He's belatedly realised that you can't run a football club along normal business lines
Feel free to find yourself a fairy godmother. Man U is very much run as a business.
Weren't zero contracts made legal under Labour ? FWIW my kids as students thought zero contracts where very useful. Its a matter of scale and implementation
I think some of his former employees would love to speak, Steve Mclaren, John carver, Chris Houghton, Alan sheerer and Kevin keegan... Treated all of them like shit...
He's a proper product of Tory economic and employment policy in my view and all those who voted for them in the past 2 elections should consider that
Bollocks!
Feel free to find yourself a fairy godmother. Man U is very much run as a business
The 'belatedly' reference was a backhanded compliment given he's dropped £80m on some very average players in Townsend and Shelvey (not his fault, its the MD Charnley's inability to run that side of things). Sadly, he's realised he should spend money on a decent manager and leave him to it but far too late in the day to save us from the Championship now.
Taking this back to SD, it shows he has no time for investing in his staff. He just keeps the wages at rock bottom but this attracts less skilled or committed staff as a result - whether that is a manager at NUFC or a kid shelf stacking at Shirebrook. All very unpleasant.
Bollocks!
Thanks x
The toon are down (shame for a "big club") and its Fatcher's fault!!
Brilliant.
Would love to condemn MA but cant resist his tennis ball, kids football boots and the odd MTB stuff pricing. Awful shops but Slaz Winbledon balls 30% off v local tennis store!!
Thanks x
Sorry but it is absolute bollocks. The man has absolutely thrived under every flavour of government we have had. He hasn't made £1.5 Billion in the last few years of tory rule.
I appreciate the perception of MPs and Parliament are at an all time low, but if I were looking for a champion to rail aganinst the system it certainly wouldn't be Mike Ashley.
From the video of his interview on the Sky News website he talks about some of the steps he has taken to address some of issues that Sports Direct has been criticised for, and it appears that he is capable of putting up a robust defence of his company and its modern (legal) business practices. As the head of a very large organisation employing 24,000 people with revenues of £2.4bn surely it's one of his reponsibilities to represent his company in situations like this - it's part of the job description. You just need to look at some of the other big hitters in business that have given Select Committees their time (Rupert Murdoch et al).
His stance is probably a reflection of the way he operates his business and one of the reasons for his financial success. But he's not doing himself or his company any favours by adopting this stance in this particular situation. It might have been a lot easier for him if he had taken the opprtunity to appear before the committee in the first place and get it out of the way. He's challenging Parliament and pushing for a showdown. Parliament however makes the rules, and he may soon find out that no one is above the law - and rightly so.
Sorry but it is absolute bollocks. The man has absolutely thrived under every flavour of government we have had. He hasn't made £1.5 Billion in the last few years of tory rule.
You may wish to think about how many flavours of government we've had in the last 30-odd years.
You may wish to think about how many flavours of government we've had in the last 30-odd years.
In 1996 he had 50 stores, in 2003 he had 150. In 2004-2006 he bought Slazenger Dunlop, Karrimor, Kangol and a lot of Umbro. The man thrived under labour, just as he has (if not more than he has) under the tories.
In 1996 he had 50 stores, in 2003 he had 150. In 2004-2006 he bought Slazenger Dunlop, Karrimor, Kangol and a lot of Umbro. The man thrived under labour, just as he has (if not more than he has) under the tories.
Woosh!
Shouldn't the Government change employment law to stop 'him'? .
You think this government is going to suddenly become staunch advocates of stronger workers rights?
Latest - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-35873396
They will keep going until they get him to attend.
He anbd his comapny have built up a company that employs thousands of people, all get paid all applied for jobs, non where conscripted, they sell some cheap stuff, and some better stuff, i have safety boots , cycling sjhoes, and a cycling jersey from them as well as a few pairs of traines, all do the job, and ive helped keep the workers in a job by supporting the company.
I also dont buy paper cups of coloured water with fancy names from costalotta coffee who dont pay any or little uk taxes.
Good on the man, who wants to be interviewed by attention seeking people who have never created a buissness or a job for others in their lifee
Alternative view is his success is based on not paying a fair rate of tax or pay and thus transferring what should be overheads of running his business to us the taxpayer and wider society. E.g. to fund in work benefits so we do have a say. A big say.
odious little sh*t getting interviewed by a committee of odious little sh*ts...
Good on the man, who wants to be interviewed by attention seeking people who have never created a buissness or a job for others in their lifee
This is a stupid thing to say.
I looked at the profiles of the first four listed members of the BIS Select Committee. They were an ex accountant, the ex head of a large employer, an ex venture capitalist and the ex head of an org that gets youth into employment. I think they're reasonably well placed to examine low paid employment in retail.
konabunny - Member
They were an ex accountant,
Ya, the one that counts others' money with inflated self importance.
the ex head of a large employer,
Ya, a bureaucrat that messed with others money with inflated salary.
an ex venture capitalist
Probably because s/he is so bad at his/her venture decision(s) and with many failed ventures under his/her belt, hence s/he is on the panel of self importance/indulgence.
and the ex head of an org that gets youth into employment.
Ya, the one that squandered public money to inflate self importance and own salary ... a bureaucrat as well.
I think they're reasonably well placed to examine low paid employment in retail.
Ya, coz they are not spending their own money so able to criticize others and I bet they would even advocate £20 per hour as minimum wage.
🙄
[quote=chewkw ]Ya, a bureaucrat that messed with others money with inflated salary.
You're talking about Mike Ashley here?
I get the contempt people are showing for MPs, but would you really rather MA ran the country? At least we get to vote for the MPs and I don't believe they are all odious expense fiddlers - some pretty decent people there. What MA is saying is stuff your democratic process I've got loadsa money and I'll do what I like.
Looks like all bases have been covered on this one 😀
As per my op, I have little time for Mike Ashley, and I have little time for grandstanding MPs
I'm not entirely sure what is democratic about hauling him in to discuss his business practices either.
If he's operating outside the law then he should be dealt with appropriately.
If the select committee needs to gather evidence, then go and speak to him or perhaps more usefully the people who work for and with him and do a proper, validated, investigation.
I suspect he's very sure that they have no way to compel him to appear; you don't build a business as successful as his through making bad decisions on important issues.
Westminster may not be highly regarded at the moment, but every time someone is able to ride roughshod over our elected representatives our democracy is weakened by another step. Once the precedent is set that select committees can be ignored parliament's ability to challenge the government or outside interests weakens and it'll be hard to get that power back even if the quality of and public respect for MPs begin to be rebuilt.
While grandstanding select committee hearings are often cringeworthy and can seem to be for the benefit of committee members' egos, the media coverage they generate can increase public awareness of issues and hence pressure on the government to act on them. This fuss over Mike Ashley and whether he'll show up at parliament is at least keeping him and his business practices in the public eye, just as all the hearings about Starbucks, Google et al avoiding paying taxes in the UK helped keep that issue live a few years ago.
If the select committee needs to gather evidence, then go and speak to him or perhaps more usefully the people who work for and with him and do a proper, validated, investigation.
Criticizing your employer in public is a dismissible offence.
And one which an industrial tribunal would almost certainly uphold.
Alternative view is his success is based on not paying a fair rate of tax or pay
Sports Direct pays loads of Corporation Tax £70 plus million, in addition his long term staff including non-managment have done exceedingly well out of the share scheme ([url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/18/sports-direct-staff-bonus-profits ]One of many sources[/url]). As always a bit more nuanced than portrayed, but then as soon as you buy a football club you are stuffed unless you give it all your money.
Tactically, he has played it well I think, he has got his point across, but he will turn up now though.
Criticizing your employer in public is a dismissible offence.And one which an industrial tribunal would almost certainly uphold.
Fair point, but they will take evidence "in camera".
All select committees take evidence in public, with very few exceptions.
http://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-and-tours/watch-committees-and-debates/committees/