Forum menu
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.