govan_derriere
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by govan_derriere
-
-
An excellent article, well written and balanced - sadly something professional hacks appear not to be able to emulate.
2 -
Hibs, Kilmarnock, Aberdeen & Ross County have made it known that they do not back the SPFL's call for a further inquiry into the EBT years.
I suspect many of the lower league clubs do not back the Celtic/SPFL stance either.
On Wednesday 26th July, I sent the email below to every Scottish senior club indicating that their club logo was displayed on the website dedicated to stripthetitles. I used the email addresses listed on the SPFL website. Five addresses have probably been updated from this site as emails were bounced back from Motherwell, Forfar, Albion Rovers, Berwick Rangers & Raith Rovers.
Email to Scottish Clubs
Subject: Club Intellectual Property Rights.
Dear Sir/Madam,
Club Intellectual Property Rights.
On the following website, a copy of your club logo is prominently displayed.
https://twitter.com/1stripthetitles?lang=en
I wish to draw this matter to your attention and ask the following two questions.
Has permission been granted to use your official club logo?
Does the appearance of your logo on this website indicate that your club endorses the view presented on this site?
Both internationally and at club level the future of the Scottish game looks bleak. Engagement in a form of open civil war within the Scottish game seems, to me, to serve no purpose.
Yours faithfully
G_d
Four replies were received within a couple of days.
Stirling Albion, Brechin City, Montrose & Dumbarton.
I don't expect to receive any others now.
The responses shared below suggest that SPFL does not enjoy universal support from lower league clubs.
Reply 1
On 26 Jul 2017, at 16:45, Stirling Albion <office@stirlingalbionfc.co.uk> wrote:
G_d
Many thanks for drawing this matter to my attention.
Clearly there is no endorsement or indeed permission given to carry our logo.
In the first instance I have forwarded to our governing body, the SPFL to ask them to address the matter centrally.
I will keep you apprised of developments.
Kind regards
Xxxxxxx
Chairman & Ops Director
SAFC
Reply 2
On 26 Jul 2017, at 16:54, Xxxxxxx wrote:
On behalf of Brechin City FC I can confirm that we have not given permission for the use of our Club logo for this post and that we do not as a Club hold the views presented therein.
Regards.
Xxxxxxxxxx
Chairman
Brechin City FC.
Reply 3
On 27 Jul 2017, at 10:43, Montrose wrote:
Hi G_d
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
We did not give permission for our logo to be used and we will now be taking action to have it removed.
Many thanks.
Regards,
Xxxxxxxxx
Club Secretary
Montrose FC
Reply 4
Dear G_d
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. For the avoidance of doubt Dumbarton Football Club has not and will not give permission for the use of the Club logo for the purpose stated on this website, nor do we endorse the view presented.
It is our view that this is a matter for the football authorities to address in accordance with SPFL and SFA Rules.
Yours sincerely
Xxxxxxxxxx
Chief Executive
Dumbarton Football Club
0 -
I made a complaint after the "Hun" banner displayed at the cup semi-final last season.
I am still in dialogue with Police Scotland about this but they have, so far, failed to respond in an adequate manner.
I have been promised a response by traditional letter soon!
I will share the contents of this response if/when it arrives.
0 -
A link for the Big Mike show, starting at 10:00 am today.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a870989f-3119-4e2a-9ea7-e6ab094e77d1
0 -
I suspect Police Scotland is pushing this agenda.
I have been in contact (several times) with a senior member of Strathclyde's finest in relation to my complaint about the Banner displayed at the semi-final. I have submitted a series of questions that have been referred to their legal dept re use of the term 'Hun'. I wanted to know what progress had been made. He is awaiting a response to my questions.
I spoke to this officer on the Monday after the final. He explained that he was very busy in relation to events connected to the final. Two days after the event, he offered the view that 'strict liability' needed to be introduced. I mentioned that clubs had visited this before but decided against it.
I did not pursue this line of conversation any further.
0 -
Rangers' Supporters Clubs will also be given an allocation.
0 -
Response received from Police Scotland.
Interesting that the use of the word Hun is not an offence!
"I can confirm that there was a substantial policing and stewarding operation at the turnstiles, to prevent both sets of supporters getting access to the stadium with offensive banners and pyrotechnics.
That said, it is simply not possible to search every single supporter and it was clear that both sets of supporters had pyrotechnics and banners which were offensive to some people.
The banners you refer to are likely to have been wrapped round individuals, underneath their clothing, and thereafter brought into the stadium. When this display was shown it formed part of several banners.
The use of the word Hun in itself is not an offence, that said, we have CCTV footage of the stadium and retrospective enquiries through this footage are ongoing to identify any individuals who did commit offences at the stadium.
Whilst it is disappointing that there are individuals who are intent on bringing offensive banners and pyrotechnics into a football stadium, I hope you would understand the practical difficulties of searching every single person prior to entry."
0 -
I have submitted a complaint to Police Scotland about this. Not expecting any action but if we don't express our displeasure there are few who will come to our assistance.
0 -
SEASON TICKET HOLDER INFORMATION
William Hill Scottish Cup Semi – Final
Hampden Park
Sunday 17 April 2016 – Kick Off 12 noon
Rangers v Celtic
Ticket prices – South & North Stands £28 for adults and £12 for concessions and West stand adults are £18 and £7 for concessions.
A very limited priority sale to Season Ticket holders who have purchased a full price season ticket will be communicated in due course once the Club receives its ticket allocation.
All season ticket holders enrolled in the Semi-Final and Final & the Semi-Final Family schemes will be allocated a ticket for this fixture.
Payment and posting/collection dates will be communicated in due course.
0 -
I emailed Louise Brittain yesterday.
FAO Louise Brittain.
On 25th November it was reported in the Scottish press that you were appointed to carry out an investigation into the financial affairs of Craig Whyte.
Today the Sunday Post has a front page story concerning Mr Whyte that may be of interest to you. As a shareholder in The Rangers Football Club, I have an interest in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
GD
Response received today.
Dear Mr GD,
Thank you for your email. We are reviewing the reports and will action accordingly.
Thank you for your assistance
Yours sincerely
Louise Brittain
Trustee in Bankruptcy
Louise Brittain
R&R Partner
For and on behalf of Wilkins Kennedy LLP
London
0 -
@STVGrant
Derek Llambias says he fell out with Ashley in June 2013. In October '14, he was invited to come and review situation at RFC by David Somers
Llambias says he had no football-related conversations at all with Ashley during his tenure at Rangers.
David Somers witness statement says until facility agreement signed, relationship with MASH was handled by Wallace and Nash.
Somers says he spoke to Ashley and Barnes and one of them suggested inviting Llambias to come and work as a consultant.
Somers says Llambias invited Leach to assist. Somers says Wallace had brought in a lot of temporary staff which increased costs.
Somers, as only exec director on board at time, appointed Llambias as a non-exec director.
Justin Barnes says Paul Shackleton, then Rangers' NOMAD, called about drawdown of funds and asked for the two nominations to the plc board.
Barnes told Shackleton asked if Llambias should be considered. Barnes said he was happy to treat Llambias as MASH's first nominee to plc.
MASH waived its nomination of a second director to allow drawdown of funds. MASH, says Barnes, had no involvement in Llambias bring CEO
0 -
First part of pm proceedings.
Court resumes. Ashley's lawyer continues his argument.
Court now has copy of the credit facility agreement between MASH and Rangers. Says lender has "right" to appoint two directors to RFCL board
The credit facility agreement is signed "for or on behalf of MASH Holdings", the lender, by Mike Ashley
Ashley QC questions why no attempt made by SFA to amend charge to make it clearer that it was MASH, of which Ashley is ultimate beneficiary.
Ashley QC says the SFA charge says: "You Mike Ashley entered a credit facility with Rangers". Ashley answer was "No I didn't, MASH did".
Ashley QC again states SFA charge says "you Mike Ashley entered into a credit agreement with Rangers".
The signal gods are defeating the reporting of this case. Will keep trying to plug away.
Ashley QC says there are many ways it could be said the charge "could" have been written. But we are here to discuss how it "was" written.
Lord Brodie, speaking hypothetically, says compliance officer may have been saying "you as controlling party of MASH entered into agreement"
0 -
Mike Ashley takes on @scottishfa at Court of Session this morning. Seeking judicial review of decision to fine him over dual interest breach
A summary of Tweets by @STVGrant in the morning court session.
Lord Brodie allows tweeting from Sports Direct v @Scottishfa. And we are off and running.
Ashley lawyer outlines case refers to his client breaching SFA rule on dual interest. Court now to hear that rule recited in full.
Rule on dual interest read out detailing that a person cannot influence management of a club when directly involved in another.
SFA Article 13.1 also being read out. Ashley lawyer says same matters are set out in this article.
Ashley lawyer reads out original note of complaint. States that credit facility led to MASH nominating Llambias to Rangers board.
Lord Brodie: As I understand the name Rangers comes at us from a number of directions. Ashley lawyer points out this refers to RFCLtd.
SFA Lawyer interrupts. Says Rangers FC in this matter is the "club, the entity, it is not a synonym for RFC Ltd."
The limited company and plc are manifestations of the club, says SFA QC.
Ashley QC states that RIFC plc is not a member of the SFA. Says Ashley is not a shareholder in RFC Ltd, which is the member.
Ashley QC says MASH held a minority stake in RIFC plc at time of complaint.
Ashley QC says there is jurisdiction in this court to entertain the complaint by means of judicial review process.
Ashley QC now explaining to Lord Brodie how the SFA's judicial panel protocol works.
Ashley QC says this is a private law judicial review and they have no dispute over that.
I tweeted earlier this is Sports Direct v @scottishfa. Of course, it isn't. It's Mike Ashley v @ScottishFA.
Ashley QC points out SFA article which doesn't permit members to go to court of law. Argues Ashley is not an SFA "member" as per definition
Ashley QC going through precedents and elements of the SFA articles.
Court now look at letter from Ashley to SFA in 2012 telling them in full of his role at Newcastle United
Ashley letter also says he agrees to abide by SFA rules for as long as he is shareholder of RFC Ltd
2012 Ashley letter to SFA also tells them of his intention to become a shareholder of RFC Ltd, which owns and operates Rangers.
QC continuing to outline argument Ashley is not a "member" of SFA as per their definitions, with regard to ability to bring this to court
Ashley QC then points out by Nov/Dec 2014 he was no longer shareholder of RFC Ltd. Instead MASH was shareholder in RIFC plc
Current Ashley argument revolves entirely around his capability to take this matter to court, despite SFA rules on doing so.
QC says Ashley never agreed to become a member of the SFA or to be treated as a member of the SFA in 2012 letter.
Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps.
Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.
Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.
Ashley QC continuing to go through SFA articles which he says do not apply to his client, should the SFA go on to say they do.
Ashley QC says he will go on to explain position that SFA panel made decision without any clear evidence.
Ashley QC continuing to refer to precedent on ability of court to deal with this matter by means of judicial review.
Ashley QC says SFA assert that Ashley is using this as another means of appeal. Ashley QC says that is not the case.
Ashley QC says he is not asking the court to rehear the substantive issues dealt with.
Ashley QC says court is being asked to perform a different function than the SFA panel or appellate tribunal.
Ashley QC says if a player had acted violently, it would be difficult to come here and argue a panel decision couldn't have been arrived at
Lord Brodie asks if it is a legitimate question as to who was on the disciplinary panel.
Ashley QC also calls into question how it can be decided Llambias being on board gave Ashley power to influence management of Rangers.
Ashley QC says he fails to see how anyone in "the football business" would have any insight into how Llambias came to be on Rangers board
Ashley QC setting out argument that the notice of complaint was solely against Mike Ashley, the individual.
Ashley QC says it wasn't Ashley who entered into credit facility with Rangers, it was MASH Holdings Limited.
Ashley QC says when such a specific charge is levied on breach of a particular rule, the scope of punishment should be limited solely to it.
Ashley QC says the charge is clear. That Ashley entered into a credit facility with Rangers. His answer to the panel was clear: no I didn't.
Ashley says he signed the credit facility solely as an agent of MASH. And it was MASH who entered into the agreement with Rangers.
Ashley QC argues charge could have said you Mr Ashley caused MASH to enter facility with Rangers.
Lord Brodie questions the fact Ashley's holding in Newcastle is through MASH.
Ashley QC questions how MASH being a "creditor" of Rangers would then give him power to influence the management of the club.
Lord Brodie says the question will ultimately come down to what "distinction" there is between MASH and Mike Ashley.
Ashley QC repeats that the charge is a direct accusation that Ashley entered into credit facility with Rangers, not MASH.
Ashley QC states there was no copy of the credit agreement. To which Lord Brodie replies: "I shouldn't be surprised".
As we break for lunch I'd like to pay particular tribute to @ThreeUK for the sudden lack of signal inside most buildings over the last week.
0 -
Account of morning proceedings in Ashley v SFA.
Reported by @STVGrant
Mike Ashley takes on @scottishfa at Court of Session this morning. Seeking judicial review of decision to fine him over dual interest breach
Lord Brodie allows tweeting from Sports Direct v @Scottishfa. And we are off and running.
Ashley lawyer outlines case refers to his client breaching SFA rule on dual interest. Court now to hear that rule recited in full.
Rule on dual interest read out detailing that a person cannot influence management of a club when directly involved in another.
SFA Article 13.1 also being read out. Ashley lawyer says same matters are set out in this article.
Ashley lawyer reads out original note of complaint. States that credit facility led to MASH nominating Llambias to Rangers board.
Lord Brodie: As I understand the name Rangers comes at us from a number of directions. Ashley lawyer points out this refers to RFCLtd.
SFA Lawyer interrupts. Says Rangers FC in this matter is the "club, the entity, it is not a synonym for RFC Ltd."
The limited company and plc are manifestations of the club, says SFA QC.
Ashley QC states that RIFC plc is not a member of the SFA. Says Ashley is not a shareholder in RFC Ltd, which is the member.
Ashley QC says MASH held a minority stake in RIFC plc at time of complaint.
Ashley QC says there is jurisdiction in this court to entertain the complaint by means of judicial review process.
Ashley QC now explaining to Lord Brodie how the SFA's judicial panel protocol works.
Ashley QC says this is a private law judicial review and they have no dispute over that.
I tweeted earlier this is Sports Direct v @scottishfa. Of course, it isn't. It's Mike Ashley v @ScottishFA.
Ashley QC points out SFA article which doesn't permit members to go to court of law. Argues Ashley is not an SFA "member" as per definition
Ashley QC going through precedents and elements of the SFA articles.
Court now look at letter from Ashley to SFA in 2012 telling them in full of his role at Newcastle United
Ashley letter also says he agrees to abide by SFA rules for as long as he is shareholder of RFC Ltd
2012 Ashley letter to SFA also tells them of his intention to become a shareholder of RFC Ltd, which owns and operates Rangers.
QC continuing to outline argument Ashley is not a "member" of SFA as per their definitions, with regard to ability to bring this to court
Ashley QC then points out by Nov/Dec 2014 he was no longer shareholder of RFC Ltd. Instead MASH was shareholder in RIFC plc
Current Ashley argument revolves entirely around his capability to take this matter to court, despite SFA rules on doing so.
QC says Ashley never agreed to become a member of the SFA or to be treated as a member of the SFA in 2012 letter.
Some mild commotion and shaking of heads from the SFA side when it is repeated that RFC Ltd is the member. Clarification later, perhaps.
Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.
Ashley QC says we are here to determine whether the manner of the jurisdiction of the panel was within the limits of their powers.
Ashley QC continuing to go through SFA articles which he says do not apply to his client, should the SFA go on to say they do.
Ashley QC says he will go on to explain position that SFA panel made decision without any clear evidence.
Ashley QC continuing to refer to precedent on ability of court to deal with this matter by means of judicial review.
Ashley QC says SFA assert that Ashley is using this as another means of appeal. Ashley QC says that is not the case.
Ashley QC says he is not asking the court to rehear the substantive issues dealt with.
Ashley QC says court is being asked to perform a different function than the SFA panel or appellate tribunal.
Ashley QC says if a player had acted violently, it would be difficult to come here and argue a panel decision couldn't have been arrived at
Lord Brodie asks if it is a legitimate question as to who was on the disciplinary panel.
Ashley QC also calls into question how it can be decided Llambias being on board gave Ashley power to influence management of Rangers.
Ashley QC says he fails to see how anyone in "the football business" would have any insight into how Llambias came to be on Rangers board
Ashley QC setting out argument that the notice of complaint was solely against Mike Ashley, the individual.
Ashley QC says it wasn't Ashley who entered into credit facility with Rangers, it was MASH Holdings Limited.
Ashley QC says when such a specific charge is levied on breach of a particular rule, the scope of punishment should be limited solely to it.
Ashley QC says the charge is clear. That Ashley entered into a credit facility with Rangers. His answer to the panel was clear: no I didn't.
Ashley says he signed the credit facility solely as an agent of MASH. And it was MASH who entered into the agreement with Rangers.
Ashley QC argues charge could have said you Mr Ashley caused MASH to enter facility with Rangers.
Lord Brodie questions the fact Ashley's holding in Newcastle is through MASH.
Ashley QC questions how MASH being a "creditor" of Rangers would then give him power to influence the management of the club.
Lord Brodie says the question will ultimately come down to what "distinction" there is between MASH and Mike Ashley.
Ashley QC repeats that the charge is a direct accusation that Ashley entered into credit facility with Rangers, not MASH.
Ashley QC states there was no copy of the credit agreement. To which Lord Brodie replies: "I shouldn't be surprised".
As we break for lunch I'd like to pay particular tribute to @ThreeUK for the sudden lack of signal inside most buildings over the last week.
0 -
For what they are worth, some of James Doleman's tweets are pure comedy gold.
At the Royal Courts of Justice for interim hearing in case of Sports Direct International Plc v Rangers International Football Club
Hearing today is procedural ahead of main trial. Mr McCormack QC is again representing Rangers, Mr Guest QC for Sports Direct.
SD counsel opens by telling court that they are seeking damages over contempt of court.
Counsel for RFC says Mike Ashley did not sign witness statement on time asks for dismissal.
"They have to live with the situation they have created for themselves" RFC counsel tells court.
Judge says he plans to "strip out" SD damages claim.
Counsel for SD says that despite the delay in receiving witness statements the judge must look at the "overall justice of the case."
Judge says that if SD had really lost millions "Mr Ashley would be kicking the door in."
Counsel for SD says the losses caused to his clients business by actions are large but "unquantifiable"
Judge notes that SD share price has "been falling since xmas"
Judge asks where the original estimate of £200k damages came from?
Counsel says he is not sure.
Judge says that without disclose of financial figures the SD claim is "pure speculation"
Counsel for RFC says SD actions are "unfair" to his clients.
Judge notes SD only gave RFC witness statements at 5pm last night.
Judge says SD explanation for delay in statements is "unconvincing" as case began in June 2015.
Judge notes that the list if damages given by SD was "unverified"
Judge says however that despite delay it would be "disproportionate" to rule out SD evidence.
Judge says SD actions an "abuse of process of the court,"
Judge says he has come to the conclusion that SD want to "parade in the course of the trial, possibly for outside consumption"
Judge rules that sections of Ashley's witness statement relating to damages be "struck out"
Now moving onto costs.
Counsel for RFC says "while we would dearly like the money" costs are impossible to quantify yet.
Judge asks counsel for RFC is he is asking for Ashley to be sent to prison?
"You can have your fun with Mr Ashley at the trial" he says.
Counsel for SD now responding on issue of "unverified" statement of losses.
Counsel for SD says there was no verification of loss statement as it had been decided not to pursue the matter further,
Judge ruling on costs of abandoned SD damages claim.
Judge says "there must have been a deliberate decision" to serve the damages figures without a statement of truth attached.
Judge says SD conduct has been "abusive" says figures were "plucked out of the air"
Judge says SD have "wasted the courts time"
Judge asks counsel for RFC to prepare a schedule of costs for his consideration.
Judge says his clerk has been receiving emails about blogs accusing him of "being a mason"
Judge says blogs have said his wife is a Rangers supporter "this is untrue"
Judge says the person emailing him has been asking for action to b e taken against bloggers "this is not something intend to do"
Court adjourns, Full trial with be 5 Feb.
0 -
Confirmation that the hearings are continued in Aberdeen on 21st.
Aberdeen HC
Case Session Date Proceedings Case Reference PF Reference Court Name
HMA v Paul CLARK 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
HMA v Charles GREEN 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
HMA v David GRIER 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
HMA v David WHITEHOUSE 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
HMA v Craig WHYTE 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
HMA v Gary WITHEY 21-JAN-16 Preliminary Hearing Continued SCS/2015-152941 CO14000356 Aberdeen HC
There has been some suggestion by James Doleman on Twitter that Green, Whyte etc do not need to attend in person!
0 -
Article in Guardian goes on to say
"However, sources close to the BIS committee said he could be officially summoned this time, as his appearance was being viewed as “a test of parliament’s authority”.
0 -
On the BBC's news at Six, Iain Wright, the Labour MP and chair of the BIS select committee stated
"We will invite Mr Ashley in the New Year to give evidence."
I almost have to declare a vested interest here!
Emma Simpson the presenter of this piece is a former pupil of mine who stayed in Newmachar In Aberdeenshire at the time and attended Dyce Academy.
0 -
Will Charlie will be in possession of a hand scrawled note from Imran promising him full legal backup at RFC's expense?
Reciprocity would be expected surely.
0 -
Confirmation of the maximum ticket allocation for the Petrofac Training Cup tie v Hibernian.
Category
A+
13
A
11
B
10
C
9
D
8
E
7
F
6
0 -
When I gave up my seat in GR5 after 12 years last season, it was snapped up by someone else. As disappointed as I am, I have moved on. Bought a Bar72 seat as replacement. All set to join the half-time pint loyal.
0 -
Remind me, exactly who was in charge of Rangers in January.
@jamesdoleman: Judge notes RFC signed confidentiality agreement in January 2015
2015 confidentiality agreement between RFC and SD covered "present and future agreements" judge notes
Surely this action should be challenged?
0 -
FS is currently at NARSA.
0 -
Published correspondence
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
0
Old Firm media embarrassment and VAR control
in Rangers Chat
Posted
An excellent, well balanced article.