European court rejects Geoff Hoon's human rights complaint

[muriel_volestrangler]

I never liked Hoon; but, wow, what a whinger! Glad to see all his complaints were rejected.

He argued that the parliamentary proceedings had violated his right to a fair hearing as he had not had access to a court to challenge the claims against him.

He also contended that the parliamentary authorities had failed to respect his right to private life, arguing that his conversation with the reporter was private and related to his future employment as a private citizen. The widely-publicised decisions of the commissioner and the committee also violated his private life, he said.

But in a judgement on Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights rejected all Mr Hoon's complaints.

The complaint over his right to a fair hearing was inadmissible, the court said, and the "interference" with Mr Hoon's private life had been "proportionate". Mr Hoon's complaint over privacy was "manifestly ill-founded", the court said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30326629

In February 2010, Hoon was an MP and a former Secretary of State for Defence. He had also taken up a voluntary position as one of twelve special advisors to the Secretary-General of NATO. He then announced he would not be contesting the May 2010 elections. He was contacted by Claire Webster on behalf of “Anderson Perry Associates”, an organisation that purported to be a “US communications company”. The company was looking to hire consultants who had an intimate and expert knowledge of government affairs.
...
(1) By offering to brief the fictitious company’s clients about the Defence Review, Hoon gave the impression that he would draw on what he had learnt in his meeting with officials who were working on the review.

(2) By suggesting that he could draw on his access to information about the NATO defence review and the Defence Review for the benefit of the private equity fund, he gave the impression that he was offering an inside track on defence strategy to the fund.
...
The Standards and Privileges Committee of the HoC then considered the case. Hoon gave written and oral evidence. The Committee agreed with the Commissioner. It rejected Hoon’s argument that the Code did not apply because the conversation concerned his future after leaving the Commons. On the contrary, Hoon was an MP when he attended the meeting, and talked about information received whilst he was an MP. The Committee acknowledged that the principal sanction would be the damage to reputation which an adverse finding of the Commissioner and the Committee’s report would inevitably have.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/12/04/geoff-hoon-sting-case-fails-in-strasbourg/

The punishment consisted of revoking his Commons' pass for 5 years - a pass which most of us, of course, don't have. He got to argue in front of the committee, but he still thought he deserved a full court hearing on whether they had the right to downgrade his access to politicians to that enjoyed by the normal public. And he thought that letting the public know that he intended to make money off his special advisor position with NATO, which gave him contacts who were working on the defence review, was invading his 'private life'.

What an arsehole.

[LeftishBrit]

1. According to my Australian friends, 'hoon' to them means loutish or antisocial person...

especially used of dangerous drivers, but applicable more generally.

Quite appropriate in this case, I'd say!