Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?
Discussion
JNW1 said:
I think there were two schemes (one for the majority of the workers, the other for senior management) and both were in surplus at the time of the acquisition of BHS by Philip Green's organisation back in 2000. However, I think they were in deficit even before the financial crisis hit in 2008 and despite the schemes being closed to further entrants in 2009 the deficit had got even worse by 2012. Regulations require the funding of defined benefit pension schemes to be reviewed every 3 years and if there's a deficit the company and the trustees need to put a recovery plan in place; Green looked to do that for BHS albeit the proposal was for the recovery plan to take over 20 years (which I understand is more than double the norm in these situations). During the time the pension funds were moving from surplus to deficit substantial dividends were paid to shareholders with Green and his family being the major beneficiaries.
This is the key issue, but this is not the situation that I understood, can you link to anything to confirm this? It's important!JNW1 said:
Legally has Green done anything wrong? Almost certainly not (he's probably too smart to get caught like that) but is it morally right to be creaming-off substantial dividends whilst allowing pension schemes to become under-funded? Not in my book and I think that's also why the regulator is wanting to understand the nature of some of the appropriations which took place in the years following Green's takeover of BHS. Hopefully for the sake of his reputation Green will do the right thing by the pensioners of BHS but I have to say I'm not convinced he'd have done anything at all had it not been for the public outcry that's taken place. His performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee earlier this year was truly cringeworthy and the number of things he claimed not to know anything about beggared belief for a man in his position; wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him personally.....
This is very much linked to the above!r11co said:
Two years' elective study in Psychology at the University of Strathclyde as part of a joint degree in Computing Science and Law, plus a post-graduate Diploma in Educational Psychology.
Good enough for you?
Is it good enough, appropriate or ethical for you to publicly 'diagnose' someone in front of their friends, whilst waving around your qualifications, for no other reason than to try and discredit them? Good enough for you?
fblm said:
Is it good enough, appropriate or ethical for you to publicly 'diagnose' someone in front of their friends, whilst waving around your qualifications, for no other reason than to try and discredit them?
You clearly don't appreciate the difference between 'waving around' your qualifications and presenting them when asked to.Hey ho.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
Funny you should mention that, something that has crossed my mind from time to time. A discussion forum that turns into something resembling an inquisition every time a certain poster sticks his tuppence worth in.
Can I suggest that if you don't want to discuss the 'facts' of any case that the NP&E sub-forum is not the place for you?Of course if you want to start a thread on Phillip Green's personality and public persona, then the Lounge would be the best place for that!
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 19th October 13:25
crankedup said:
I haven't seen any 'facts' relating to Green's case as yet, all I have read is various persons subjective comment. Also can I suggest that you desist from acting as some type of moderator, this is not your forum to decide who posts what and where.
Nor yours. Yet, rather than decide to comment on the actual thread topic, like another poster you joined in simply to make snide remarks...TEKNOPUG said:
Rovinghawk said:
Tryke3 said:
Cant believe people are defending Green 
In this country we dont hate success we hate crooks who get rid of 500m of debts by selling a company for £1 to anyone
What crime do you allege this 'crook' committed? In this country we dont hate success we hate crooks who get rid of 500m of debts by selling a company for £1 to anyone
This is an example of the facts that sidicks deems should only be posted on this thread, what a t*t. ,
sidicks said:
johnfm said:
I still think there might be something in the 'fat billionaires = dodgy, slim billionaires=nice guys' theory.
We need an expert to pass judgement on that!The second bit is easy, as Santa checks every year if I recall correctly.
johnfm said:
We need to make a 'fat' and 'slim' billionaire list and then have them rated as 'naughty' or 'nice'.
The second bit is easy, as Santa checks every year if I recall correctly.
It's a limited sample, but of those I can think of, your theory appears to hold for the vast majority!The second bit is easy, as Santa checks every year if I recall correctly.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
I haven't seen any 'facts' relating to Green's case as yet, all I have read is various persons subjective comment. Also can I suggest that you desist from acting as some type of moderator, this is not your forum to decide who posts what and where.
Nor yours. Yet, rather than decide to comment on the actual thread topic, like another poster you joined in simply to make snide remarks...sidicks said:
johnfm said:
We need to make a 'fat' and 'slim' billionaire list and then have them rated as 'naughty' or 'nice'.
The second bit is easy, as Santa checks every year if I recall correctly.
It's a limited sample, but of those I can think of, your theory appears to hold for the vast majority!The second bit is easy, as Santa checks every year if I recall correctly.
It does seem that the Guardian and Frank Field have got it in for him whatever he does.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/19/s...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/philip-green
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/18/sir...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/19/s...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/philip-green
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/18/sir...
Edited by Adrian W on Wednesday 19th October 14:48
Eric Mc said:
I sometimes wonder if PH is festooned with people who can only see the absolute letter of the law when examining how people conduct their affairs and deliberately fail to see the bigger picture
You're quite correct Eric, I agree with you 100%. The trouble is that you actually give a toss about other people. The people you mention are not deliberately failing to see the big picture though. They just can't see it because they're actually sociopaths or possibly just narrow thinking, empathy less robots, Just like the people they defend. They're only really interested in self aggrandisement. This forum is simply a vehicle for boasting about their stuff and droning on about how clever they are. It's utterly dull to listen to.
It's an odd phenomenon on here that if you disagree with this kind of 'stamp over everyone else' selfishness and lack of thought for anyone, you're somehow jealous or a bit thick.
el stovey said:
You're quite correct Eric, I agree with you 100%. The trouble is that you actually give a toss about other people.
The people you mention are not deliberately failing to see the big picture though. They just can't see it because they're actually sociopaths or possibly just narrow thinking, empathy less robots, Just like the people they defend. They're only really interested in self aggrandisement. This forum is simply a vehicle for boasting about their stuff and droning on about how clever they are. It's utterly dull to listen to.
What is certainly dull is the continued misrepresentation and the inability to distinguish between those commenting on the known facts (and commenting accordingly) and those seeking to assign moral judgements to posters on a subjective basis where no such opinions have been provided. You seem to have fallen into this trap.The people you mention are not deliberately failing to see the big picture though. They just can't see it because they're actually sociopaths or possibly just narrow thinking, empathy less robots, Just like the people they defend. They're only really interested in self aggrandisement. This forum is simply a vehicle for boasting about their stuff and droning on about how clever they are. It's utterly dull to listen to.
el stovey said:
It's an odd phenomenon on here that if you disagree with this kind of 'stamp over everyone else' selfishness and lack of thought for anyone, you're somehow jealous or a bit thick.
Strawman nonsense.sidicks said:
JNW1 said:
I think there were two schemes (one for the majority of the workers, the other for senior management) and both were in surplus at the time of the acquisition of BHS by Philip Green's organisation back in 2000. However, I think they were in deficit even before the financial crisis hit in 2008 and despite the schemes being closed to further entrants in 2009 the deficit had got even worse by 2012. Regulations require the funding of defined benefit pension schemes to be reviewed every 3 years and if there's a deficit the company and the trustees need to put a recovery plan in place; Green looked to do that for BHS albeit the proposal was for the recovery plan to take over 20 years (which I understand is more than double the norm in these situations). During the time the pension funds were moving from surplus to deficit substantial dividends were paid to shareholders with Green and his family being the major beneficiaries.
This is the key issue, but this is not the situation that I understood, can you link to anything to confirm this? It's important!JNW1 said:
Legally has Green done anything wrong? Almost certainly not (he's probably too smart to get caught like that) but is it morally right to be creaming-off substantial dividends whilst allowing pension schemes to become under-funded? Not in my book and I think that's also why the regulator is wanting to understand the nature of some of the appropriations which took place in the years following Green's takeover of BHS. Hopefully for the sake of his reputation Green will do the right thing by the pensioners of BHS but I have to say I'm not convinced he'd have done anything at all had it not been for the public outcry that's taken place. His performance in front of the Parliamentary Select Committee earlier this year was truly cringeworthy and the number of things he claimed not to know anything about beggared belief for a man in his position; wouldn't trust him as far as I could kick him personally.....
This is very much linked to the above!http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...
For anyone interested in whether Robert Maxwell committed criminal offences in relation to pension fund assets.....In short, he was never charged as he had died, all defendants at the criminal trials were acquitted, the DTI Inspectors did not make findings of criminality, and the uses made of pension fund assets for private corporate interests (which are, obviously, very different from not making further contributions into a pension scheme) were widely known at the time by management and professional advisers but never really complained about.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/...
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/...
audidoody said:
Oh. I had no idea he had been arrested, charged and found guilty of a criminal offence and now has a criminal record.. Do you have any more details?
Ah - the only real crooks are the ones who get caught. I see.Successful crooks never see justice - so therefore, by your assessment, they can't be crooks.
An interesting take on it.
r11co said:
fblm said:
Is it good enough, appropriate or ethical for you to publicly 'diagnose' someone in front of their friends, whilst waving around your qualifications, for no other reason than to try and discredit them?
You clearly don't appreciate the difference between 'waving around' your qualifications and presenting them when asked to.Hey ho.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff