Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?

[Rovinghawk]

Eric Mc said:

This is PH - not a law court.

Hence how you've judged him to be a crook despite no evidence?

[CaptainSlow]

sidicks said:

CaptainSlow said:

I don't know if what he did was against the law at the time, after his swimming trip we never got to find out.

Yes, he committed fraud, which was an offence at the time.

You may be correct, you may not be. Without a trial and court decision we'll never know.

[sidicks]

CaptainSlow said:

You may be correct, you may not be. Without a trial and court decision we'll never know.

I don't think there is any credible evidence that he did not commit a large fraud.

[FredClogs]

The latest thing with this slime ball piece of st is his connection with Everton Football club...

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/foot...

[Eric Mc]

sidicks said:

CaptainSlow said:

You may be correct, you may not be. Without a trial and court decision we'll never know.

I don't think there is any credible evidence that he did not commit a large fraud.

You've challenged me to provide evidence. Now it's your turn - assuming you are completely au fait with the pension legislation relating to large corporations as it stood in the years 1986-1990.


The fact that massive changes were made to the ability of companies to extract money from their staff pension funds AFTER Maxwell would indicate to me that it is highly doubtful that what he did with the pension fund AT THE TIME HE DID IT was actually illegal AT THAT TIME.

Green did what he did in an era when the rules on pensions are much, much tighter.

The parallels I am drawing is that it does seem that they BOTH raided their company pension funds - one in an era when it was possible to do so without breaking the law and one when it is much more likely that a law or multiple laws were broken.

You decide which misdemeanours relate to which individuals.

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

You've challenged me to provide evidence. Now it's your turn - assuming you are completely au fait with the pension legislation relating to large corporations as it stood in the years 1986-1990.

The fact that massive changes were made to the ability of companies to extract money from their staff pension funds AFTER Maxwell would indicate to me that it is highly doubtful that what he did with the pension fund AT THE TIME HE DID IT was actually illegal AT THAT TIME.

Maxwell used money from company pension funds to shore up the value of shares in The Mirror Group, to save them from bankruptcry. This was illegal.

Here is the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15576907

"Within weeks of his death the true financial state of the Mirror Group became apparent. More than £300 million in pension fund assets had been taken by Maxwell illegally from under the noses of the trustees in the weeks before his death.
This was done via an investment company effectively controlled by him in a series of ultimately failed attempts to support his debt ridden empire."

Eric Mc said:

Green did what he did in an era when the rules on pensions are much, much tighter.

What exactly are you suggesting Green did?

Eric Mc said:

The parallels I am drawing is that it does seem that they BOTH raided their company pension funds - one in an era when it was possible to do so without breaking the law and one when it is much more likely that a law or multiple laws were broken.

No matter how many times you (and others) claim it, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Green 'raided' anything whatsoever from the BHS pension scheme.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary??

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 19th October 11:00

[smifffymoto]

I don't think people care what the truth is because they are sick to death of the mega wealthy getting away with it,legal or not.Not seeming to care who gets trod on in the persuit of wealth and the ever growing showing off of that wealth.

[sidicks]

smifffymoto said:

I don't think people care what the truth is because they are sick to death of the mega wealthy getting away with it,legal or not.Not seeming to care who gets trod on in the persuit of wealth and the ever growing showing off of that wealth.

So it's just jealousy and nothing to do with crinimnality on behalf of Green?

Not sure that should be the key focus!

[Tryke3]

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

[Eric Mc]

sidicks said:

So it's just jealousy and nothing to do with crinimnality on behalf of Green?

Not sure that should be the key focus!

No - it's about abuse of power and privilege and knowing the right people.

I can't for the life of me understand why the minnows and non-entities of PH feel so enthused to support those who more or less seem to be able to do what they like.

Maybe they feel enpowered by identifying with the rich and powerful.

[oyster]

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

I heard bits of it.

Of course he will try to justify his actions. All crooks do.

Maybe you'd like to justify calling him a crook, which suggests he has acted criminally..?

It's funny how some billionaires manage to maintain their billionaire status yet also retain popularity with normal people (including their own employees) - Richard Branson, James Dyson, Duke of Westminster

Yet others spectacularly fail to do so - Mike Ashley, Sir Philip Green

The difference is usually that one set of them stays the right side of both moral and legal opinions, whilst some decide to live in the zone between moral and legal acceptance.

As another poster put it, some can't resist taking the crumbs off the table when they've eaten their cake.

[iphonedyou]

Well this thread has gone as expected. You could script it to the letter after a certain post.

[don4l]

Eric Mc said:

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

We shall see.

So no evidence then?

This is PH - not a law court.

Surely, you must have some reason for thinking that he has done some wrong.


It would be extremely irrational to publicly state that someone had done wrong if you had no evidence at all.

[Eric Mc]

Are you always 100% rational?

[Jockman]

iphonedyou said:

Well this thread has gone as expected. You could script it to the letter after a certain post.

deja vu

[Jockman]

oyster said:

It's funny how some billionaires manage to maintain their billionaire status yet also retain popularity with normal people (including their own employees) - Richard Branson, James Dyson, Duke of Westminster

Yet others spectacularly fail to do so - Mike Ashley, Sir Philip Green

The difference is usually that one set of them stays the right side of both moral and legal opinions, whilst some decide to live in the zone between moral and legal acceptance.

As another poster put it, some can't resist taking the crumbs off the table when they've eaten their cake.

Useful post. Carefully worded. Maybe the only word to improve it would be 'perception'.

[Eric Mc]

All over again.

[TEKNOPUG]

Poor man, why is he always having to take the flack for his wife's businesses?

[FredClogs]

sidicks said:

smifffymoto said:

I don't think people care what the truth is because they are sick to death of the mega wealthy getting away with it,legal or not.Not seeming to care who gets trod on in the persuit of wealth and the ever growing showing off of that wealth.

So it's just jealousy and nothing to do with crinimnality on behalf of Green?

Not sure that should be the key focus!

It's nothing to do with jealousy, for gawds sake, most normal people given any sort of wealth would not behave in the way this human slug does, most normal people recognise these types for what they are - sociopaths and deeply sad individuals, I might covet his houses, his pad in Monaco or his cars, of course I'd love to have them but the thought of doing the things this man has done to get them and the sheer chasm of any sort of humanity that lies within his soul turns me rigid with fear. Anyone could do what he did given the correct brain chemistry and moral disassociation, mental peculiarities are nothing to be jealous about. He's not an Alpha male, he's a horrible little sneaky, greedy Augustus Gloopy looking snitch.

[Jockman]

TEKNOPUG said:

Poor man, why is he always having to take the flack for his wife's businesses?

For richer, for poorer, in sickness, in health, with toga, without toga...