Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?

[sidicks]

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?

What mark did you get in the 'character diagnosis on internet forum' module?

[r11co]

Rovinghawk said:

I don't actually care all that much as I think it's a wishy-washy bks subject on a par with sociology.

In other words not the answer you were expecting. I'll leave you two to dig yourselves out of the hole you made for yourselves.

[Rovinghawk]

r11co said:

In other words not the answer you were expecting.

It wasn't. I still think it's a woolly subject & wonder how you do forum-based diagnosis.

But facts are facts- PG has not been accused of any crime*, much less convicted, therefore calling him a crook is a bit naughty.

* Fashion excluded

[Eric Mc]

Humanity, caring and social responsibility are "wishy washy".


In some peoples' world, shafting people and screwing their livelihoods is looked on as exemplary business practice and worthy of praise.

As long as personal wealth is created, what else matters?

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

Humanity, caring and social responsibility are "wishy washy".

That's not what he said (and you know that).

Eric Mc said:

In some peoples' world, shafting people and screwing their livelihoods is looked on as exemplary business practice and worthy of praise.

Out of interest, 'whose world' are you referring to? I've not seen anyone else on here suggest any such thing.

Eric Mc said:

As long as personal wealth is created, what else matters?

I think most people would disagree with you Eric.

[johnfm]

Eric Mc said:

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.

Eric

It is called 'outgroup favouritism' or 'system justification'.

It is a weird phenomena where people of one group (the ingroup) defend the behaviour of an outgroup (i.e a group of people who they are not a part of) even when that outgroup behaviour has a negative effect on the ingroup.

See here:

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20(2001)%20Outg...

[johnfm]

oyster said:

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.

It coudl also be that Green and Ashley are fat, whereas the other three you mention are/were slim.

Maybe it is a simple as 'fat people look shifty' or something...

[Eric Mc]

johnfm said:

Eric

It is called 'outgroup favouritism' or 'system justification'.

It is a weird phenomena where people of one group (the ingroup) defend the behaviour of an outgroup (i.e a group of people who they are not a part of) even when that outgroup behaviour has a negative effect on the ingroup.

See here:

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20(2001)%20Outg...

Careful now - they might accuse you of being "wishy-washy".

[Dr Jekyll]

johnfm said:

Eric Mc said:

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.

Eric

It is called 'outgroup favouritism' or 'system justification'.

It is a weird phenomena where people of one group (the ingroup) defend the behaviour of an outgroup (i.e a group of people who they are not a part of) even when that outgroup behaviour has a negative effect on the ingroup.

See here:

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20(2001)%20Outg...

Asking exactly what crime someone is supposed to have committed is not defending them though is it? Even if we were defending him, I don't see that sticking up for someone who just happens to be in a different 'group' is at all weird.

'Was what so and so did wrong?'
'It depends'
'You mean on the facts?'
'Certainly not, it depends on what group he is in, if he is not in my group I have to regard him as in the wrong irrespective of the facts, otherwise I would be guilty of 'outgroup favouritism' and men in white coats would be summoned..'

[johnfm]

Rovinghawk said:

r11co said:

Good enough for you?

I don't actually care all that much as I think it's a wishy-washy bks subject on a par with sociology.

I'm curious as to how you can do diagnosis via internet fora, though.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 19th October 13:28

Psychology and sociology "wishy washy"?

Really? The human psyche and how people behave drives every single activity on the planet. How can the study of that be wishy-washy?

[Foliage]

Stepping away from the money side of things for a minute, walking into one of the stores it was pretty obvious something was wrong, it was like stepping back into the 90s... As a business they didn't try to keep up with trends, where selling primark quality at selfridge prices. The business had no direction and deserved to go under either that was intentional or it wasn't, I know what I saw and looked in one of their prime locations on a couple of occasion to wonder wtf are they playing at. Ive no idea what investment they were making but it certainly wasn't customer facing at any of the locations I went to, did they even have a social media presence? an online shop etc etc

[Ali Chappussy]

There is a huge difference between illegal and immoral and this is the problem. I would like to ask him three questions:

1. You are a grown man, why did you feel the need to put the company in the name of your wife?
2. You must have known that taking the amount of money out of the business was, ultimately, going to affect the company pension scheme?
3. Please tell all those poor employees when you are going to do the right thing and pay back all of the money that is missing.

I think we all know what the answers will be.

Stripping them both of their titles is a bare minimum outcome in this case.

[loafer123]

I think it was interesting that he said he considered a pre-pack Administration. Under a pre-pack Administration the direct link between owners would have called the purpose of the pre-pack into question and raised the chance of a Pensions regulator involvement.

I think that, on the basis of the facts presented to date, he has acted within the law, however he is willing to contribute into the pension scheme because the Pensions regulator would have a decent case that his actions were deliberately to rid him of the liability for an underfunded scheme and not a commercial arms length deal.

I have no problem with him being a billionaire, indeed I celebrate it, but he has sailed too close to the legal wind on this, and will have to ante up. The amount should not be the current gap in the scheme, but what it was at the point of the transaction, which will still be substantial.

[sidicks]

Ali Chappussy said:

There is a huge difference between illegal and immoral and this is the problem. I would like to ask him three questions:

1. You are a grown man, why did you feel the need to put the company in the name of your wife?
2. You must have known that taking the amount of money out of the business was, ultimately, going to affect the company pension scheme?
3. Please tell all those poor employees when you are going to do the right thing and pay back all of the money that is missing.

i think we all know what the answers will be.

Stripping them both of their titles is a bare minimum outcome in this case.

I thought it had been confirmed that, when the dividends were paid, the pension scheme was in surplus (or minimal deficit)?

[sidicks]

loafer123 said:

I think it was interesting that he said he considered a pre-pack Administration. Under a pre-pack Administration the direct link between owners would have called the purpose of the pre-pack into question and raised the chance of a Pensions regulator involvement.

I think that, on the basis of the facts presented to date, he has acted within the law, however he is willing to contribute into the pension scheme because the Pensions regulator would have a decent case that his actions were deliberately to rid him of the liability for an underfunded scheme and not a commercial arms length deal.

I have no problem with him being a billionaire, indeed I celebrate it, but he has sailed too close to the legal wind on this, and will have to ante up. The amount should not be the current gap in the scheme, but what it was at the point of the transaction, which will still be substantial.

I think that was £100-£150m?

[deadslow]

Eric Mc said:

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.

In the modern neo-liberal climate folks seem to be trained to defend the wealthy class/status quo. When the worlds richest people crashed the economies of most western democracies through unbridled greed, the Tory party, press, think tanks etc were quick to move the debate to government overspending as the cause of near national bankruptcy, while, of course, nationalising the debts of their pals.

Anyone who speaks out against power and privilege is classed as an extremist. If we don't bow to the demands of the wealthiest people, then the UK is not open for business etc etc

Hence people on here, jump up to defend the likes of Green. He's laughing all the way to Lionheart

[sidicks]

deadslow said:

In the modern neo-liberal climate folks seem to be trained to defend the wealthy class/status quo. When the worlds richest people crashed the economies of most western democracies through unbridled greed, the Tory party, press, think tanks etc were quick to move the debate to government overspending as the cause of near national bankruptcy, while, of course, nationalising the debts of their pals.

Anyone who speaks out against power and privilege is classed as an extremist. If we don't bow to the demands of the wealthiest people, then the UK is not open for business etc etc

Hence people on here, jump up to defend the likes of Green. He's laughing all the way to Lionheart

Who has defended Green's actions?

[Eric Mc]

Criticise them then.

[sidicks]

Eric Mc said:

Criticise them then.

That's entirely different.

There has been plenty of criticism - see my comments above about lack of investment in BHS in the past!

[JNW1]

sidicks said:

I thought it had been confirmed that, when the dividends were paid, the pension scheme was in surplus (or minimal deficit)?

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.

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.....