Sir Philip Green vs Select committee

[Countdown]

sidicks said:

Countdown said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Businessman bought business, could not turn it profitable, still took out £500m in dividends, it failed, he managed to offload it to another shyster in the vain hope of avoiding fallout from the st hitting the fan, and left behind a massive unfunded pension debt : shocker.

FTFY

Dividends were paid from profits, Pension fund deficit was caused by falling interest rates.

HTH

Fair point - apologies as I had assumed he'd done a bit of asset stripping

Still think he's a shyster who realised the fit was about to hit the shan and did a runner...

[Randy Winkman]

Derek Smith said:

There seems to be the suggestion that if a person has not broken a law then everything is OK. I'm not sure civil court lawyers will fully endorse that point of view.

And I'm not sure the Philip Green critics in this thread have ever been going on about the law anyway. It's the defenders that keep bringing up the fact that he hasn't broken the law. Not sure why.

[sidicks]

Randy Winkman said:

And I'm not sure the Philip Green critics in this thread have ever been going on about the law anyway. It's the defenders that keep bringing up the fact that he hasn't broken the law. Not sure why.

When people make silly comparisons with shoplifting etc then it's right to point out how silly those comparisons are.

[avinalarf]

stuttgartmetal said:

Everyone bought their pants at MandS forty years ago
Regarding Primark, don't confuse comparison with quality
MandS are top quality and Primark don't compare to MandS on the same level
They still produce a quality product

A friend highlighted to me that a bic biro compared to a Parker was still quality.
The comparison is irrelevant
Bic crystal biros do everything yo want them to, and do it well
Parker are better, but that's comparison.

Primark moved into the market previously championed by MandS
If you look far back enough.

Sorry to disagree with you on this subject.
M&S were a company that dealt on their strong Brand recognition.
Their customer understood that Brand to offer quality at an affordable price.
Primark has created a strong brand offering ,quick turn around ,budget priced ,throwaway fashion.
Quite happy to extrapolate if you wish and also what I'd do if I was CEO of M&S.
But taking my wife out for a meal,be back around 10pm.

[stuttgartmetal]

In the south of France myself, and just about to go to dinner with my wife also.
Won't be in any fit state on return.
Au voir

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

When people make silly comparisons with shoplifting etc then it's right to point out how silly those comparisons are.

Now you get onto my specialty - criminal law.

Want an argument about shoplifting? I've got plenty. So before you start suggesting that the comparison between Green and shoplifters is silly, get your evidence.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

Now you get onto my specialty - criminal law.

Want an argument about shoplifting? I've got plenty. So before you start suggesting that the comparison between Green and shoplifters is silly, get your evidence.

As demonstrated on numerous occasions, your speciality is most certainly NOT pensions, so you're not well placed to judge whether criminality has taken place here.
I don't believe you have any expertise in accounting practice either, so again the comparison appears misplaced.

Given you are the one making the claims / comparisons, perhaps it is you who should "get your evidence"...?!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 18th August 18:56

[Derek Smith]

Randy Winkman said:

Derek Smith said:

There seems to be the suggestion that if a person has not broken a law then everything is OK. I'm not sure civil court lawyers will fully endorse that point of view.

And I'm not sure the Philip Green critics in this thread have ever been going on about the law anyway. It's the defenders that keep bringing up the fact that he hasn't broken the law. Not sure why.

That's my point. Sorry to be vague. They suggest he hasn't broken any law so therefore has acted immaculately.

It opens a number of questions, many of which have been answered over the years, but not acted upon.

I know of a case of fraud in the City, it was reported in the Eye but no other paper, that was pulled because there were insufficient funds to pursue it. From what I've been able to garner this case was only unique in the sense that it somehow found its way into the public domain. The suggestion was that it was pulled because if they went further, there would be too many offenders. Others suggested that it was pulled because it was going too high. Whatever, it was pulled. Everyone got paid out, so, the theory went, no one lost anything. One assumes the funding came from the same magic money tree lots of PH posters suggest the labour party has.

Thew police service is not targeted proportionately. If they picked jobs on the amount of money involved there would be 90% of the police in this country in the City or going through the accounts of banks. Businesses would come a poor second, but still up there.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

That's my point. Sorry to be vague. They suggest he hasn't broken any law so therefore has acted immaculately.

Absolute straw man nonsense - when has anyone suggested such a thing??

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

As demonstrated on numerous occasions, your speciality is most certainly NOT pensions, so you're not well placed to judge whether criminality has taken place here.
I don't believe you have any expertise in accounting practice either, so again the comparison appears misplaced.

Given you are the one making the claims / comparisons, perhaps it is you who should "get your evidence"...?!

Edited by sidicks on Thursday 18th August 18:56

Yep, I know nothing little pensions, despite being ripped off. I know that the person who ripped me off probably acted outside the law but as there is no evidence cannot be prosecuted. I know that if the case went to civil court, my union probably would have won, won here meaning being awarded a little money, certainly less that the case would cost them, and the bloke with my pension money would probably claim he is a pauper and not pay anyway. I know that about pensions. I know about courts.

Just to make it clear:

I have not suggested that Green has acted in any way which can be classed as criminal. Got that? I am not suggesting that he's committed any crime. I am suggesting he might well have done something which might be actionable. I am suggesting that it doesn't matter because those who have lost money are the last people who could afford to challenge a billionaire, especially if he wanders around on one of his multi million pound yachts. He's got three I believe.

In fact I agree with an earlier poster who said something like: Green has done nothing wrong, BHS was going to the wall regardless of how much money he transferred to his wife.

What I have intimated is that Green's conduct has cost people lots and lots of money. It has cost them pensions. Many would have made plans that are now dust. I am suggesting that the impact on the pensioners is considerably greater, much greater in fact, that individual shoplifters were on him. He's managed to remain a billionaire despite the loss of all that theft by individuals.

So have a go at me by all means, it's what you do so often, but an occasional concentration on a post rather than me might make a nice change.

The odd thing is that the experience of the corruption in the handling of my pension made me take a step that although initially costing me a great deal of money, at least ensured that I would be paid a pension. Even odder is that many people have criticised me on here for taking a pay cut, paying a high % of my, albeit low, income to ensure that my dotage is more or less comfortable.

Just as well. I might have got a job with BHS.

[sidicks]

Derek Smith said:

Yep, I know nothing little pensions, despite being ripped off. I know that the person who ripped me off probably acted outside the law but as there is no evidence cannot be prosecuted. I know that if the case went to civil court, my union probably would have won, won here meaning being awarded a little money, certainly less that the case would cost them, and the bloke with my pension money would probably claim he is a pauper and not pay anyway. I know that about pensions. I know about courts.

A nice story, but none of which is even vaguely related to the topic under discussion

Derek Smith said:

Just to make it clear:
I have not suggested that Green has acted in any way which can be classed as criminal. Got that?

And yet you still continue to compare his actions against blatant criminal behaviour - why would you do that?

Derek Smith said:

I am not suggesting that he's committed any crime. I am suggesting he might well have done something which might be actionable.

On what basis are you making that claim?

Derek Smith said:

I am suggesting that it doesn't matter because those who have lost money are the last people who could afford to challenge a billionaire, especially if he wanders around on one of his multi million pound yachts. He's got three I believe.

In fact I agree with an earlier poster who said something like: Green has done nothing wrong, BHS was going to the wall regardless of how much money he transferred to his wife.

What I have intimated is that Green's conduct has cost people lots and lots of money. It has cost them pensions. Many would have made plans that are now dust. I am suggesting that the impact on the pensioners is considerably greater, much greater in fact, that individual shoplifters were on him. He's managed to remain a billionaire despite the loss of all that theft by individuals.

So have a go at me by all means, it's what you do so often, but an occasional concentration on a post rather than me might make a nice change.

Perhaps you might like to concentrate on the evidence for a nice change?

Derek Smith said:

The odd thing is that the experience of the corruption in the handling of my pension made me take a step that although initially costing me a great deal of money, at least ensured that I would be paid a pension. Even odder is that many people have criticised me on here for taking a pay cut, paying a high % of my, albeit low, income to ensure that my dotage is more or less comfortable.

Who has done this, or is this just another straw man?

[Randy Winkman]

Derek Smith said:

That's my point. Sorry to be vague. They suggest he hasn't broken any law so therefore has acted immaculately.

No need to apologise, I was agreeing with you. I should have added a nodding head thing.

[scenario8]

stuttgartmetal said:

In the south of France myself, and just about to go to dinner with my wife also.
Won't be in any fit state on return.
Au voir

You said that two hours ago. Different wife? Dinner then supper? I feel we should be told!

[stuttgartmetal]

How these double spsots occup I'll never no

[sidicks]

scenario8 said:

stuttgartmetal said:

In the south of France myself, and just about to go to dinner with my wife also.
Won't be in any fit state on return.
Au voir

You said that two hours ago. Different wife? Dinner then supper? I feel we should be told!

Are you confusing the post above with this post:

avinalarf said:

But taking my wife out for a meal,be back around 10pm.

??

[scenario8]

sidicks said:

scenario8 said:

stuttgartmetal said:

In the south of France myself, and just about to go to dinner with my wife also.
Won't be in any fit state on return.
Au voir

You said that two hours ago. Different wife? Dinner then supper? I feel we should be told!

Are you confusing the post above with this post:

avinalarf said:

But taking my wife out for a meal,be back around 10pm.

??

Nope. 'Twas 1854 (I think) and has disappeared into the ether. No matter. It just tickled me.

[avinalarf]

scenario8 said:

sidicks said:

scenario8 said:

stuttgartmetal said:

In the south of France myself, and just about to go to dinner with my wife also.
Won't be in any fit state on return.
Au voir

You said that two hours ago. Different wife? Dinner then supper? I feel we should be told!

Are you confusing the post above with this post:

avinalarf said:

But taking my wife out for a meal,be back around 10pm.

??

Nope. 'Twas 1854 (I think) and has disappeared into the ether. No matter. It just tickled me.

There I was ,just having a chat with GermanHeavyMetal ,when I posed a question,to him.
Then I realised that I would be taking my wife out fo dine.
So I informed GHM,so as not to appear dismissive if he commented on my post,and I did not reply in a timely manner.
Are you keeping up there....at the back.
Anyway GHM then reposted....I'm in the S of F ,also going out for din dins but when I get back I'll be well pissed.

[avinalarf]

Further to my post above and as a light hearted bit of info....
I took my wife to the Wong Kei an establishment in Chinatown in London and one which we often frequent.
To our dismay and consternation it was closed.
On the door was a missive from the apposite authority that the restaurant was forced to close because there was evidence of an infestation of cockroaches and other undesirable objects.
So went to another restaurant in Chinatown.
A similar meal was ordered,a bowl of duck noodle soup.
I inform you that it was not as tasty as the one in the Wong Kei.
My conclusion is that the cockroaches and mouse droppings are vital components for a tasty meal when dining in Chinatown.

[Jockman]

Did you go to the Dog & Duck for a beer?

[Halb]

avinalarf said:

He could still have had a good piece of cake and eaten it if he hadn't been so greedy.

I think that's the underlying psychological issue with a lot, in his position, in this culture of greed. A good slice is never enough, they want it all, to the exclusion of almost everybody else.