Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?
Discussion
sidicks said:
Eric Mc said:
We are obviously talking cross purposes here. That's EXACTLY what I said,.
But, was it CRIMINAL? Did he break any laws at that time?
Was stealing a criminal offence in the 1980s.But, was it CRIMINAL? Did he break any laws at that time?
Tricky one that. Try google.
The point I am making is that Maxwell is now considered to have behaved abysmally because of what he did - but he actually didn't (as far as we know) break the law.
Green PERHAPS is in the same position today - but the laws are much tighter and you need to be far cleverer to skirt around them.
(And I would like it if you didn't impugn my professional capabilities on a public forum, thank you very much).
Eric Mc said:
I am pretty sure that what Maxwell did at that time was NOT against the rules as they existed back then. Indeed, much of the modern legislation regarding the protections surrounding pension funds arose because of what Maxwell had been up to.
The point I am making is that Maxwell is now considered to have behaved abysmally because of what he did - but he actually didn't (as far as we know) break the law.
I believe you are wrong - he perpetuated a massive fraud.The point I am making is that Maxwell is now considered to have behaved abysmally because of what he did - but he actually didn't (as far as we know) break the law.
Eric Mc said:
Green PERHAPS is in the same position today - but the laws are much tighter and you need to be far cleverer to skirt around them.
What Green has or has not done to the pension scheme is (as far as we are aware) not even remotely similar to what Maxwell did. Indeed, as far as the pension scheme is concerned, I am not aware of him doing anything wrong, are you?Eric Mc said:
(And I would like it if you didn't impugn my professional capabilities on a public forum, thank you very much).
I'm only questioning based on the comments you've made...Maxwell was a crook, he took over £400m out of the pension scheme.
Green? At best he could be accused of taking poor advice, at worst he failed to forsee that rates would drop further (he wasn't alone in that) and as a consequence the value of BHSs' fund would fall.
His actions in selling BHS suggest he knew the writing was on the wall, but should a businessman be castigated for selling an ailing business? How long should be remain liable for the employees and pensioners of that business?
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. He's very wealthy so one could argue he can afford to bail out the fund to an extent, but then what happens if in 5 years another Arcadia brand goes down, will he be liable then? Will he be liable until all his money has gone?
Green? At best he could be accused of taking poor advice, at worst he failed to forsee that rates would drop further (he wasn't alone in that) and as a consequence the value of BHSs' fund would fall.
His actions in selling BHS suggest he knew the writing was on the wall, but should a businessman be castigated for selling an ailing business? How long should be remain liable for the employees and pensioners of that business?
I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. He's very wealthy so one could argue he can afford to bail out the fund to an extent, but then what happens if in 5 years another Arcadia brand goes down, will he be liable then? Will he be liable until all his money has gone?
t, he looks like Peter Stringfellow fHe reminds me of Richard Bacon.
The media decided to take him down for doing recreational drugs. Drugs are clearly rife in the entertainment industry, and I daresay in Fleet Street too, but they chose him, and you have to wonder why.
Surely Green is just one of many people doing similar things, but clearly upset the wrong people so has been chosen to be the scapegoat.
The media decided to take him down for doing recreational drugs. Drugs are clearly rife in the entertainment industry, and I daresay in Fleet Street too, but they chose him, and you have to wonder why.
Surely Green is just one of many people doing similar things, but clearly upset the wrong people so has been chosen to be the scapegoat.
Eric Mc said:
I would like it if you didn't impugn my professional capabilities on a public forum.
So it's ok for you to call someone a crook without any evidence that any crime has been committed but it's wrong for someone to question whether you know much about the finance industry when you appear to not have a full grasp of facts/law?sidicks said:
CaptainSlow said:
That isn't being denied. The question is if any laws were broken bearing in mind the legislation was far weaker at the time.
You don't think that fraud was a crime?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff