This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Philip Green
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 25 Jul 16 6.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Control of pension schemes should be completely removed from the employer. If your job has a pension scheme it should be in control of the employee and ringfenced so that funds can only be added to it. BHS, Tata and all the others swanning off and expecting the government to cover the lack of pension funds is ridiculous. You must wonder what the Scheme Trustees were doing at this time.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
jamiemartin721  Reading 25 Jul 16 6.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
You must wonder what the Scheme Trustees were doing at this time. My imagination turns towards such things as complicity and self interest that borders on criminality
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 25 Jul 16 7.54pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Green et al have been ripped apart in this report...
Compare the news coverage of this proven scandal with the news coverage of alleged but unevidenced practices by Corbyn's supporters. Green should do time for this but he won't. Do time for what, exactly? What he's done, whilst being ethically questionable, isn't illegal. As matters stand, living in a corporate moral vacuum isn't yet criminal.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 leifandersonshair  Newport 25 Jul 16 9.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
You must wonder what the Scheme Trustees were doing at this time. I work in pensions. Scheme Trustees can often be fairly clueless, and will go along with whatever the advisers (legal, actuarial or consultants) 'suggest' they do. The advisors are professionals. Most Trustees, especially MNT's, are not.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 25 Jul 16 9.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Do time for what, exactly? What he's done, whilst being ethically questionable, isn't illegal. As matters stand, living in a corporate moral vacuum isn't yet criminal. That's exactly what I was alluding to...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 25 Jul 16 9.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by leifandersonshair
I work in pensions. Scheme Trustees can often be fairly clueless, and will go along with whatever the advisers (legal, actuarial or consultants) 'suggest' they do. The advisors are professionals. Most Trustees, especially MNT's, are not. They would be responsible under s61 of the Trustee Act 1925, let alone any recent legislation. They are normally treated as per se Professionals as they have recourse to the advice you mention and the ability to sue advisors. I would assume that the £571mn is a deficit that the Scheme Actuary flagged, and that there was a deficit plan in place. The problem with numbers, so large, as pension schemes; stumping up half a billion cash would put even the bigger advisor companies into "trouble". *From the press, the pension industry have already fallen in line behind the Trustees.* Edited by pefwin (25 Jul 2016 9.47pm)
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| MKGlazier Milton Keynes 25 Jul 16 9.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
When you have that much money, you feel you can do what you like! Green has always evaded tax in UK by using his wife's companies ! Chappel was a good patsy for him, ego with no business sense.......At the conclusion he will probably get away with it scotfree, with a s*** reputation but millions in the bank !!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leifandersonshair Newport 26 Jul 16 8.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
They would be responsible under s61 of the Trustee Act 1925, let alone any recent legislation. They are normally treated as per se Professionals as they have recourse to the advice you mention and the ability to sue advisors. I would assume that the £571mn is a deficit that the Scheme Actuary flagged, and that there was a deficit plan in place. The problem with numbers, so large, as pension schemes; stumping up half a billion cash would put even the bigger advisor companies into "trouble". *From the press, the pension industry have already fallen in line behind the Trustees.* Edited by pefwin (25 Jul 2016 9.47pm) The Trustees were apparently unhappy with the sale to Chappell anyway due to the position it put the Scheme in. Now it's up to Green how much value he puts on that Knighthood. If he doesn't pay up, the PPF ie the taxpayer (as the Levy I think covers around 20% of liabilities)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Johnny Eagles  berlin 26 Jul 16 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
I don't want to defend Philip Green, but the way the politico-media class has lined up to bash him makes me suspect that there is a bit of scapegoating going on here. The politicians spewing out humbug on an industrial scale particulary sticks in the craw. Your average ex-SpAd, safe-seat careerist MP has probably never been in BHS, and almost certainly hasn't given a second thought to its employees until the day before yesterday. But now it's all about the poor "loyal, hardworking" employees and evil Philip Green is to blame. News flash: if you want to boast about an "open, global, trading economy" you can't also claim to want to protect employees. You can't have it both ways. Pouring out a load of humbug to avoid a short-term media barrage is a bit rich, too little and too late.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 26 Jul 16 11.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Johnny Eagles
I don't want to defend Philip Green, but the way the politico-media class has lined up to bash him makes me suspect that there is a bit of scapegoating going on here. The politicians spewing out humbug on an industrial scale particulary sticks in the craw. Your average ex-SpAd, safe-seat careerist MP has probably never been in BHS, and almost certainly hasn't given a second thought to its employees until the day before yesterday. But now it's all about the poor "loyal, hardworking" employees and evil Philip Green is to blame. Your post doesn't really make a lot of sense and it reads more like a rant without anything concrete to back it up. I certainly have an opinion on Phillip Green's behaviour and I don't shop in BHS either and I have certainly never given their staff any more thought than I give employees of other companies in general.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 26 Jul 16 11.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Johnny Eagles
I don't want to defend Philip Green, but the way the politico-media class has lined up to bash him makes me suspect that there is a bit of scapegoating going on here. The politicians spewing out humbug on an industrial scale particulary sticks in the craw. Your average ex-SpAd, safe-seat careerist MP has probably never been in BHS, and almost certainly hasn't given a second thought to its employees until the day before yesterday. But now it's all about the poor "loyal, hardworking" employees and evil Philip Green is to blame. News flash: if you want to boast about an "open, global, trading economy" you can't also claim to want to protect employees. You can't have it both ways. Pouring out a load of humbug to avoid a short-term media barrage is a bit rich, too little and too late. very true.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 26 Jul 16 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
Do time for what, exactly? What he's done, whilst being ethically questionable, isn't illegal. As matters stand, living in a corporate moral vacuum isn't yet criminal. Quite, but it may give the lawmakers an indication of what parts of corporate law need to be tightened up. I see that "The unacceptable face of capitalism" is being trotted out again and it's quite a few years since I heard that expression which I believe was coined by Prime Minister Edward Heath about another corporate rapist Tiny Rowland
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterAll images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.