On 25/09/2018 19:09, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 17:17, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 16:46, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 15:00, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote
(in ):


"Redundancy payments to workers who lost their jobs after the collapse
of engineering giant Carillion will cost the taxpayer £65m.

Which will be a similar amount to the profits the management walked away
with, before declaring the company insolvent.



The union Unite said the money only covered former Carillion staff, not
those working for supply firms.

A Freedom of Information request by the union to the Insolvency Service
showed that £50m has already been paid out since Carillion went bust
earlier this year.

Most of the company's 19,000 staff were made redundant so were entitled
to make a claim from the Redundancy Payments Office, said Unite. "

Another Tory success story!

abelard approves.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

Does anyone remember how much the Woolworths bust (to name just one on
Broon's watch) cost the UK Treasury (and taxpayer) in redundancy
payments?

No, but Im sure the directors got out before they had to pay their
creditors.

Wouldnt you do the same?

Directors are not the company. You can be sure that going into
administration with debt of £385,000,000 is not something which happens
without the company's finances and resoiurces being scrupulously
investigated.

A typically dumb reply, as usual.

Really? Please let us have the benefit of your long experience of
company governance and high finance.

Sorry, I did not realise that €œhigh finance€� included racking up debts of
£385 million.

Like I guessed: pocket change to you.

Would it not be true that any directors of company which is in debt to the
tune of £385m have a duty to pay that back to the investors?

No.

Well it should be.

But it isn't.

Directors are employees with particular responsibilities. There is no
necessary connection between the office of director and the overall way
in which a company is managed.

Whatever made you think it even *might* be true? How can a private
individual pay £385,000,000? It might be pocket change to you, but for
most people, including directors of companies...

So why do they get their company in that amount of debt and then just walk
away to start again?

If they did, there would have been an offence or misdemeanour committed
(and there usually hasn't been: some companies go bust because of a
change in market sentiment after a macr-economic change. Pan-Am went
bust in the wake of 21's NYC attack because the demand for flights
suddenly collapsed and they were highly-geared. Others went out of
business in the UK because of Brown's Bust (the thing he'd said he'd
ablished) in the wake of his Crash of 2008.

But to re-emphasise: a director is an employee, not even necessarily
with an equity share in the company.

If you would disqualify a director of a failed company from being a
director again, would you disqualify an electrician employed by the same
company from working as an electrician? If not, why not? The principle
is the same.

After all, they had prior knowledge of the state of the finances at the end.
Or should they just **** off and let the taxpayer pick up the tab?

Do you understand what going bust / into administration / bankrupt
acually means?

Yes.

Then why not make use of your knowledge and take it into account when
discussing the subject of companies going out of business?

Bugger off to the Seychelles and let the taxpayer pick up the tab - is the
capitalist mantra when it all goes belly up.

Yes, and any director who left a company in a state of debt should be banned
for life from any further public payment - of any kind.

Dont you agree ?

I have very good news for you:

But do you agree with my statement?

The one where you advocate punishing people evenwheref they've done
absolutely nothing wrong?

Is it possible to support that and qualify as a reasonable person?

a director found guilty (via due process)
of improper/wrongful trading *can* be disqualified from holding office
as a director, this in addition to the normal range of criminal
sanctions for offences committed as director

But do you agree with my statement.

You will never find me agreeing with any wish to piunish people who have
done nothing wrong (as proven by due process).

Sorry if you find that disappointing.

Have a (quick) look at:
https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/director...offences-compa
nies-act-2006/

But do you agree with my statement?

See above.

You'd have fitted in well with the Office of Public Safety [sic] under
Robespierre.

On 26 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 19:09, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 17:17, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 16:46, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 15:00, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote
(in ):


"Redundancy payments to workers who lost their jobs after the
collapse
of engineering giant Carillion will cost the taxpayer £65m.

Which will be a similar amount to the profits the management walked
away
with, before declaring the company insolvent.



The union Unite said the money only covered former Carillion staff,
not
those working for supply firms.

A Freedom of Information request by the union to the Insolvency
Service
showed that £50m has already been paid out since Carillion went bust
earlier this year.

Most of the company's 19,000 staff were made redundant so were
entitled
to make a claim from the Redundancy Payments Office, said Unite. "

Another Tory success story!

abelard approves.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

Does anyone remember how much the Woolworths bust (to name just one on
Broon's watch) cost the UK Treasury (and taxpayer) in redundancy
payments?

No, but Im sure the directors got out before they had to pay their
creditors.

Wouldnt you do the same?

Directors are not the company. You can be sure that going into
administration with debt of £385,000,000 is not something which happens
without the company's finances and resoiurces being scrupulously
investigated.

A typically dumb reply, as usual.

Really? Please let us have the benefit of your long experience of
company governance and high finance.

Sorry, I did not realise that €œhigh finance€� included racking up debts
of
£385 million.

Like I guessed: pocket change to you.

Would it not be true that any directors of company which is in debt to the
tune of £385m have a duty to pay that back to the investors?

No.

Well it should be.

But it isn't.

Directors are employees with particular responsibilities. There is no
necessary connection between the office of director and the overall way
in which a company is managed.

Whatever made you think it even *might* be true? How can a private
individual pay £385,000,000? It might be pocket change to you, but for
most people, including directors of companies...

So why do they get their company in that amount of debt and then just walk
away to start again?

If they did, there would have been an offence or misdemeanour committed
(and there usually hasn't been: some companies go bust because of a
change in market sentiment after a macr-economic change. Pan-Am went
bust in the wake of 21's NYC attack because the demand for flights
suddenly collapsed and they were highly-geared. Others went out of
business in the UK because of Brown's Bust (the thing he'd said he'd
ablished) in the wake of his Crash of 2008.

But to re-emphasise: a director is an employee, not even necessarily
with an equity share in the company.

If you would disqualify a director of a failed company from being a
director again, would you disqualify an electrician employed by the same
company from working as an electrician?

I would if his wiring resulted in customers being electrocuted.

If not, why not? The principle
is the same.

After all, they had prior knowledge of the state of the finances at the
end.
Or should they just **** off and let the taxpayer pick up the tab?

Do you understand what going bust / into administration / bankrupt
acually means?

Yes.

Then why not make use of your knowledge and take it into account when
discussing the subject of companies going out of business?

Bugger off to the Seychelles and let the taxpayer pick up the tab - is
the
capitalist mantra when it all goes belly up.

Yes, and any director who left a company in a state of debt should be
banned
for life from any further public payment - of any kind.

Dont you agree ?

I have very good news for you:

But do you agree with my statement?

The one where you advocate punishing people evenwheref they've done
absolutely nothing wrong?

Is it possible to support that and qualify as a reasonable person?

a director found guilty (via due process)
of improper/wrongful trading *can* be disqualified from holding office
as a director, this in addition to the normal range of criminal
sanctions for offences committed as director

But do you agree with my statement.

You will never find me agreeing with any wish to piunish people who have
done nothing wrong (as proven by due process).

Sorry if you find that disappointing.

Have a (quick) look at:
https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/director...al-offences-co
mpa
nies-act-2006/

But do you agree with my statement?

See above.

You'd have fitted in well with the Office of Public Safety [sic] under
Robespierre.

On 26/09/2018 12:00, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 26 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 19:09, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 17:17, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 16:46, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, JNugent wrote
(in article ):

On 25/09/2018 15:00, Fruitiest of Fruitcakes wrote:
On 25 Sep 2018, p-0''0-h the cat (coder) wrote
(in ):


"Redundancy payments to workers who lost their jobs after the
collapse
of engineering giant Carillion will cost the taxpayer £65m.

Which will be a similar amount to the profits the management walked
away
with, before declaring the company insolvent.



The union Unite said the money only covered former Carillion staff,
not
those working for supply firms.

A Freedom of Information request by the union to the Insolvency
Service
showed that £50m has already been paid out since Carillion went bust
earlier this year.

Most of the company's 19,000 staff were made redundant so were
entitled
to make a claim from the Redundancy Payments Office, said Unite. "

Another Tory success story!

abelard approves.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.

Does anyone remember how much the Woolworths bust (to name just one on
Broon's watch) cost the UK Treasury (and taxpayer) in redundancy
payments?

No, but Im sure the directors got out before they had to pay their
creditors.

Wouldnt you do the same?

Directors are not the company. You can be sure that going into
administration with debt of £385,000,000 is not something which happens
without the company's finances and resoiurces being scrupulously
investigated.

A typically dumb reply, as usual.

Really? Please let us have the benefit of your long experience of
company governance and high finance.

Sorry, I did not realise that €œhigh finance€� included racking up debts
of
£385 million.

Like I guessed: pocket change to you.

Would it not be true that any directors of company which is in debt to the
tune of £385m have a duty to pay that back to the investors?

No.

Well it should be.

But it isn't.

Directors are employees with particular responsibilities. There is no
necessary connection between the office of director and the overall way
in which a company is managed.

Whatever made you think it even *might* be true? How can a private
individual pay £385,000,000? It might be pocket change to you, but for
most people, including directors of companies...

So why do they get their company in that amount of debt and then just walk
away to start again?

If they did, there would have been an offence or misdemeanour committed
(and there usually hasn't been: some companies go bust because of a
change in market sentiment after a macr-economic change. Pan-Am went
bust in the wake of 21's NYC attack because the demand for flights
suddenly collapsed and they were highly-geared. Others went out of
business in the UK because of Brown's Bust (the thing he'd said he'd
ablished) in the wake of his Crash of 2008.

But to re-emphasise: a director is an employee, not even necessarily
with an equity share in the company.

If you would disqualify a director of a failed company from being a
director again, would you disqualify an electrician employed by the same
company from working as an electrician?

I would if his wiring resulted in customers being electrocuted.

Would you?

If not, why not? The principle is the same.

After all, they had prior knowledge of the state of the finances at the
end.
Or should they just **** off and let the taxpayer pick up the tab?

Do you understand what going bust / into administration / bankrupt
acually means?

Yes.

Then why not make use of your knowledge and take it into account when
discussing the subject of companies going out of business?

Bugger off to the Seychelles and let the taxpayer pick up the tab - is
the
capitalist mantra when it all goes belly up.

Yes, and any director who left a company in a state of debt should be
banned
for life from any further public payment - of any kind.

Dont you agree ?

I have very good news for you:

But do you agree with my statement?

The one where you advocate punishing people evenwheref they've done
absolutely nothing wrong?

Is it possible to support that and qualify as a reasonable person?

a director found guilty (via due process)
of improper/wrongful trading *can* be disqualified from holding office
as a director, this in addition to the normal range of criminal
sanctions for offences committed as director

But do you agree with my statement.

You will never find me agreeing with any wish to piunish people who have
done nothing wrong (as proven by due process).

Sorry if you find that disappointing.

Have a (quick) look at:
https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/director...al-offences-co
mpa
nies-act-2006/

But do you agree with my statement?

See above.

You'd have fitted in well with the Office of Public Safety [sic] under
Robespierre.