FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Rishi family gets furlough cash
Rishi family gets furlough cash
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? " Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis." Surely she has paid income tax? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis." So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis." Not disagreeing, but you say she's director of the holding company and not the company in question? Regardless of politics, I'm sure that this wasn't topmost in the mind of the Chancellor in deciding to set up the scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. Surely she has paid income tax?" Remains to be seen actually. The article says Rishi has failed to disclose (register of members interests) at least two of her directorships of other companies. Not a big stretch that based on that track record, her tax affairs will be similarly murky. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up." ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested " Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ " They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. Surely she has paid income tax? Remains to be seen actually. The article says Rishi has failed to disclose (register of members interests) at least two of her directorships of other companies. Not a big stretch that based on that track record, her tax affairs will be similarly murky." We don't know her tax status | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. " I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. Surely she has paid income tax? Remains to be seen actually. The article says Rishi has failed to disclose (register of members interests) at least two of her directorships of other companies. Not a big stretch that based on that track record, her tax affairs will be similarly murky. We don't know her tax status" Which isn’t good enough for the wife of the chancellor. It should all be above board and clear as crystal. Reality now is that journalists will be pouring over their affairs this week and I expect a Sunday Times article in the next week or two. Bet you a tenner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. " Let's just cancel the furlough program and have everyone pay back all the money they received. That will stop them Tories getting money they don't deserve | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. " ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. " Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. " Really I thought he only became chancellor 8 months ago  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.”" Nope, “a source close to Sunak” (ie Sunak) said he did this, the cabinet office is only saying that they are (now) aware of his interests. Always look at what is not being said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.” Nope, “a source close to Sunak” (ie Sunak) said he did this, the cabinet office is only saying that they are (now) aware of his interests. Always look at what is not being said." A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘The Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests has confirmed that he is completely satisfied with the propriety of arrangements and that appropriate measures have been put in place where necessary to avoid any conflict of interest.’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. " Who are we to decide which business is entitled to receive furlough based on the services they provide. Your example robes for Eton is part of their uniform, I’m sure my school uniform supplier claimed furlough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.”" Let's be honest that has as much worth as the government saying due diligence has been carried out in awarding multi million pound contracts to companies such as pest control, confectionery and financial services for PPE earlier this year.. Companies with no previous experience of this and some with links to Tory MPs and associates.. And some of the PPE was substandard.. So whilst I see this thread as probably another mail hatchet job for their usual reasons that any guarantees from this government are worthy I take with a pinch of salt.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.” Nope, “a source close to Sunak” (ie Sunak) said he did this, the cabinet office is only saying that they are (now) aware of his interests. Always look at what is not being said. A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘The Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests has confirmed that he is completely satisfied with the propriety of arrangements and that appropriate measures have been put in place where necessary to avoid any conflict of interest.’ " The Permanent Secretary’s office is satisfied. Now. As in today. They wish that Sunak had told them his interests when he became Chief Secretary and then Chancellor, which he didn’t. They were NOT on the public record. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His wife is from a billionaire family. I’m not saying this is the biggest scandal ever, doesn’t even surprise me tbh. Why attempt to keep it secret, was bound to come out eventually. “Rishi Sunak faced questions last night over his failure to publicly declare the fact that his wife is a director of a luxury clothing store which received money under the Treasury’s multi-billion-pound furlough scheme.” “A new biography of the Chancellor reveals that his wife, Akshata, is the director of the holding company for New & Lingwood, an official outfitter to Eton which offers items such as £2,750 silk dressing gowns.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900911/Rishi-Sunak-failed-publicly-declare-wifes-clothing-firm-received-furlough-cash.html" The daily mail claims every year we are going to have ridiculously large weather bombs and snow the depth of oceans  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.” Let's be honest that has as much worth as the government saying due diligence has been carried out in awarding multi million pound contracts to companies such as pest control, confectionery and financial services for PPE earlier this year.. Companies with no previous experience of this and some with links to Tory MPs and associates.. And some of the PPE was substandard.. So whilst I see this thread as probably another mail hatchet job for their usual reasons that any guarantees from this government are worthy I take with a pinch of salt.." Yep, about half a billion pounds of PPE contracts to Tory donors up to October, much of it not competitively tendered, for example “a £156.3 million deal with P14 Medical” https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/half-a-billion-pounds-in-ppe-contracts-has-been-handed-to-tory-donors/27/10/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ They became aware a year after the event of his becoming chancellor. And not necessarily by him even telling them. ” A Treasury source said that when Mr Sunak was appointed as Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2019, he held a meeting with the department’s head of propriety and ethics to ensure everything that needed to be declared was declared.” Let's be honest that has as much worth as the government saying due diligence has been carried out in awarding multi million pound contracts to companies such as pest control, confectionery and financial services for PPE earlier this year.. Companies with no previous experience of this and some with links to Tory MPs and associates.. And some of the PPE was substandard.. So whilst I see this thread as probably another mail hatchet job for their usual reasons that any guarantees from this government are worthy I take with a pinch of salt.. Yep, about half a billion pounds of PPE contracts to Tory donors up to October, much of it not competitively tendered, for example “a £156.3 million deal with P14 Medical” https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/half-a-billion-pounds-in-ppe-contracts-has-been-handed-to-tory-donors/27/10/" And they are now being dragged through the courts to be open and transparent about such things.. Mistakes made in a crisis, incompetence or plain old corruption.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. " He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 words come to mind chip on shoulder wether it be because they are tories or rich i am not sure but no matter what people have said to you that makes it clear you are making something of a non issue you are like a dog with a bone "Summoning Lionel into this thread. Come on Lionel help me out here. People can’t see the problem  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 words come to mind chip on shoulder wether it be because they are tories or rich i am not sure but no matter what people have said to you that makes it clear you are making something of a non issue you are like a dog with a bone
Summoning Lionel into this thread.
Come on Lionel help me out here.
People can’t see the problem "Lionel is sleeping off a hangover after celebrating Liverpool's win yesterday  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " No, its not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 words come to mind chip on shoulder wether it be because they are tories or rich i am not sure but no matter what people have said to you that makes it clear you are making something of a non issue you are like a dog with a bone "No chip on shoulder here. Me, Chris, am dead posh actually. Can use a knife and fork properly, white wine with fish, my butler is preparing my mid morning Bellini. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. " It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " Did she benefit or did the workers? I understood it to be for the employee. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His wife is from a billionaire family. I’m not saying this is the biggest scandal ever, doesn’t even surprise me tbh. Why attempt to keep it secret, was bound to come out eventually. “Rishi Sunak faced questions last night over his failure to publicly declare the fact that his wife is a director of a luxury clothing store which received money under the Treasury’s multi-billion-pound furlough scheme.” “A new biography of the Chancellor reveals that his wife, Akshata, is the director of the holding company for New & Lingwood, an official outfitter to Eton which offers items such as £2,750 silk dressing gowns.” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900911/Rishi-Sunak-failed-publicly-declare-wifes-clothing-firm-received-furlough-cash.html" A good reason to not make a noise about it is because petty minded jealous people try to make something of nothing. The furlough rule is not based on position or individual wealth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. Did she benefit or did the workers? I understood it to be for the employee." Again, it remains to be seen. Journalists will now be looking at this in the next couple of weeks to see if the business (s) traded normally, which employees were genuinely furloughed, whether the business was sustainable before Covid (the Chancellor agrees on this by the way) etc and therefore whether the companies directors have benefitted personally in a way they wouldn’t have done without the scheme. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. " That’s disgraceful, thought he was stopping that in April but did the club sale not go through? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ " Course they have Been totally independent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. " When football club's applied for it they were hammered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. " Cynical about a corrupt lying gmnt? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"3 words come to mind chip on shoulder wether it be because they are tories or rich i am not sure but no matter what people have said to you that makes it clear you are making something of a non issue you are like a dog with a bone
Summoning Lionel into this thread.
Come on Lionel help me out here.
People can’t see the problem
Lionel is sleeping off a hangover after celebrating Liverpool's win yesterday " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. When football club's applied for it they were hammered. " It didn't stop Mike Ashley at Newcastle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. That’s disgraceful, thought he was stopping that in April but did the club sale not go through? " He carried it through until the football started up again. Then he made 70 redundant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " Oh ffs...it's not as if he cooked it all up just so she could benefit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. When football club's applied for it they were hammered. It didn't stop Mike Ashley at Newcastle. " Its not really the point though is it? Lpool and spurs did it and backed down after the backlash..Ashley is obviously more stubborn.. as you should know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. When football club's applied for it they were hammered. It didn't stop Mike Ashley at Newcastle. Its not really the point though is it? Lpool and spurs did it and backed down after the backlash..Ashley is obviously more stubborn.. as you should know "More greedy . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. Cynical about a corrupt lying gmnt?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. That’s disgraceful, thought he was stopping that in April but did the club sale not go through? He carried it through until the football started up again. Then he made 70 redundant." He is one piece of work..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. That’s disgraceful, thought he was stopping that in April but did the club sale not go through? He carried it through until the football started up again. Then he made 70 redundant. He is one piece of work.. "But still people don't understand why we want him out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak." They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. I think we have to leave views about class etc aside. All businesses are eligible. It's just being equitable. It's also cheaper for the taxpayer to administer the scheme this way. Costs go up hugely when you introduce means testing or any other form of differentiation. Nothing to do with class. Some premiership football clubs attempted to claim the cash before realising that the public weren’t going to accept it. It didn't stop Mike Ashley doing it all the way through with Newcastle. That’s disgraceful, thought he was stopping that in April but did the club sale not go through? He carried it through until the football started up again. Then he made 70 redundant. He is one piece of work..
But still people don't understand why we want him out."Agreed, he's always been iffy even before this pandemic.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " Yes, if that was the case. But it's not, is it? The furlough scheme was set up for all businesses. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak. They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.." I’m sure there’s an element of that, yes, although the Mail also has a very sympathetic piece today about how hard Rishi is working lol. I’d have preferred not to quote the Mail as a source, unfortunately they were the ones to break the story. The Times did a similar piece about another of her companies in May however. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. Yes, if that was the case. But it's not, is it? The furlough scheme was set up for all businesses." So why didnt lpool and spurs take it up then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak. They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.. I’m sure there’s an element of that, yes, although the Mail also has a very sympathetic piece today about how hard Rishi is working lol. I’d have preferred not to quote the Mail as a source, unfortunately they were the ones to break the story. The Times did a similar piece about another of her companies in May however." You do know the penance for quoting the mail is to listen to Michael Goves top ten interviews three times a day till lockdown starts.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak. They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.. I’m sure there’s an element of that, yes, although the Mail also has a very sympathetic piece today about how hard Rishi is working lol. I’d have preferred not to quote the Mail as a source, unfortunately they were the ones to break the story. The Times did a similar piece about another of her companies in May however." I think it's right to investigate what you're saying. And business ethics is important too. But it would be wrong to suggest in any way that the furlough scheme was designed to benefit his wife specifically. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. Yes, if that was the case. But it's not, is it? The furlough scheme was set up for all businesses." It was done in secret  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak. They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.. I’m sure there’s an element of that, yes, although the Mail also has a very sympathetic piece today about how hard Rishi is working lol. I’d have preferred not to quote the Mail as a source, unfortunately they were the ones to break the story. The Times did a similar piece about another of her companies in May however. You do know the penance for quoting the mail is to listen to Michael Goves top ten interviews three times a day till lockdown starts.. "There’s only one Gove interview that counts: https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/michael-gove-driving-eyesight-cummings-baranard/ The most absurd political defence I have ever heard. I could listen to it all day lol. I often think to myself, however bad my job gets, at least I will never be forced to do something so utterly humiliating and insincere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it." According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Talk about trying to make something out of nothing ... I’d take your axe somewhere else there’s no grindstone here " The story was in a national newspaper. Who are you to decide what is important and what is not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Talk about trying to make something out of nothing ... I’d take your axe somewhere else there’s no grindstone here The story was in a national newspaper. Who are you to decide what is important and what is not? " Oh it was in a national news paper ... well that changes everything we all know how they are the bastion of fact and truth .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Talk about trying to make something out of nothing ... I’d take your axe somewhere else there’s no grindstone here The story was in a national newspaper. Who are you to decide what is important and what is not? Oh it was in a national news paper ... well that changes everything we all know how they are the bastion of fact and truth ...." So we should just ignore every single story in the papers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"More you should read around the story ... get more than the myopic view of a given outlet with their own agenda to push. " What agenda? They are normally so far up boris's arse they could pass for pinocchio. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it. According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. " That's a different issue but furlough is to protect workers more than employers and has done, yes some have abused it Which will always happen unfortunately I can't see the new scheme protecting jobs though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. Surely she has paid income tax? Remains to be seen actually. The article says Rishi has failed to disclose (register of members interests) at least two of her directorships of other companies. Not a big stretch that based on that track record, her tax affairs will be similarly murky." Tax affairs of anyone rich are murky , tax is designed to take money from poor people , everyone else chooses what they pay through | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested " Yes!!! If you’re a billionaire yes yes yes!! You should have the decency to fund yourself. I believe Victoria Beckham did the same and then funded her employees herself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/dunelm-hands-back-145million-furlough-22850897 I like this story better, it just shows you how differently people think about things However, if a business needs to use the Furlough scheme that is what it is there for, I suppose it depends on how you view things on whether you use the scheme if you don't need the money" I agree, I was aware of the Dunelm story and there’s been a few others who’ve been similarly responsible. I think Dunelm was a bit of a self made success, the owner is a top bloke? Hopefully consumers bear in mind the heroes and villains of Covid in future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Yes!!! If you’re a billionaire yes yes yes!! You should have the decency to fund yourself. I believe Victoria Beckham did the same and then funded her employees herself. " Not wishing to deliberately disrupt our ’Entente Cordiale’ from yesterday, Beckham did originally apply for her staff to be furloughed and only reversed the decision and dipped into her own pocket after considerable criticism from the public   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Yes!!! If you’re a billionaire yes yes yes!! You should have the decency to fund yourself. I believe Victoria Beckham did the same and then funded her employees herself. Not wishing to deliberately disrupt our ’Entente Cordiale’ from yesterday, Beckham did originally apply for her staff to be furloughed and only reversed the decision and dipped into her own pocket after considerable criticism from the public "Thats who I was thinking off. Yeah she got a fair bit of heat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " If he invented the scheme specifically to benefit his wife that would be corruption. He didn't and it isn't It may well be immoral, depending on exactly what happened but certainly doesn't seem to be illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Think calling the op jealous is unfair.You could argue there is defending an ethical issue,they hardly need the money. It was the same with Branson.A man who owns an island claiming money for a scheme designed to help people on their arse. The only thing I would say is there is much worse shit going on under the radar,and it also suggests some shenanigans going on behind the scenes,if the mail are going after sunak. They're muddying the waters for if Boris steps down through ill health.. They have their favourites and they have those whom they will try and keep out of what they see as a certain type of person in the top job.. I’m sure there’s an element of that, yes, although the Mail also has a very sympathetic piece today about how hard Rishi is working lol. I’d have preferred not to quote the Mail as a source, unfortunately they were the ones to break the story. The Times did a similar piece about another of her companies in May however. You do know the penance for quoting the mail is to listen to Michael Goves top ten interviews three times a day till lockdown starts..
There’s only one Gove interview that counts:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/michael-gove-driving-eyesight-cummings-baranard/
The most absurd political defence I have ever heard. I could listen to it all day lol.
I often think to myself, however bad my job gets, at least I will never be forced to do something so utterly humiliating and insincere."It was truly the epitome of slimier than a slippery snake covered in oil.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Yes!!! If you’re a billionaire yes yes yes!! You should have the decency to fund yourself. I believe Victoria Beckham did the same and then funded her employees herself. Not wishing to deliberately disrupt our ’Entente Cordiale’ from yesterday, Beckham did originally apply for her staff to be furloughed and only reversed the decision and dipped into her own pocket after considerable criticism from the public "Dunelm Mill must have done the same in order to give the money back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? " It's games within the game, trusted journalists getting fed snippets and putting a story together on it.. And certain media and the mail is one consider themselves to a point the masters of the game and will try and set the tone against someone or vice versa.. The series road kill on the beeb written by David Hare is not that far off the mark.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? " They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. " yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence 
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it. According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. " a confirmation statement is not a tax return ... and due to delays with company secretary services and audits specifically because of covid there have been 3 months extensions applied pretty much across the boars with companies house for everything this year ... you are trying to pick at things you don't even understand to make it sound shady when its all very legitimate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess." There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain "In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it. According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. a confirmation statement is not a tax return ... and due to delays with company secretary services and audits specifically because of covid there have been 3 months extensions applied pretty much across the boars with companies house for everything this year ... you are trying to pick at things you don't even understand to make it sound shady when its all very legitimate " And progressing from a trowel to a shovel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. " A business didn't have to close to claim furlough money it could put those staff on who are not required due to the downturn in business on furlough in order to keep them in a job. Of course they could have not taken the money and laid the staff off thereby avoid the nasty scandal of a media witch hunt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. " Then it would be illegal not unethical The gmnt are mired in corruption. You may think we shouldn't have the right to ask questions but I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
"What mandarins.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. " Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Then it would be illegal not unethical The gmnt are mired in corruption. You may think we shouldn't have the right to ask questions but I do." Yeah, we know! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. " Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?"I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration." Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves"Well if you cant answer a simple question I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts." Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?"Have you heard of the Civil Service? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries!" The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?
Have you heard of the Civil Service?"The people who make sure the mechanics of the country works.. yep I think so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue." It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?
Have you heard of the Civil Service?
The people who make sure the mechanics of the country works.. yep I think so?"So why ask stupid questions then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go." I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?
Have you heard of the Civil Service?
The people who make sure the mechanics of the country works.. yep I think so?
So why ask stupid questions then?"Because it was a stupid comment There are thousands of civil servants.They cant all be elected and they are cant all be "madarins'(straight out of the daily mail hit list) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk." In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?
Have you heard of the Civil Service?
The people who make sure the mechanics of the country works.. yep I think so?
So why ask stupid questions then?
Because it was a stupid comment
There are thousands of civil servants.They cant all be elected and they are cant all be "madarins'(straight out of the daily mail hit list)"Again, I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. " Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You are very cynical are you not. The system was put in place as already explained for everyone to use. Regardless of class. Race. Wealth etc etc. It seems you just don't like the idea monies went to his wife it would seem. He invented the scheme, which benefitted his wife, and it was kept secret that she benefitted. That’s corruption. yes i am sure he designed a scheme (capped at £2500 per month was it?) specifically for his incredibly wealthy (did i read billionaire) wife ...even though shes a director so probably just the company benefited rather than her own pocket and the rest of the country just happened to benefit by coincidence
yes i see exactly how it was all just a ploy for self gain
In reality, it most probably wasn’t even Sunak who came up with the scheme but the mandarins within his department.
What mandarins.?
I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves
Well if you cant answer a simple question
I thought all the unelected bureaucrats were in Brussels.?
Have you heard of the Civil Service?
The people who make sure the mechanics of the country works.. yep I think so?
So why ask stupid questions then?
Because it was a stupid comment
There are thousands of civil servants.They cant all be elected and they are cant all be "madarins'(straight out of the daily mail hit list)
Again, I’ll treat that with the contempt it deserves.
"Good for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it. According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. a confirmation statement is not a tax return ... and due to delays with company secretary services and audits specifically because of covid there have been 3 months extensions applied pretty much across the boars with companies house for everything this year ... you are trying to pick at things you don't even understand to make it sound shady when its all very legitimate " The confirmation statement is normally straightforwardly checked and carried over each year. Something fishy going on. “Very legitimate” lol I bet you a tenner he has to resign within two weeks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry." In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You must be gutted that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t in charge for this pandemic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss" Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m guessing you didn’t vote conservative then op
You must be gutted that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t in charge for this pandemic. "Corbyn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m guessing you didn’t vote conservative then op
You must be gutted that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t in charge for this pandemic.
Corbyn.
"Soz. Got all over excited and typing with my lockdown nails is a mare (pity the first guy I fuck with) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m guessing you didn’t vote conservative then op
You must be gutted that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t in charge for this pandemic. "It’s hardly political to point out what the chancellor and his family has done and question the ethics of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If they are a business that employs people and pay they're taxes why shouldn't they get furlough, the fact that they are related has nothing to do with it. According to Companies House, the Confirmation Statement for the company is overdue. As I’ve said, remains to be seen then what taxes they’ve paid. a confirmation statement is not a tax return ... and due to delays with company secretary services and audits specifically because of covid there have been 3 months extensions applied pretty much across the boars with companies house for everything this year ... you are trying to pick at things you don't even understand to make it sound shady when its all very legitimate The confirmation statement is normally straightforwardly checked and carried over each year. Something fishy going on. “Very legitimate” lol I bet you a tenner he has to resign within two weeks." I'll take your bet. £10 to a children's charity if he's resigned by November 15th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt." No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts!" Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m guessing you didn’t vote conservative then op
You must be gutted that Jeremy Corbin wasn’t in charge for this pandemic.
It’s hardly political to point out what the chancellor and his family has done and question the ethics of it.
"You seem pretty sure it’s all dodgy dealings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. " And equally I don’t know how many times I can make my point. Being the great socialist that you claim to be, can’t the see the iniquity of asking for government money to pay staff on average wage whilst continuing to pay millions to millionaires? That’s why there was such an outcry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. And equally I don’t know how many times I can make my point. Being the great socialist that you claim to be, can’t the see the iniquity of asking for government money to pay staff on average wage whilst continuing to pay millions to millionaires? That’s why there was such an outcry." Edit, I meant minimum wage, not average wage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. And equally I don’t know how many times I can make my point. Being the great socialist that you claim to be, can’t the see the iniquity of asking for government money to pay staff on average wage whilst continuing to pay millions to millionaires? That’s why there was such an outcry." Bangs head on table Where do you think they are getting this money from? Out of the top 10 richest clubs in the world ,something like 6 are from the premiership. If what you are saying is true..peoples ire would have been directed at the players..not The clubs. For the last time people were pissed off because the rich clubs were asking for handout. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. And equally I don’t know how many times I can make my point. Being the great socialist that you claim to be, can’t the see the iniquity of asking for government money to pay staff on average wage whilst continuing to pay millions to millionaires? That’s why there was such an outcry. Bangs head on table Where do you think they are getting this money from? Out of the top 10 richest clubs in the world ,something like 6 are from the premiership. If what you are saying is true..peoples ire would have been directed at the players..not The clubs. For the last time people were pissed off because the rich clubs were asking for handout." Try banging your head on that table a little harder, you might knock some sense into it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Having read some of the comments in this post. I have come to the conclusion that some people will do anything to try and slur others. I doubt if everyone on here who is on fab and comments on the forums is sqeeky clean and can claim they never do something that may not be 100% legit including myself. Also in the current situation the country is in i would tend to look more closely at where the information came from and reasons behind it all.these leaks that seems to be popping up more and more are not helping. The only reason i can think of is to de stabalise the uk even more during this pandemic. And who gains from that ????? They are public servants and should be open to scrutiny. I'm certainly no fan of the daily mail but there is certainly an ethical issue here. They are already upto their necks in corruption with those multi million ppi contracts. Quite what to do with us being squeaky clean is anyones guess. There’s no ethical question here at all, unless the company filed a claim that it was not legally entitled to do so. If the company was legally entitled to make a claim and did so, it really doesn’t matter who one of the directors is married to. Liverpool fc and spurs were legally entitled to make a claim but after a fierce backlash they didnt. Why not do you think. Because they were not furloughing all their staff, just the modesty paid non football playing staff. The public outcry was because of people on relative peanuts being furloughed whilst multi millionaire footballers continued to receive their full remuneration. Erm..no...it was because a multi .million pound business was talking gmnt money to.pay its staff peanuts. Whilst continuing to pay multi millionaires huge salaries! The salaries of footballers had nothing to do with it. The clubs were making millions and taking a handout. Hence the public outcry It wasnt illegal..they were entitled to do it..it was an ethical issue. It was everything to do with the footballers salaries, that’s where the millions that the clubs make go. I think you will find the owners and shareholders take a sizeable chunk. In some of the clubs they might, in other clubs the owners will be putting their hands in their pockets. Premier league clubs will be making plenty of money Hence the outcry. In 2018, 13 made a profit, 7 made a loss Were the 2 that made a loss Tottenham and liverpool Even if a big clubs makes a loss..most still have major assets. The point is a simply one. 2 big clubs..one who has just moved into a million pound ground..asked for gmnt money to pay their staff. The public outcry was that being rich clubs.. they shouldn't need a handout As already stated.. they were legally entitled to do so..it was an ethical issue that they didnt. No they asked for government money to pay SOME of their staff, the staff that were paid peanuts! Does it matter how many of the staff they were asking to pay? The point is that they asked for a handout. I dont know how many times I can keep repeating this. And equally I don’t know how many times I can make my point. Being the great socialist that you claim to be, can’t the see the iniquity of asking for government money to pay staff on average wage whilst continuing to pay millions to millionaires? That’s why there was such an outcry. Bangs head on table Where do you think they are getting this money from? Out of the top 10 richest clubs in the world ,something like 6 are from the premiership. If what you are saying is true..peoples ire would have been directed at the players..not The clubs. For the last time people were pissed off because the rich clubs were asking for handout. Try banging your head on that table a little harder, you might knock some sense into it!" Ouch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was reading an article recently where there was suspicion because Sunak entered into a blind trust when he became chancellor, which is quite common practice, May and Blair did the same, so they cant see where there investments go so they have no fear of allegations of biase. Yes, the "we are leaving no-one behind" chancellor Sunaks wife has shares in her company estimated at £186 million, and together both worth about £200 million. If you are looking for evidence of how the corrupt tories are using this pandemic, a Scottish article last night revealed another Tory mp-cant remember his name( even though I study politics) so obviously a no-mark-he voted against the poor kids getting meals because he said the parents were "chaotic"-guess who his wife is-Dido Harding-wonder what her new salary is?" Loads of them are at it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S" Its not really to do with being self made. The scheme was designed to help businesses which are struggling. Multi million pound football clubs and mega rich fashion designers dont really fall into this category. Neither do millionaire politicians. There is certainly an ethical issue, but I'm not sure where you would draw the line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a it like the winter heating allowance! How many that are minted still claim it ? Probably a lot more than you would think. Illegal not morally wrong ? Yes " Agree my Nan used to claim it despite wintering in her flat in the Algarve. She wasn’t loaded though, just smart. Kept the family house as long as she could while prices shot up then sold it a bought two flats. No real money left just state & a small private pension. It’s the inequality that’s in the system that bugs me, true story my dad was a printer earning well, no foreign holidays not a going out flamboyant person, a new car every three years & bought his council house when available. Best mate at work, earning the same, out all the time three or four expensive holidays a year, new car every year at least, didn’t buy his house. The firm closed, both on the dole my dad pretty much gets told to fuck off because he has £40k in the bank,they can’t fall over themselves enough to give the other guy benefits, housing rates, etc.etc because he has last months pay in the bank & that’s it. Fair? Equitable? I think not.. Neither should have got anymore than dole money in my book. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a it like the winter heating allowance! How many that are minted still claim it ? Probably a lot more than you would think. Illegal not morally wrong ? Yes " You don't claim, you just get it. My dad was surprised to get a letter telling him a winter fuel payment would be in his account in a particular week. He's not requested it. He does need it this year though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S" Hang on, let me just check - Nope, I didn’t say anything like that, neither did anyone else ITT I’ve picked some egregious examples where people’s moral compass has left the building. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Hang on, let me just check - Nope, I didn’t say anything like that, neither did anyone else ITT I’ve picked some egregious examples where people’s moral compass has left the building." Uh someone upset the Tory hostages lol! You can't beat stockholm syndrome im sorry to say! Im still laughing at "self made"! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Hang on, let me just check - Nope, I didn’t say anything like that, neither did anyone else ITT I’ve picked some egregious examples where people’s moral compass has left the building. Uh someone upset the Tory hostages lol! You can't beat stockholm syndrome im sorry to say! Im still laughing at "self made"!" To be fair he did have to struggle through private school and oxford..and survive on a hedge fund salary with only a millionaire wife to fall back on. Tough times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Hang on, let me just check - Nope, I didn’t say anything like that, neither did anyone else ITT I’ve picked some egregious examples where people’s moral compass has left the building. Uh someone upset the Tory hostages lol! You can't beat stockholm syndrome im sorry to say! Im still laughing at "self made"! To be fair he did have to struggle through private school and oxford..and survive on a hedge fund salary with only a millionaire wife to fall back on. Tough times." Basically self made!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the whole point though didn’t you, where someone money comes from, how much they have is irrelevant. What if I won 7mill on the lottery & buy myself a nice house, car etc but then start a business making golf clubs, it employs 25 people & cost me 3mill to set up. I pay myself a salary. Do I get furlough money for my staff even though I still have a million or so in the bank? I m an what’s the cutoff? 1,5,10? A billion. What is it? By the way I’m far from a Tory, I’m a self employed sole trader & one of many that have fallen through the net & received jackshit, not one penny in help. no 80% for me or 100% (as my sister in a council is getting) for me. Not complaining as I wouldn’t work for others again ever. Luckily although my customers can’t use their motorcycles they do have the money to get them serviced & repaired for when they can. i’m probably running at 60% atm. Not at the beans on toast stage yet, though it’s been close & i’m not looking forward to the next three months if this continues as they’ll no doubt be a further downturn in work over the colder months as there usually is anyway. But hey ho, I’m here & i’m not dead so I’m certainly not going to waste my time on those who would rather play party politics than politics for all. There are few politicians without a skeleton here & there & it’s why I dislike them all. No party favourites here.
S"That's why I said where do you draw the line? Didnt Branson apply at 1 point? So you would have the tax payer bailing out a man who has his own island. That is clearly wrong. The only solution would have been to put some criteria in place,but that would have took time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Its not really to do with being self made. The scheme was designed to help businesses which are struggling. Multi million pound football clubs and mega rich fashion designers dont really fall into this category. Neither do millionaire politicians. There is certainly an ethical issue, but I'm not sure where you would draw the line." you’ve entirely misunderstood the purpose of what was a JOB RETENTION scheme ... it wasnt for struggling companies it was for employees if your business was not able to operate at full capacity due to covid (very few were) and therefore you had staff sat at home not working they were eligible (with a few extra box ticks of when they became employed etc) the reasoning was any sane business person cuts variable costs in a time of loss making or uncertainty ... wages are a variable cost so redundancies would have been seen all over the place ... voila a scheme to protect those jobs (at least in the short term) by the govt covering that cost to the business of keeping them employed even during their down time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Its not really to do with being self made. The scheme was designed to help businesses which are struggling. Multi million pound football clubs and mega rich fashion designers dont really fall into this category. Neither do millionaire politicians. There is certainly an ethical issue, but I'm not sure where you would draw the line. you’ve entirely misunderstood the purpose of what was a JOB RETENTION scheme ... it wasnt for struggling companies it was for employees if your business was not able to operate at full capacity due to covid (very few were) and therefore you had staff sat at home not working they were eligible (with a few extra box ticks of when they became employed etc) the reasoning was any sane business person cuts variable costs in a time of loss making or uncertainty ... wages are a variable cost so redundancies would have been seen all over the place ... voila a scheme to protect those jobs (at least in the short term) by the govt covering that cost to the business of keeping them employed even during their down time " Surely the point of it was to help employees and the business? If the employer was saved paying wages .this would help them stay afloat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the whole point though didn’t you, where someone money comes from, how much they have is irrelevant. What if I won 7mill on the lottery & buy myself a nice house, car etc but then start a business making golf clubs, it employs 25 people & cost me 3mill to set up. I pay myself a salary. Do I get furlough money for my staff even though I still have a million or so in the bank? I m an what’s the cutoff? 1,5,10? A billion. What is it? By the way I’m far from a Tory, I’m a self employed sole trader & one of many that have fallen through the net & received jackshit, not one penny in help. no 80% for me or 100% (as my sister in a council is getting) for me. Not complaining as I wouldn’t work for others again ever. Luckily although my customers can’t use their motorcycles they do have the money to get them serviced & repaired for when they can. i’m probably running at 60% atm. Not at the beans on toast stage yet, though it’s been close & i’m not looking forward to the next three months if this continues as they’ll no doubt be a further downturn in work over the colder months as there usually is anyway. But hey ho, I’m here & i’m not dead so I’m certainly not going to waste my time on those who would rather play party politics than politics for all. There are few politicians without a skeleton here & there & it’s why I dislike them all. No party favourites here.
S
That's why I said where do you draw the line?
Didnt Branson apply at 1 point?
So you would have the tax payer bailing out a man who has his own island.
That is clearly wrong.
The only solution would have been to put some criteria in place,but that would have took time."Branson applied for a bailout, which is completely different from the furlough scheme and was sent packing by the government. I believe that some of Virgin Atlantic staff were furloughed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You missed the whole point though didn’t you, where someone money comes from, how much they have is irrelevant. What if I won 7mill on the lottery & buy myself a nice house, car etc but then start a business making golf clubs, it employs 25 people & cost me 3mill to set up. I pay myself a salary. Do I get furlough money for my staff even though I still have a million or so in the bank? I m an what’s the cutoff? 1,5,10? A billion. What is it? By the way I’m far from a Tory, I’m a self employed sole trader & one of many that have fallen through the net & received jackshit, not one penny in help. no 80% for me or 100% (as my sister in a council is getting) for me. Not complaining as I wouldn’t work for others again ever. Luckily although my customers can’t use their motorcycles they do have the money to get them serviced & repaired for when they can. i’m probably running at 60% atm. Not at the beans on toast stage yet, though it’s been close & i’m not looking forward to the next three months if this continues as they’ll no doubt be a further downturn in work over the colder months as there usually is anyway. But hey ho, I’m here & i’m not dead so I’m certainly not going to waste my time on those who would rather play party politics than politics for all. There are few politicians without a skeleton here & there & it’s why I dislike them all. No party favourites here.
S
That's why I said where do you draw the line?
Didnt Branson apply at 1 point?
So you would have the tax payer bailing out a man who has his own island.
That is clearly wrong.
The only solution would have been to put some criteria in place,but that would have took time.
Branson applied for a bailout, which is completely different from the furlough scheme and was sent packing by the government.
I believe that some of Virgin Atlantic staff were furloughed."Fair enough I remember some sort of kerfuffle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"anybody in government should be excluded from it. they earn enough and if not then they shouldnt be managing the countries money. not fit for purpose" it wasnt someone in the government it was his wife and its not means tested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So basically the long & the short of it is if you are self made worth a few bob no matter how long it took you to get it & no matter how many staff you have or even whether you are still making money now. You shouldn’t take furlough cash & pay it instead from your own pocket? Good luck with that one as it covers an awful lot of small/medium sized companies. Or does it just apply if you have family in politics? S Its not really to do with being self made. The scheme was designed to help businesses which are struggling. Multi million pound football clubs and mega rich fashion designers dont really fall into this category. Neither do millionaire politicians. There is certainly an ethical issue, but I'm not sure where you would draw the line. you’ve entirely misunderstood the purpose of what was a JOB RETENTION scheme ... it wasnt for struggling companies it was for employees if your business was not able to operate at full capacity due to covid (very few were) and therefore you had staff sat at home not working they were eligible (with a few extra box ticks of when they became employed etc) the reasoning was any sane business person cuts variable costs in a time of loss making or uncertainty ... wages are a variable cost so redundancies would have been seen all over the place ... voila a scheme to protect those jobs (at least in the short term) by the govt covering that cost to the business of keeping them employed even during their down time Surely the point of it was to help employees and the business? If the employer was saved paying wages .this would help them stay afloat?" that was a secondary benefit but not the purpose of the scheme ... companies could have cut their staff loose and saved those costs just as easily when they put the scheme in place we didn't know it would last this long ... it was thought it was to get us over a blip and they made it clear in communication that they would rather keep people in employment as it would be easier than letting them all go to just hire them all back in a few months (in terms of admin and cost for both govt and the businesses) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. Let's just cancel the furlough program and have everyone pay back all the money they received. That will stop them Tories getting money they don't deserve " Oh dear | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up " I think you're getting all annoyed about something that nobody cares about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up I think you're getting all annoyed about something that nobody cares about." Sometimes feels like Lionel and me against the world, yes. Eventually I hope enough people wake up to this corruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up I think you're getting all annoyed about something that nobody cares about. Sometimes feels like Lionel and me against the world, yes. Eventually I hope enough people wake up to this corruption." Find another battle, this one isnt working. Mostly because it isn't corruption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up I think you're getting all annoyed about something that nobody cares about. Sometimes feels like Lionel and me against the world, yes. Eventually I hope enough people wake up to this corruption." Fight the power | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up " What are you expecting him to declare? He entered the HoC after the May 2015 election, and rented a flat in London in theJune, and rightly declared it. Please point out what he's done wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"FIO The MPs register of members Interests is extremely narrow in scope, what has this husband of a billionaire declared? One flat in London. That’s it: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=25428 Couldn’t make it up What are you expecting him to declare? He entered the HoC after the May 2015 election, and rented a flat in London in theJune, and rightly declared it. Please point out what he's done wrong? " I’ve criticised the system many times in this thread - his investments were put into a blind trust when he became a minister, yet despite having family investments of hundreds of millions he only had to declare (five years ago) the ownership of one flat. Now we get the drip drip of information that his wife’s companies benefit from his furlough scheme. Parliament is a supine boys club full of backscratching pigs at the trough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. " In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? " Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... " Who have invested in a business that employees people, perhaps you would prefer they didnt and then all those people wouldn't have jobs. Why is it so hard for you to understand this scheme is to help firms keep people on their books instead of making them redundant, perhaps even the company you work for has people on the scheme, if you had your way many families would be looking at losing their livelihood, just because of your jealousy and hatred for people who have more than most. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? " It's no different. In any way. Just some people have to try and make political capital out of it. The alternative of course is to close the business, put everyone out of work and into the benefits system. Maybe the OP would prefer that as an outcome. Yet more nonsense. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... Who have invested in a business that employees people, perhaps you would prefer they didnt and then all those people wouldn't have jobs. Why is it so hard for you to understand this scheme is to help firms keep people on their books instead of making them redundant, perhaps even the company you work for has people on the scheme, if you had your way many families would be looking at losing their livelihood, just because of your jealousy and hatred for people who have more than most." Yet another example of the politics of envy. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ " In the same way the government was satisfied that driving 200 miles to test your eyesight when you've got Covid19 is fine too. What does it take? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. ‘The Permanent Secretary’s office has confirmed that they are aware of the Chancellor and his wife’s financial interests and satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to avoid any conflict of interest.’ In the same way the government was satisfied that driving 200 miles to test your eyesight when you've got Covid19 is fine too. What does it take? " Plenty of politicians from all party's did similar, some much worse. What's your point? E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... " By definition there's very few poor people that run successful companies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... Who have invested in a business that employees people, perhaps you would prefer they didnt and then all those people wouldn't have jobs. Why is it so hard for you to understand this scheme is to help firms keep people on their books instead of making them redundant, perhaps even the company you work for has people on the scheme, if you had your way many families would be looking at losing their livelihood, just because of your jealousy and hatred for people who have more than most." Where have they shown jealousy and hatred exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is that different to any other business that put in a claim under the furlough scheme? Firstly, because it’s a huge conflict of interest that your husband set the scheme up. Secondly, that billionaires should have a sense of decency (some of them do) and not claim taxpayers cash during this crisis. So because your husband is part of the government that set up the scheme, or that you had a successful business that had to stop operating through no fault of your own, you are not entitled to use a scheme that is designed to help businesses stay afloat, pay their furloughed staff during the last however months. I never read anywhere that the scheme was means tested Well the business that claimed furlough money was supplying school outfit robes to Eton, which hasn’t shut. Not a business that I think either needed the cash, or that many taxpayers think should be a priority. In your opinion alone doesn’t think the business needed the cash. Why do you think this? Because.... it is owned.... by billionaires..... Who have invested in a business that employees people, perhaps you would prefer they didnt and then all those people wouldn't have jobs. Why is it so hard for you to understand this scheme is to help firms keep people on their books instead of making them redundant, perhaps even the company you work for has people on the scheme, if you had your way many families would be looking at losing their livelihood, just because of your jealousy and hatred for people who have more than most. Yet another example of the politics of envy. E" What is the politics of envy? Does this include the ppi scandal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be fair, any company that is eligible for the scheme and needed to cease trading due to the lockdown will have claimed. As a general rule, it's frowned upon to just spend your private money on business stuff, it messes with the accounts" As has been stated several times Footy clubs got absolutely slated for using the scheme. Despite being eligible to do so. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If true how did Rishi manage to get his uk wealth into an offshore blind trust with all its tax advantages. Deja Vu Cameron’s Panama papers " Same way you or I could, same way anyone who chooses to can. E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be fair, any company that is eligible for the scheme and needed to cease trading due to the lockdown will have claimed. As a general rule, it's frowned upon to just spend your private money on business stuff, it messes with the accounts As has been stated several times Footy clubs got absolutely slated for using the scheme. Despite being eligible to do so."
E | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
