tinyurl.com/4r3ns3g
I asked how this worked on here some months ago because I had concerns.
I haven't posted on that thread again as it resulted in a bit of conflict.
The link above is from just over a year ago.
Yesterday those 140 lorry drivers (and 60 other staff) arrived back at the yard to find their jobs gone, and no wages to be paid for this week at all.
That's 200 mortgages at risk, 200 families with the weight of the world on their shoulders and it's wrong.
It should never be allowed to happen.
I'm so angry that this pre-pack deal is allowed and at the subsequent effect it has on ordinary hard working people's lives.
Pat
|
Pat, are you saying that drivers working for the new company quoted in the link, Bulmers Transport, has now gone into administration? You say yesterday though it is an old report.
|
Read again Cheddar
''The administrator for Bulmers Logistics, Deloitte, has confirmed the company folded with debts of around £10m.
Bulmers Logistics entered a pre-packaged administration on 21 January, and, following a management buyout (MBO), which was led by managing director Johnathan Bulmer, who acquired the trade and assets of the old firm for an undisclosed sum, Bulmers Transport was created.''
Bulmers Logistics = Old Company.
Bulmers Transport = New Company.
If I understand Pat correctly (not got time to check) Yesterday Bulmers Transport folded.
As the company was young, and all workers would have had new contracts, then they have little or no money coming their way, and little or no legal rights.
|
That's right, this happened yesterday.
There are many sad stories I could tell of the scenes in the yard but they are only hearsay and as such I can't repeat them.
The bare bones of it is that the staff retained 12 months ago have worked their nuts off to help the company survive and repay the 'loyalty' they felt, only to be treated to this just a year later.
Pat
|
The staff who worked this last week should get first (pay owed) payout from any windings up, or at least that's my understanding, and i hope i'm not wrong for their sakes.
Funny (not ha ha) how it's always so sudden and without warning, keep flogging them horses till the last moment then shoot 'em.
That's not to say it's not devastating for all concerned, presumably there's ongoing contracts so there should in theory be work for a good number of them, however that's not to say that a fleet of foreign regd trucks complete with drivers (and mobile bowser) won't turn up and not a single job to be had, unless at minimum wage, and that area's wages are poor by anyone's standards.
Tip of the iceberg methinks.
|
According to the links in the piece above, 200 jobs have been saved.
That's a result isn't it?
|
>> According to the links in the piece above, 200 jobs have been saved.
>>
>> That's a result isn't it?
>>
Read it again, the link is a year old, it has folded again.
|
So, if I've understood correctly:
1) Original company went under a year ago and its business was pre-packed to newco, which saved however many jobs (the link doesn't work for me, for some reason)
2) Newco, managed by the same people, has now got its sums wrong again, and all the people whose jobs were saved a year ago are now back where they started.
This is the main risk with pre-pack sales to the same management - far too often they make exactly the same mistakes and end up in trouble again in fairly short order. Obviously, not knowing the details, can't say for certain that this happened here, but it wouldn't surprise me.
One thing: the old staff taken on by newco will very likely be deemed to have continuity of service under the TUPE regs, so they will effectively have a claim for what they would have been owed in terms of redundancy pay etc. if the original company had lasted a year longer.
Government redundancy payments service will pay out some of the money they'll be owed, but not all.
Last edited by: paulb on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 08:55
|
That's exactly how it happened paulb.
Pat
|
|
The article is 2 years old, not one year. It does say the employees were transferred under TUPE.
|
>> Read again Cheddar
>>
No I was right ST, though my post was not clear, it is the new company that has collapsed. To be fair it is one year on so perhaps the management did their best.
Last edited by: Cheddar on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 08:46
|
|
And Mr Bulmer goes on playing with his real-live train set...
|
>> And Mr Bulmer goes on playing with his real-live train set...
>>
in the absence of Zero, I will do my best to impersonate him.
Would you prefer that Bulmer closes the company down completely, and goes home to play with his train set?
If these employees are really that good, why don't they get together and set up their own company? Nobody owes anyone any jobs. If they don't like it, they can get off their backsides, stop being slaves, become their own masters, and then see how easy it is.
Whinge, whinge, whinge. Entitled to this, entitled to that, but never entitled take any responsibility for their own lives.
How about for once being grateful that you've got people willing to take risks and willing to provide you work.
|
John H, none of us has the inside story as far as I know, so I won't comment on Bulmer's.
Suffice the say that the 'risk' that principal shareholders take doesn't always affect their personal wealth that much. They are not so much risking their own money as that of their creditors. More fool them maybe, but we all know how it happens and the people who do it often have form in this regard.
There have always been 'pre-packs' with what are arguably sole proprietors hiding behind limited liability and dumping creditors when they get things wrong. The erstwhile principal of multiple consecutive similarly named building firms in this area now lives in Jersey - the more the firms went bust, the richer he got it seemed.
>>How about for once being grateful that you've got people willing to take risks and willing to provide you work.
Laughable. They pile the risks on others to enrich themselves, not selflessly to provide jobs for the less enterprising.
The only part of your Bradley Hardacre lecture I agree with is that we should all try to manage our own risk as far as possible - relying on the Hardacres of this world to do it may lead to disappointment, as they say. Titus Salts are rare these days.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 10:17
|
>> Laughable. They pile the risks on others to enrich themselves, not selflessly to provide jobs
>> for the less enterprising.
>>
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Or stop whinging and whining because you haven't got the guts to do it yourself, and just get on being a slave.
|
>> If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Too many scruples I'm afraid.
>>Or stop whinging and whining
Your premise is incorrect. I'm not.
>>because you haven't got the guts to do it yourself
Guts don't come into it. Just lack of morals.
>>and just get on being a slave.
Again your premise is wrong. I can walk tomorrow if I choose and I won't have to dump on any creditors to do it.
The people you are defending are often sociopaths, and it is they not the 'slaves' who think the world owes them a living. I hope you aren't one of them.
You're even better at being Zero than Zero, so far.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 12:37
|
>> Too many scruples I'm afraid.
>>
>> I can walk tomorrow if I choose
Employees who bash employers, they all say that. The truth is they have not got it in them to take the right step to becoming self-employed or to become an employer. Too much outside your comfort zone.
>> The people you are defending are often sociopaths, and it is they not the 'slaves'
>> who think the world owes them a living.
>>
Of course they do, they are fully justified in their belief. Otherwise who would provide for the slaves who continue to work for them? One cannot exist without the other. The Unions like these sociopaths too, as these masters provide a ready made group of slaves who can be made to contribute to the fat salaries and luxuries enjoyed by the Union bosses.
>> You're even better at being Zero than Zero, so far.
>>
Good. I have to do the work of two people, at no additional cost to you. I say it is slavery, and I can't handle it.
|
>>Employees who bash employers, they all say that. The truth is they have not got it in them to take the right step to becoming self-employed or to become an employer. Too much outside your comfort zone.<<
I think you have the attitude John H, that lorry drivers are not capable of doing what you think they should do.
I set up my own business after 30 years of lorry driving. I have just completed my first year trading and have returned a profit, albeit a small one.
I notice though that you have completely disregard my remark about buying a boat with a hole in it.
I presume you didn't understand the analogy so I'll explain it to you.
Having worked for both firms and see them fail, with a well respected owner at the helm, one could forgive the employees for assuming it would be a very bad business decision to try and buy it.
I hope that is clearer for you now.
Pat
|
Lorry drivers may have the reputation for being a bit thick John H, but would you buy a boat with a hole in it?
Pat
|
my ten pennorth
they lost their jobs first time round
company then started up again and they went back to their old jobs
they had another year of wages coming in rather than nothing
they deliver for the company they are working for so they should see with their own eyes whether the new company was strong or weak
they had a year to find alternative employment
the strong ones will go self employed surely
|
>> they had another year of wages coming in rather than nothing
>>
Bellboy, permit me to make just a slight correction:
"they had another TWO years of wages coming in rather than nothing" !
|
It's what loads of companies do. Fold one then start another using the same staff and location! It should be banned. Old management that let a company go to the wall should not be allowed to start up another business immediately. Especially if it is doing the same thing.
Employee loyalty is invariably wasted. Any employee that thinks management will actually be grateful and give a rats is naive.
|
>> Employee loyalty is invariably wasted. Any employee that thinks management will actually be grateful and
>> give a rats is naive.
>>
Correct. Loyalty is for friends and family, not businesses. What you owe your employer is a fair day's work in return for your emoluments. That's it. It's duty, rather than loyalty.
|
>> Correct. Loyalty is for friends and family, not businesses. What you owe your employer is
>> a fair day's work in return for your emoluments. That's it. It's duty, rather than
>> loyalty.
I think it depends... For example, when I had to spend an extra week on holiday in the States last year due to the Icelandic volcano, my company just classed it as normal working time, not paid/unpaid leave. Therefore I feel I owe them the odd extra hour here or there. (Although as there are no fixed hours or timesheets etc. that's not easy to measure.)
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 10:49
|
Fair enough Focus, but maybe that was down to your boss, or an enlightened personnel bod , to whom you may feel personal loyalty?
I think an emotional bond, which is what loyalty is to me, can only exist in your imagination when the object is a company.
|
>> I think an emotional bond, which is what loyalty is to me, can only exist
>> in your imagination when the object is a company.
Truck drivers of the old school don't think like that, and in many cases their employers didn't either...mostly disappeared now the old school, both employee and 'er, more's the pity, though some would argue dinosaurs had to go.
As in a few other industries the individual performance and capabilities of the employee made or broke the company, some of us find it quite hard working for impersonal logistics operators where the individual is now a number with apparently no strengths and weaknesses.
|
...That's it. It's duty, rather than loyalty...
Not all employers are the same.
When Peter's Bakery burned down in Durham City a few years ago, the owners carried on paying the staff in full when they didn't have to.
This included the workers in the company-owned chain of shops which were closed because they had no stock to sell.
The story has a reasonably happy ending in that a new bakery was built and the company still survives today.
|
There are companies who care for their employees. When I left the Navy a job was created as a van driver at the company Mrs ON worked for on the understanding it was a stop gap until I found permanent employment.
Mrs ON was employed by them for 20+ years and it was in the process of moving manufacture offshore in an easterly direction, and shutting down in the UK. She was made redundant just before she retired to get full redundancy and her pension.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 5 Feb 11 at 11:25
|
The owner of the firm gave his side of the story to The Northern Echo.
I think his upset is genuine, and I don't doubt he's lost the £1m he says he has.
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/8836588.Boss_devastated_over_firm___s_redundancies/?ref=mr
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 08:46
|
I don't understand pda's anger - which I think stems from ignorance or (quite possibly, as it has been explained previously, stupidity).
I feel sorry for Bulmer.
|
|
Sorry Mappy but the bit in brackets is offensive. I'm sure Pat understands the concept. It's the capacity of businesses generally to walk away from debts and re-start using the same assets that causes angst.
|
>> Sorry Mappy but the bit in brackets is offensive. I'm sure Pat understands the concept.
I think she does, at least as far as making a contributuion to a c4p member to allow him to pay fees to declare himself bankrupt, and get out of his paying debts was concerned.
>> It's the capacity of businesses generally to walk away from debts and re-start using the
>> same assets that causes angst.
>>
What do you suggest is a better solution?
|
John H
I find you continuing harping on about what I choose to do with my hard earned cash, tiresome and intrusive, and entirely none of your business.
At least the case I supported won't be allowed to do it for a second time ( albeit wrapped up in a different wrapper) and neither should a business be able to do so.
Pat
|
>> John H
>>
>> I find you continuing harping on about what I choose to do with my hard
>> earned cash, tiresome and intrusive, and entirely none of your business.
>>
Hit the nail on the head there, have I?
But it is OK for you to do it to Mr Bulmer?
And how do you know it won't happen again with your c4p friend?
Last edited by: John H on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 10:41
|
>>Hit the nail on the head there, have I?<<
No John, you haven't.
All you have done is succeeded in showing just how crass and rude you can be to everyone who reads this.
In your eyes it may well make you look good/big/clever or whatever you feel you're lacking in....it doesn't.
In 99% of our eyes, we see you for what you really are and you're inability to attack the post instead of the poster makes me think you have no concept of good manners whatsoever.
I also suggest you read up the regulations on personal bankruptcy if you need to ask that question.
Pat
|
>> In 99% of our eyes, we see you for what you really are and you're
>> inability to attack the post instead of the poster makes me think you have no
>> concept of good manners whatsoever.
>>
It is not a personal attack, jut pointing out how people are happy to bash companies that are trying hard to survive and are providing jobs for thier employees, and the same poster than changes his/her attitude as soon as an individual is concerned who is using legal means to clear their debts.
bankruptcy is bankruptcy - stealing from innocent creditors.
|
Do you really still fail to understand that it shouldn't be legal for companies to do this?
And in this case, do it twice?
In my local area a number of smaller companies have followed the pre-pack route over recent years, and almost every one has failed for a second time, leaving the same trail behind them.
Pat
|
>> Do you really still fail to understand that it shouldn't be legal for companies to
>> do this?
>>
>> And in this case, do it twice?
>>
Prove that they have done it twice, or apologise for your wrong basis for the thread, and withdraw your comments.
|
>> don't understand pda's anger - which I think stems from ignorance or (quite possibly, as it has been explained previously, stupidity).<<
It's OK Bromptonaut, I get used to being called names by Mapmaker:)
I have broad shoulders and can assure him I have been called much worse than he could ever think of!
My anger is simply that someone can avoid their debts and set up again legally and recreate those very same debts.
The interview IMHO, is very genuine and I for one believe every word Mr Bulmer has said about his efforts and sadness.
His gross stupidity was in getting behind with his payments to HMRC.
A man who has experienced financial difficulties before should have known that HMRC are a creditor with no mercy.
I am also frustrated that he allowed his staff to work for the last week knowing full well what the impact on their bank account was going to be at the end of it.
What is wrong with calling it a day on a Monday morning before your staff have done the last unpaid weeks work?
Pat
|
>
>> I am also frustrated that he allowed his staff to work for the last week
>> knowing full well what the impact on their bank account was going to be at
>> the end of it.
Rule No 1. NEVER EVER tell anyone the company may fail int he next few weeks. If you do, the company WILL fail. In the mean time you have breathing space to rescue things. You would be surprised how many companies on the edge get to this stage and out again.
|
Zero
My sensible head tells me that I know they can't do that, and is the reason for my remark about the rumours.
It still makes me angry.
Pat
|
>> Rule No 1. NEVER EVER tell anyone the company may fail int he next few
>> weeks. If you do, the company WILL fail. In the mean time you have breathing
>> space to rescue things. You would be surprised how many companies on the edge get
>> to this stage and out again.
I've been involved with a couple of companies that both swung close to failing too many times to count. The general approach that was taken was to not tell people how bad things were, for fear of people leaving and also for fear of suppliers hearing, and other negative consequences that could cause the businesses to fail.
If you absolutely know that there is no chance of recovery, then there comes a point where you just can't ask people to work, knowing that they almost certainly won't get paid.
However, in the case of those two companies, they kept running and provided jobs for years, even though one of them is now no longer trading. If they had been completely truthful it is likely they would have both closed many years ago.
|
...Rule No 1. NEVER EVER tell anyone the company may fail int he next few weeks...
True, but this guy could have laid his drivers off on Monday morning, rather than wait until Friday evening to do it.
It leaves a sour taste in the drivers' mouths when they realise they have worked a week for nothing, particularly when they've seen the same thing happen at other firms.
|
>>My anger is simply that someone can avoid their debts and set up again legally and
>>recreate those very same debts.
You're perfectly happy to *help* an individual do exactly the same thing, and he will be able to start again legally and recreate those very same debts.
Mu Bullmer has - apparently - put £1m of his own money into his business over the last 24 months and lost it all. One week's pay is a pittance in comparison.
>>His gross stupidity was in getting behind with his payments to HMRC.
I don't agree. He had no cash - largely as somebody owed him a load of cash. Small businesses spend their time borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.
>>A man who has experienced financial difficulties before should have known that HMRC
>>are a creditor with no mercy.
I am sure he was well aware.
>>I am also frustrated that he allowed his staff to work for the last week knowing full well
>>what the impact on their bank account was going to be at the end of it.
>>What is wrong with calling it a day on a Monday morning before your staff have done the
>>last unpaid weeks work?
He was hoping for the best. Would the staff have been better off if he'd sacked them on the Monday morning and then "the best" had actually happened? Of course not.
|
>>You're perfectly happy to *help* an individual do exactly the same thing, and he will be able to start again legally and recreate those very same debts.<<
Could you explain your obsession with what I choose to do with my own money mapmaker, and also what right think you have to do so?
>>Mu Bullmer has - apparently - put £1m of his own money into his business over the last 24 months and lost it all. One week's pay is a pittance in comparison<<
To a person who doesn't have any savings whatsoever, or to a firm he owes money too that is also struggling, it most certainly isn't a pittance. Mr Bulmer wouldn't have gambled £1m of his own money if he didn't believe he would end up making a profit on it.
>>I don't agree. He had no cash - largely as somebody owed him a load of cash. Small businesses spend their time borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.<<
Should he have allowed any firm to owe him that much knowing he was behind with HMRC payments. Certainly not.
>>I am sure he was well aware.<<
In that case, it is even harder to understand why he allowed one customer to owe him so much.
Both you and John H insist upon bringing up the fact that some of us decided to help another person on this forum at every opportunity.
Neither of you approve and decided not to do so.
No-one has seen fit to criticise either of you for that decision, certainly not four months later.
If you two have one scrap of compassion within you, or have any idea of the correct way to behave, you will let that subject drop once and for all.
It is attitudes like yours that have been responsible for my belief that people with money and breeding almost always lack manners to anyone they consider to be beneath them.
Quite honestly the pair of you should be ashamed of yourselves over this.
Pat
|
...Both you and John H insist upon bringing up the fact that some of us decided to help another person on this forum at every opportunity...
Yes, and the rest of the gang of however many of us it was has let Pat take all the stick - until now.
The other person and Mr Bulmer have more in common than Mapmaker and John H realise.
Both found themselves in financial difficulties through their own mismanagement, but not through any malicious intent.
If Mr Bulmer should be allowed a way out of his business money problems, why should our forum member not be allowed a way out of his personal money problems?
I admit my approach to the forum member was 'pay now, ask questions later'.
But another thing Mapmaker and JohnH don't realise is enquiries were made, and they might be surprised to learn who made most of them.
The forum member's position was found to be genuine and worthy of assistance.
|
>>>
The other person and Mr Bulmer have more in common than Mapmaker and John H realise.
Both found themselves in financial difficulties through their own mismanagement, but not through any malicious intent.
If Mr Bulmer should be allowed a way out of his business money problems, why should our forum member not be allowed a way out of his personal money problems?
>>>
Yes quite... but I think you've missed the point Iffy. In starting this thread it was Pat who was laying into Mr Bulmer's situation thereby apparently denying bosses legal ways to manage debt/disaster... while apparently strongly supporting it for individuals.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 14:11
|
>>In starting this thread it was Pat who was laying into Mr Bulmer's situation thereby apparently denying bosses legal ways to manage debt/disaster<<<
No, no, no Fenlander, go back and read my original post again.
I have no doubt about Mr Bulmers sincerity or his self belief that he could make it work.
What I have questioned, both a few months ago and again on this thread, is that pre-pack administration should be allowed as a legal way out.
In almost all cases it doubles the losers and thats from drivers to the man at the top, and all the small firms owed money in between for parts/stationary/printing/maintenance/fuel etc.
Pat
|
|
Fair enough Pat... even if I don't agree I never want to make it seem like you said something you didn't. However trust me you do come over as over-protective of someone who you judge to be the small man compared with those you would judge to have money/power who get both barrels in a flash.
|
Overprotective? I don't think so.
In fact I think it sometimes makes those who are financially secure uncomfortable to face the fact that others are not.
The reality of what life is like for some of the people I meet, through no fault of their own, isn't pleasant.
Comparing that with someone investing £1m into a business for profit, and lets not forget that was the original intention, is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Pat
|
>>>Comparing that with someone investing £1m into a business for profit, and lets not forget that was the original intention, is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Sadly it's not.... the by-product of the million pound investor will usually be jobs for those you so strongly support. If those investors don't take a chance in real businesses then we all lose... we're all tightly enmeshed in reality.
|
>> What I have questioned, both a few months ago and again on this thread, is
>> that pre-pack administration should be allowed as a legal way out.
>> In almost all cases it doubles the losers and thats from drivers to the man
>> at the top, and all the small firms owed money in between for parts/stationary/printing/maintenance/fuel etc.
It's EXACTLY the same as allowing an individual the way out. I am well aware, accept, and (generally) support, that it is legal for an individual to go bankrupt, and then he can start again and eventually borrow money again. It is absolutely clear that you support this position for an individual as you PAID towards a poster in this situation.
I do not understand why you are not prepared to allow Mr Bulmer to do likewise.
Your position is entirely lacking in academic rigour. And instead is full of bash-the-bosses venom.
Bulmer has employed hundreds of drivers for decades - they have all benefited from receiving a pay packet from him for many months or years. Yet just because one week's pay is in doubt - and will in any event probably be paid - you are jumping on your high horse.
(I am, by the way, quite happy for you to do whatever you like with your own cash. That's not my point as I'm sure you're well aware.)
>>Comparing that with someone investing £1m into a business for profit, and lets not
>>forget that was the original intention, is like comparing chalk and cheese.
I think you're self employed? Why bother if not for profit???
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 14:50
|
I would just add that Mr Bulmer took a large risk with his own money - indubitably to make a profit for himself - but along the way employing large numbers of others.
The bankrupt poster frittered away £20,000 on consumer goods/in an attempt to buy a woman, and expected to be let off having to pay for them.
There is no doubt in my mind who is more deserving of the protection that bankruptcy law provides.
|
I have also just been reading the facilities that bulmers offered and i know as you know pda that transport works on a shoestring in this world and this company tried everything to stay afloat.
Ive been owed money and never got it back and indeed had to write it off, now imagine if you x this by say 10 wagons a week and you have to give a 90 day account and then the accounts ask for a little more time to pay ,if you took your wagons away even if you could then you know the company owing the money would just get another outfit to service their deliveries
The hmrc juggernought just keeps rolling though
|
We don't know the ins and outs of the £1m but I bet that was his house plus other borrowing he could obtain to get the company going again back in 2009 which in turn employed 140 drivers plus 60 staff for two years.
Poor bloke, I bet he's been worried sick and now he's gutted.
Last edited by: Enoughalready on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 15:09
|
|
I have to say guys, its pretty offensive to personally belittle one poster, as a weapon against another.
|
...I have to say guys, its pretty offensive to personally belittle one poster, as a weapon against another...
That proves it, Zero has left.
They've given his log-in to a calm, rational, compassionate individual.
|
>> I have to say guys, its pretty offensive to personally belittle one poster, as a
>> weapon against another.
>>
I agree.
However I also agree with Mapmaker in that there is some synergy between pre-packed administration and helping a friend go bankrupt, both leave debtors etc in their wake. I am not moralising, I would surely help a friend in such circumstamces and I missed the thread in question, a search earlier today found it.
I should also say that it seems that Mr Bulmer has had the best of intentions however if speculation always paid off then we would all be doing it, there is always a risk.
|
Mapmaker
I refuse to encourage you in your quest to flout another fellow posters personal circumstances.
You will justify your lack of tact by means of direct comparison, and by answering you within this debate, the blame for it will be laid at my door.
There is much I could say, much I would like to say, but out of respect for that fellow poster, who deserves respect far more than you ever will, I shall refrain.
Pat
|
Well done pda, ignore the point that you haven't got a leg to stand on by attacking me.
|
Much as it pains me to say this Mapmaker, I was hoping for a good debate with you on this point, simply because I think it may be something you're well versed in. Similarly, I was hoping I could learn to see the other side of it from you, accepting you know more about it than I do.
I didn't want a fight.
I didn't expect a debate with you to become personal.
I did expect you to have enough respect for me to feel able to debate on a level.
If it just involved me, I would be happy to do it your way.
Since, on your insistence it doesn't, then in deference to anothers feelings, I shall learn from others who I can also respect.
Pat
|
>> There is much I could say, much I would like to say, but out of
>> respect for that fellow poster, who deserves respect far more than you ever will, I
>> shall refrain.
Again, attacking the poster - in this case Mapmaker; just as you did me earlier in this thread.
As is your want, when you can't win your argument with reasoned debate, you resort to attacking the poster or marking their posts with the red blob, or asking for their posts to be deleted.
p.s. do remember that the individual you helped here got in to debt by buying stuff he could not afford. AFAIK, he didn't return any of the stuff had he bought to the creditors.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 17:02
|
That's rich coming from you two:)
Me attacking you?
Come on, where's your backbone, the pair of you!
Pat
|
>> Come on, where's your backbone, the pair of you!
>>
Oh don't worry, I am never intimidated by anyone. I don't worry about how many green thumbs up or red sad faces are awarded, and my opinion is not swayed by personal attacks. However, I do change my opinion whenever a reasoned argument persuades me to so and do always accept that other people see things differently.
|
...I don't worry about how many green thumbs up or red sad faces are awarded...
Pleased to hear it, nor do I.
I am also strongly against removing posts purely because some find them offensive.
But your views on the member who we helped to go bankrupt go a little further than that.
I am certain that member will be offended, but what is worse hurt, by those posts.
To coin a phrase, it's the hurt I cannot stand.
You won't get me asking for those posts to be removed, but I do wish you had put your views across in a more temperate way.
|
im obviously missing something from this thread because i see a transport company gone bust and pda slamming the boss
this is all i see yet there seems to be vitriol in the air
|
>> and pda slamming the boss
pda: "I have no doubt about Mr Bulmers sincerity or his self belief that he could make it work"
From the first post: "I'm so angry that this pre-pack deal is allowed and at the subsequent effect it has on ordinary hard working people's lives"
It's the deal not the boss, as I understand it.
|
>>It's the deal not the boss, as I understand it.
But the deal has given these lorry drivers two years' work. I don't get it.
|
>> im obviously missing something from this thread because i see a transport company gone bust
>> and pda slamming the boss
>> this is all i see yet there seems to be vitriol in the air
>>
Do you not see me and Mapmaker trying to state that the boss was doing only what he was legally allowed to?
In the link posted by Iffy, it says "Mr Bulmer, meanwhile, said he would not be starting the business again, as happened when Bulmers Logistics went into administration about two years ago."
So pda need not worry.
|
>> I am certain that member will be offended, but what is worse hurt, by those posts.
>>
>> To coin a phrase, it's the hurt I cannot stand.
>>
>> You won't get me asking for those posts to be removed, but I do wish
>> you had put your views across in a more temperate way.
>>
Well, you are entitled to that opinion. Sorry if it "hurt" you and the c4p member, but I stand by my opinion.
|
>> Me attacking you?
Yes, indeed.
You've attacked poor Mr Bulmer - who incidentally isn't here to defend himself.
You've called him grossly stupid.
All he has done wrong is to put his personal money into a business venture that has failed - in effect he has given his money to the employees of the business and gained nothing from it. Maybe that does make him stupid, but if you're standing up for the workers' rights then why object to his giving them money?
Whereas people who run up debts on credit cards have frittered the cash away yet you feel they "deserve it".
It's this "I deserve it" rather than having to work for it attitude that has left this nation in the state it is.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 17:51
|
...who incidentally isn't here to defend himself...
Nor is our bankrupt member, although I suppose he could be.
|
>> Nor is our bankrupt member, although I suppose he could be.
But nobody is attacking him; only pda for her double standards.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 18:12
|
...But nobody is attacking him...
He's been called a thief.
Sounds like an attack from where I'm sitting.
"bankruptcy is bankruptcy - stealing from innocent creditors" - JohnH (above).
Last edited by: Iffy on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 18:16
|
>> "bankruptcy is bankruptcy - stealing from innocent creditors" - JohnH (above).
>>
That is how I view bankruptcy. A legal way to steal from creditors.
|
>>
>> That is how I view bankruptcy. A legal way to steal from creditors.
>>
That's an awful view.
Somebody that doesn't really know his APR from his elbow can easily end up there
Self employed can also run into problems very much like Mr Bulmer end up there
They are not thieves but have ended up facing financial distress and it's very easy to take a smug pov when you are financially comfortable.
|
>> Nor is our bankrupt member, although I suppose he could be.
>>
Have anyone named him/her?
( :-0 Journalists are known to do that sort of thing, IIRC. )
|
...but I think you've missed the point Iffy. In starting this thread it was Pat who was laying into Mr Bulmer's situation...
Maybe, maybe not.
My view is clear, I have no problem with an honest businessman being allowed a way out, nor do I have a problem with an honest individual being allowed a way out.
What I do have a problem with is those who seek to pillory the individual, and pillory those who chose to support him.
|
>> I don't understand pda's anger - which I think stems from ignorance or (quite possibly,
>> as it has been explained previously, stupidity).
>>
You obviously don't know Pat, she is an astute lady.
|
I am also frustrated that he allowed his staff to work for the last week knowing full well what the impact on their bank account was going to be at the end of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>have you not considered he was breaking his balls trying to find alternative financial funding
|
Yes, I have and I'm sure he would have been doing that, but he's been in this business a long time.
He knows that once the rumours start, alternative funding isn't possible.
Pat
|
Blame HMRC. Rather than try and resolve the situation by they seem to just want to wipe the debt off their books by winding the company up. I appreciate they don't want the debt owed to them increase but I know they aren't very flexible when it comes to negotiating repayment terms.
It's happening all the time even with relatively healthy companies - one of the large clients goes bust owing a sizable amount, banks aren't lending, the company has to pay suppliers in order to keep functional, gets behind with HMRC who come in, won't offer a realistic repayment term and wind it up.
Depending on suppliers you can phoenix it by doing some sort of management buyout but banks will want security for any lending which could well be the MD's family home.
HMRC so keen to windup a largish company, can create a domino reaction where no one benefits and just adds to a recession.
|
|
And HMRC loose all the future income tax from the workers, the future VAT payments, etc...
|
>> And HMRC loose all the future income tax from the workers, the future VAT payments,
>> etc...
>>
And pay out benefits to the newly unemployed.
|
>> Blame HMRC.
>>
Yes, they are a bunch of bureaucrats, civil servants who think they are acting in the best interests of the public purse, but who cannot see beyond the end of their noses because that is how civil service jobsworths are trained to work.
|
It really does sound like the Bulmer boss was a decent enough guy who just wanted his transport firm to be a success. There is loads of praise about the net for him as a person and very little to say he's manipulated the situation but just used all legal means to try and keep things going in very difficult times.
Family had a late friend who was a boss of a large local farm supplies & transport company. He worked 18hrs 365 days a year to keep his company going for both himself and his staff. It took just one unexpected unpaid large debt at a crucial time for cash flow to pull the rug out and fold the company.
He was made to look a fool.... losing his business which carried the family name, lost his E-type, his Rolls, his mansion etc etc. His drivers and other staff soon found work but he never recovered the wealth or lifestyle HE had created.
It's so easy to blame the boss in these cases!
Anyway I think there are far more folks sailing close to the wind than they'd like to admit and we are only going to see more of this in the year/s to come.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 12:07
|
I've only just caught up with this afternoon's developments on this thread. I am *mortified* that the help some forum members gave me should be held against them in such a way, and I can only apologise for putting you in that position. I feel sickened by what's been said above - it's exactly how I expected people to feel about me and my situation, but car4play is absolutely the last place I expected to hear it.
That's as much as I'm prepared to contribute to this thread. I won't be drawn into explaining myself or my actions to people who, as has rightly been said, can financially afford to be smug about the whole idea. The original thread from last year is here: bit.ly/iditTw
|
In another thread several seemed to be of the opinion that some posters were disappearing.
Seeing the personal attacks here it's hardly surprising, this non motoring forum has taken a nasty turn over the last few months, it's fast reaching the point of being an unpleasant place to be.
This is not the childrens playground for the school bully to throw his weight about, adults should have a sight more respect for one another, refraining from using a fellow poster as a football would be a good start.
|
"Seeing the personal attacks here it's hardly surprising, this non motoring forum has taken a nasty turn over the last few months, it's fast reaching the point of being an unpleasant place to be."
Well said GB, you can imagine what people visiting the forum for the first time must think !
Andy
|
>>This is not the childrens playground for the school bully to throw his weight about, adults should have a sight more respect for one another
Quite. It should be possible to state an alternative point of view without insults.
In this case also I think the general has been mixed up with the particular - it might be the case that Mr Bulmer is basically a philanthropist, on the other hand it might not - there's nothing in that article that I wouldn't expect him to say, and we know nothing of what he has taken out of the recently failed business and its predecessor.
Anybody who thinks that limited liability isn't epidemically and cynically abused is, er ... naive.
|
I think that this is a discussion where all view points, however unpopular, could have been aired and debated while staying within the facts of the situation under debate, rather than personally attacking the people debating.
What Pat did or did not choose to do with her own money, has no impact on whether her view of the situation under discussion is right or wrong.
Others should have instead discussed the merits of the argument that Pat put across, and mercilessly tore it apart if they wanted to...and were able to.
|
>>. I am *mortified* that the help some forum members gave me should be held against them in such a way,
It HASN'T.
|
>> I look forward to Pat's reply to
>>
I hope you have a very long wait.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 21:18
|
Pre-pack administration again - Hard Cheese
