If Nigel gave up...

Aardvark · 02-08-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Sadly Mr Collier I am but a fool compared to you

You gentlemen are of equal worth. Both of you bring informed debate to the forum. I think you are both talking in circles to avoid the names and dates and reports involved with the Ashford call centre. Do not be embarrassed about bringing publicly accessible information into this domain.

GC, I don't have access to the Heorot Report; the originator has not got ready access to the information.

Geoffrey Collier · 02-08-2008, 10:18 AM

Aardvasrk: I note what you say and will remedy that deficiency in your documentation.

michael mcgough: Say what you wish, good sir, but make sure that you are on strong ground. The fault with that company about which we are talking, resulted from an unavoiable breach by the plc, which was the parent-company, by their inability to pay a tax liability which was a condition of the original sale. The person that you are 'maligning' was the victim of a contractual failure over which he had no control. Are you claiming, in all honesty, that this information was unknown to you?

Bob FM · 02-08-2008, 10:54 AM

Do you lot not get bore with talking about something that may or may not have taken place years ago. One would have thought given all the evidence you all have wrong doing would have been proved by now.

Geoffrey Collier · 02-08-2008, 10:59 AM

BobFM: You don't even understand the subject of this debate. If ignorance were a commodity, I would report you to the Monopolies Commission.

michael mcgough · 02-08-2008, 11:02 AM

Geoffrey;my most recent post has strangely disappeared but I ask but one question of you;
does the failure of a vendor plc absolve the buyer of a company from fulfilling statutory obligations over a period of many years.There is a public interest issue here because we as taxpayers lost over £80k paye and over £40k vat ,not to mention the poor unsecured trade creditors losing £500k +.
Kindly quote me the relevant sections of the Companies Act and I'll disappear with my head bowed having first apologised.

michael mcgough · 02-08-2008, 11:05 AM

For those left in ignorance by disappearing posts I must make clear that my posts are in no way connected with Ashford as Geoffrey well knows but as ever is feigning ignorance.

Anthony Butcher · 02-08-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michael mcgough

Geoffrey;my most recent post has strangely disappeared but I ask but one question of you;
does the failure of a vendor plc absolve the buyer of a company from fulfilling statutory obligations over a period of many years.There is a public interest issue here because we as taxpayers lost over £80k paye and over £40k vat ,not to mention the poor unsecured trade creditors losing £500k +.
Kindly quote me the relevant sections of the Companies Act and I'll disappear with my head bowed having first apologised.

Can I strongly suggest for your own good that you ask RS to explain this to you in person and cease commenting. You are in serious risk of being sued for libel. RS explained this in detail to you before, including why the tax man was perfectly satisfied with the situation, but you appear to have chosen to either forget this information or ignore it.

RS took on a failing company and turned it around, with agreement from the authorities, but the parent public company that held the liabilities went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with RS, and there was nothing that they could do to rescue the situation. Your libellous smear campaign against him is going to land you in hot water if you don't stop it.

michael mcgough · 02-08-2008, 11:24 AM

I fear ye doth protest too much!

Bob FM · 02-08-2008, 11:40 AM

What I find interesting on these threads is that the maligned person rarely defends themselves, i really do find that quite odd. I was always brought up to fight my own battles, not to expect 'big brother' to protect me.

Anthony Butcher · 02-08-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

What I find interesting on these threads is that the maligned person rarely defends themselves, i really do find that quite odd. I was always brought up to fight my own battles, not to expect 'big brother' to protect me.

RS hasn't posted on this forum in a very long time (two years?), and Mick is digging himself into a legal nightmare. To falsely malign the very solid financial reputation of a man whose main business is finance related is to actively damage his business. And that's not going to end nicely.

What's even stranger is RS hasn't been a UKIP party member for two years and has had almost nothing to do with the party, but Mick still feels the need to smear him.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-08-2008, 10:18 AM	#102 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Aardvasrk: I note what you say and will remedy that deficiency in your documentation. michael mcgough: Say what you wish, good sir, but make sure that you are on strong ground. The fault with that company about which we are talking, resulted from an unavoiable breach by the plc, which was the parent-company, by their inability to pay a tax liability which was a condition of the original sale. The person that you are 'maligning' was the victim of a contractual failure over which he had no control. Are you claiming, in all honesty, that this information was unknown to you?

02-08-2008, 10:54 AM	#103 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	Do you lot not get bore with talking about something that may or may not have taken place years ago. One would have thought given all the evidence you all have wrong doing would have been proved by now.

02-08-2008, 10:59 AM	#104 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	BobFM: You don't even understand the subject of this debate. If ignorance were a commodity, I would report you to the Monopolies Commission.

02-08-2008, 11:02 AM	#105 (permalink)
michael mcgough Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 1,248	Geoffrey;my most recent post has strangely disappeared but I ask but one question of you; does the failure of a vendor plc absolve the buyer of a company from fulfilling statutory obligations over a period of many years.There is a public interest issue here because we as taxpayers lost over £80k paye and over £40k vat ,not to mention the poor unsecured trade creditors losing £500k +. Kindly quote me the relevant sections of the Companies Act and I'll disappear with my head bowed having first apologised.

02-08-2008, 11:05 AM	#106 (permalink)
michael mcgough Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 1,248	For those left in ignorance by disappearing posts I must make clear that my posts are in no way connected with Ashford as Geoffrey well knows but as ever is feigning ignorance.

02-08-2008, 11:24 AM	#108 (permalink)
michael mcgough Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Essex Posts: 1,248	I fear ye doth protest too much!

02-08-2008, 11:40 AM	#109 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	What I find interesting on these threads is that the maligned person rarely defends themselves, i really do find that quite odd. I was always brought up to fight my own battles, not to expect 'big brother' to protect me.