FG to still just do nothing for the next 5 years - part 2

Bowie wrote: »

FYI: Leo isn't that important.
Are you suggesting every penny from the stock will go back to the manufacturer and the sweat shop workers will benefit?
Its common knowledge to everyone except those pretending so as to save Varadkar's blushes, the stock is to be sold, so 'now' you know this to be the case has your view changed? Varadkar was wrong, there is money there. The workers are owed too.
Seems to me neither FG or their supporters have the working tax payer in mind. These workers are the very people the party and minister use for spin, people who like to get up early in the morning. Now because these tax payers lost their jobs through no fault of their own they are to be scorned because they may avail of state payments due to them and to be suggested as being selfish all because they want their due. Thats a convenient and shameful stance to take on these workers just to defend the inaction and elitest attitude of FG and idiocy of Varadkar (on this matter).
It's about ethics and belief in fair play, not the team. Just because FG's ethics are for sale doesn't mean the rest of us are as bereft of them as FG, specifically Varadkar, seem to be.

Leo isn't that important, huh? Really?

Yet your complete infatuation with Leo leads you to mention him or his party nine further times in the short post about Debenhams workers. It is getting more than a little strange the way you can't discuss a single topic without somehow bringing Leo into it, yet you amazingly start of a post saying he isn't that important. Well, stop talking about him if he isn't that important.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were at home sticking needles into a voodoo doll of Leo.

PommieBast

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock?

Even if Debenhams do own it, its not going to be liquidated for list price. It will be fire sale.

PommieBast

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

The irony is that as preferential creditors, employees are quite likely the only ones who will get anything at all. Suppliers and customers are completely shafted.

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock? Do you want to rob the businesses that supplied the stock and see their workers lose out? Because that is what your suggestion will result in. What’s more, those workers are probably in somewhere like Bangladesh and don’t have access to the €350 a week that the IrIsh taxpayer will give the Debenhams workers, in fact some of them will probably starve to death if their business doesn’t get paid, but you and Ruth don’t care about them, don’t care about what’s correct, only care about scoring political points against Leo, don’t care about what’s right or wrong, and ultimately don’t care about the Debenham workers either, who are just tools in your political nonsense.

FYI: Leo isn't that important.
Are you suggesting every penny from the stock will go back to the manufacturer and the sweat shop workers will benefit?
Its common knowledge to everyone except those pretending so as to save Varadkar's blushes, the stock is to be sold, so 'now' you know this to be the case has your view changed? Varadkar was wrong, there is money there. The workers are owed too.
Seems to me neither FG or their supporters have the working tax payer in mind. These workers are the very people the party and minister use for spin, people who like to get up early in the morning. Now because these tax payers lost their jobs through no fault of their own they are to be scorned because they may avail of state payments due to them and to be suggested as being selfish all because they want their due. Thats a convenient and shameful stance to take on these workers just to defend the inaction and elitest attitude of FG and idiocy of Varadkar (on this matter).
It's about ethics and belief in fair play, not the team. Just because FG's ethics are for sale doesn't mean the rest of us are as bereft of them as FG, specifically Varadkar, seem to be.

Bowie wrote: »

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

Ok, who owns the stock? Do you think Debenhams have paid for that stock? Do you want to rob the businesses that supplied the stock and see their workers lose out? Because that is what your suggestion will result in. What’s more, those workers are probably in somewhere like Bangladesh and don’t have access to the €350 a week that the IrIsh taxpayer will give the Debenhams workers, in fact some of them will probably starve to death if their business doesn’t get paid, but you and Ruth don’t care about them, don’t care about what’s correct, only care about scoring political points against Leo, don’t care about what’s right or wrong, and ultimately don’t care about the Debenham workers either, who are just tools in your political nonsense.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/1303765776558706688?s=19

No more testing at the meat plants, nothing to see in them

Matt Carthy wants to keep testing at meat plants where there are no more cases, instead of testing health workers where there are cases.

Have I got it right?

Truthvader wrote: »

OK simple question. The workers want more money. Whose money do you think they should get?

The workers want money they are due.
Same as creditors. The money there; derived from the sale of stock for example. Did you not read the statement you were criticising?

dundalkfc10

https://twitter.com/mattcarthy/status/1303765776558706688?s=19

No more testing at the meat plants, nothing to see in them

Bowie wrote: »

Except you don't know the details on this.
They are fighting for what they are entitled to. Varadkar was stating, and you were suggesting, that the money wasn't there, it is.
And you end with further ignorance on the matter. Nobody suggested such a thing.
No idea what SF has to do with this, another example of lack of knowledge on your part. Blindly digging out at Coppinger for pointing out Varadkar was wrong and at SF because, sure why not...

OK simple question. The workers want more money. Whose money do you think they should get?

Truthvader wrote: »

Expect I know very considerably more than you about liquidations and creditor priority. Maybe try a bit of reading yourself. I did no suggest workers should be deprived of anything. The position is the reverse. If workers get money to which they are not entitled to some who is entitled to that money loses. Unless you have a magic Sinn Fein money tree in which case we can all become "community activists" and draw money forever.

Except you don't know the details on this.
They are fighting for what they are entitled to. Varadkar was stating, and you were suggesting, that the money wasn't there, it is.
And you end with further ignorance on the matter. Nobody suggested such a thing.
No idea what SF has to do with this, another example of lack of knowledge on your part. Blindly digging out at Coppinger for pointing out Varadkar was wrong and at SF because, sure why not...

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Yawn

Leo stated it was not a tactical liquidation. The company has £95m in its bank account, it assetstripped the Irish online business, it "can't pay" redundancy yet it's not tactical says Leo.

Ah.... OK I get it now. Its the standard Sinn Fein economic theory. Someone else has more money than you so you are obviously entitled to some of their money. In this case someone else has £65 mill so obviously we are all entitled to big chunk of that.

Bowie wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting what you are talking(?) about. You should really read up on something before you comment.
Why should the workers be deprived so other creditors can get more?

Varadkar was wrong. It was pointed out, but ignore that and have a dig at Coppinger sure...

Expect I know very considerably more than you about liquidations and creditor priority. Maybe try a bit of reading yourself. I did no suggest workers should be deprived of anything. The position is the reverse. If workers get money to which they are not entitled to some who is entitled to that money loses. Unless you have a magic Sinn Fein money tree in which case we can all become "community activists" and draw money forever.

dundalkfc10

Truthvader wrote: »

Grow TF up.

Debenhams went bust, They couldn't pay their rent. What is your solution? Force the owners of shops to give them away to Debenhams for free? Pay the workers forever even though the business is gone. Take money rightfully due to other creditors and give it to the workers? Business's fail. The backers, bankers and investors lose their money. The workers lose their jobs. Its a sh1t situation for all. The workers are already entitled to statutory redundancy and should be using that time and money to look for another job (or become a capitalist because apparently its really easy and you get loadsa money forever).

Lightweight agitators like Coppinger do no-one any favours by persuading them they are entitled to money they are not entitled to. Just using them for personal publicity

Yawn

Leo stated it was not a tactical liquidation. The company has £95m in its bank account, it assetstripped the Irish online business, it "can't pay" redundancy yet it's not tactical says Leo.

Truthvader wrote: »

Grow TF up.

Debenhams went bust, They couldn't pay their rent. What is your solution? Force the owners of shops to give them away to Debenhams for free? Pay the workers forever even though the business is gone. Take money rightfully due to other creditors and give it to the workers? Business's fail. The backers, bankers and investors lose their money. The workers lose their jobs. Its a sh1t situation for all. The workers are already entitled to statutory redundancy and should be using that time and money to look for another job (or become a capitalist because apparently its really easy and you get loadsa money forever).

Lightweight agitators like Coppinger do no-one any favours by persuading them they are entitled to money they are not entitled to. Just using them for personal publicity

Nobody is suggesting what you are talking(?) about. You should really read up on something before you comment.
Why should the workers be deprived so other creditors can get more?

Varadkar was wrong. It was pointed out, but ignore that and have a dig at Coppinger sure...

Brendan Bendar

Truthvader wrote: »

Grow TF up.

Debenhams went bust, They couldn't pay their rent. What is your solution? Force the owners of shops to give them away to Debenhams for free? Pay the workers forever even though the business is gone. Take money rightfully due to other creditors and give it to the workers? Business's fail. The backers, bankers and investors lose their money. The workers lose their jobs. Its a sh1t situation for all. The workers are already entitled to statutory redundancy and should be using that time and money to look for another job (or become a capitalist because apparently its really easy and you get loadsa money forever).

Lightweight agitators like Coppinger do no-one any favours by persuading them they are entitled to money they are not entitled to. Just using them for personal publicity

Correct and right, Gouts like Coppinger only want anarchy a and use the unfortunate workforce as a vehicle for self promotion and publicity.

Time that sod of turf was kicked out of the political arena.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Ruth. Its got to do with Leo not giving a **** what happens the Debenhams workers.

Grow TF up.

Debenhams went bust, They couldn't pay their rent. What is your solution? Force the owners of shops to give them away to Debenhams for free? Pay the workers forever even though the business is gone. Take money rightfully due to other creditors and give it to the workers? Business's fail. The backers, bankers and investors lose their money. The workers lose their jobs. Its a sh1t situation for all. The workers are already entitled to statutory redundancy and should be using that time and money to look for another job (or become a capitalist because apparently its really easy and you get loadsa money forever).

Lightweight agitators like Coppinger do no-one any favours by persuading them they are entitled to money they are not entitled to. Just using them for personal publicity

dundalkfc10

blanch152 wrote: »

Poor Ruth, reduced to meaningless rants on Twitter.

I see she has finally decided to convert her office back to housing having spent years denying people the opportunity to use it for what it was built for while at the same time hypocritically whinging about the homeless.

This has nothing to do with Ruth. Its got to do with Leo not giving a **** what happens the Debenhams workers.

Brendan Bendar

Muahahaha wrote: »

Debenhams is just iike Clearys all over again. And just like Clearys we have FG politicians doing their hand wringing and saying isnt it terrible. Ss if they didnt have the power to prevent companies shafting their employees in the first place.

No it’s not,buddy.

Clerys had assets..

smurgen wrote: »

Varadkar would want to wake up and do less time with the photoshoots.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerSP/status/1303653325993369600?s=19

Poor Ruth, reduced to meaningless rants on Twitter.

I see she has finally decided to convert her office back to housing having spent years denying people the opportunity to use it for what it was built for while at the same time hypocritically whinging about the homeless.

Edit: Forget to add that makes her a property speculator now

Muahahaha

Debenhams is just iike Clearys all over again. And just like Clearys we have FG politicians doing their hand wringing and saying isnt it terrible. Ss if they didnt have the power to prevent companies shafting their employees in the first place.

smurgen wrote: »

Varadkar would want to wake up and do less time with the photoshoots.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerSP/status/1303653325993369600?s=19

He now has the opportunity to come out fighting for the workers. In the least he should immediately and publicly correct himself. It should be the elected public representatives fighting for the public.
Benefit of the doubt, he seems uninformed and figured he'd wing the interview, erring on the side of Debenhams.

Varadkar would want to wake up and do less time with the photoshoots.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerSP/status/1303653325993369600?s=19

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Respect your posts in general, Blanch, but wouldn't like to mark Mary's card just because she had Covid. Better than that.

If we were to be critical of SF in opposition then we'd look at:

1) Hundreds of people (mostly fat men) being sent up by bus to the fake funeral of a member of the army council of the PIRA. Sinister. During lockdown. They even made poor auld Pearse go. Standing at the back with his ashamed auld head on him.

2) Davey Boy 'Free State Bastards' Cullinane being the spokesperson for Health. Over O'Reilly? What did she do that caused that demotion?

3) The hero worship of Psycho Adams. Evil is a strange word, but you could legitimately use it towards him.

4) One of their TD's getting a free house and not paying any rent on that because they made a decision not to do so.

5) 50 properties and 200 employees.

6) The Army Council. The Green Book allowed for a few members of the political wing to sit on the fringes of the Army Council. Has that changed?

Wasn’t having a go at her because she had Covid. Was genuinely asking the question about her health. There is an awful lot of post-Covid syndrome around and her flat performances make you wonder if she is also a victim.

RandomViewer

smurgen wrote: »

Fine Gael after seriously undermining Ireland's status at the EU. Why should they be allowed be nominate their two candidates again? A total political non entity at this stage. What do they actually stand for? What do they believe?

Money, nothing else,

McMurphy wrote: »

Is he the fella that got the piss torn out of him over the baby box tweets?

Some one. He's a dose. Like a bad Ross O Carroll Kelly character.

McMurphy

smurgen wrote: »

This Neale Richmond lad would want to give Twitter a break. He's having a howler.

https://twitter.com/AranFitzpatrick/status/1302244406976802817?s=19

Is he the fella that got the piss torn out of him over the baby box tweets?

This Neale Richmond lad would want to give Twitter a break. He's having a howler.

https://twitter.com/AranFitzpatrick/status/1302244406976802817?s=19