Bowie wrote: » What do you see when you are out that gives you a window into the private lives of people? Your comment was cliché and anecdotal, which is fine up until people start thinking it's factual. Likely is with some small element but as with all such discussions nobody can every post verified numbers on them that don't want to work. Blanch might've chimed in around now with that report on the numbers of unemployed per household which as we know doesn't answer the query but helps to add to the fudge.
blanch152 wrote: » A subsidiary that is continually making losses but covered by a guarantee from the parent that it will cover the outgoings for the following year will be certified as a going concern. It is how the concept of a loss leader can be reconciled with accounting regulations. Debenhams may well have been happy to run its Irish subsidiary at a loss for a decade with a view to gaining market share and profit in the long-term. Guaranteeing the losses does not stretch to guaranteeing more than statutory redundancy for the employees. Fairly simple concept for anyone familiar with business to understand. There was no money for the workers. Vardakar didn't lie. Posters on here are fantasising about pots of money.
smurgen wrote: » Not a normal government.https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1326642237032312832?s=19
smurgen wrote: » I’d be asking what payments were made back to the parent company in the last five years and what the Irish subsidiary financial statements looked like. If it was continually being ran at a loss you’d have to challenge the going concern basis in the audit. You could hardly blame workers that have been there for years being annoyed. They again you probably could.
Cluedo Monopoly wrote: » I find that very odd and somewhat disturbing. When did that monitoring start? Was it just for Covid?
Bishop of hope wrote: » Is there anything illegal in that?
blanch152 wrote: » Again Leo expressing an opinion on something that has nothing to do with government doesn’t prove your point that the govern,ent had anything to do with Debenhams. If Leo expresses a view on the best looking guy in Dancing with the Stars, does that mean the government have something to do with the winner? Because according to your logic, it does. As has been pointed out time and again, Debenhams do not have the money to pay the workers, that is why the unions want to rob taxpayers like me. Leo didn’t lie, no matter how many time’s you say it.
Bowie wrote: » Remember the query was what government had to do with Debenhams. Leo sticking his oar in to lie was the reply. And yes, tiresome:
blanch152 wrote: » https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/explainer-why-are-former-debenhams-workers-picketing-1020881.html It is quite tiring having to explain the same thing over and over to you. Debenhams do not have assets and turnover. That is why the workers are looking for taxpayers money. "The workers are also calling on the Government to waive some €20 million owed to Revenue and local authorities through the liquidation process, so it can be used to boost workers’ redundancy packages." Sure if Debenhams illegally renege on creditors and taxes, there might be money for workers, but the law says the money is owed to the taxpayer first. So there is no money for workers, so Varadkar was correct, and you are wrong.
“And their expected turnover is €2bn this year. "We know that the stock in the Patrick Street store alone is valued at €4.9m. Stock in all 11 Debenhams Irish stores is conservatively valued at €25m. “But it would cost €10m to pay us all the agreed two weeks' redundancy package." Link
Nevin Parsnipp wrote: » Does it not ? You don't get out very much do you ?
Bowie wrote: » He lied when he stuck his oar in. Fact is Debenhams have assets and turnover as linked in my comment. Another lie? Varadkar lied, proof in my previous link. Where the workers might get their money now does not change that. The second claim from you of my lying is merely more made up claims by yourself.
Higgins5473 wrote: » Whoever runs that official FG Twitter handle is like a petulant child/are like petulant children. It's an utter embarrassment, like some Paddy Power ad campaign muck with attempts at wit and put downs which are totally devoid of any intelligence or worthwhile promotion for the political party itself. The idea that the imbeciles running it are most likely earning a packet from it under the guise of being some PR experts or some such nonsense is baffling. It's an utter sh*t show.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Another shoot yourself in the foot tweet. Immediately pointed out that Leo was cynically using a whistleblower to position himself in a leadership challenge to Enda Kenny, not to mention reminders of FG's actions in trying to undermine whistleblowers. 'Maybe he'll leak where the laptops and phones are'.
Garda Síochána refuses to disclose figures on officers’ lost phones 12 of the 15 mobile phones being sought by Charleton tribunal cannot be recovered
Bowie wrote: » Are you from Dickensian London? Your comment doesn't seem to be very grounded in reality.
Deleted User wrote: » Then, why did they enter liquidation? The workers rejected a redundancy deal in 2016, I think. That deal was no longer on the table, so no point looking for it.
Nevin Parsnipp wrote: » Indeed it is Dude a nice house near the Ma and a big 46 inch sputterin in the corner. Income related rent which of course you don't bother to pay and all sorts of woke do gooders and tree huggers to prevent you getting evicted. Bro Kevin for the Xmas goodies (he don't judge) and a tired GP gettin you the dissabilithy just to get rid of you. Attend a few peaceful demos if you get bored ..the transphort is free.... and free legals if you tangle with the polis. Not a bad life ...innit ?
Bowie wrote: » I'm not sure were you read that. Agreed Varadkar nor anyone else in government should not be chiming in on the matter, unless it is to advocate for the workers. Hand wringing about how poorly the workers were treated followed by defending Debenhams is not acceptable behaviour. On that note if government had of acted on the recommendations after the Cleary's scandal we might not be were we are.
blanch152 wrote: » Varadkar made a comment about Debenhams, that is true. However, you say he was "associated" with Debenhams, what exactly does that mean? Are your trying the old "guilty by association" trick? That is a further comment by yourself that it is untrue. You then say that Varadkar made an "incorrect statement as explained". You are entitled to claim that Varadkar made an incorrect statement, that is your unsubtantiated opinion. However, you cannot say that it is as explained, as you have presented zero evidence that Debenhams have money. In fact, as the Courts have found, the Mandate position is without merit. The actual facts are that Mandate are looking for a taxpayer bailout, not claiming that Debenhams have money, so you are advancing another lie.
Solutionking wrote: » I think a few people here don't actually understand what the government do. A lot of comments about Debenhams and all incorrect. I am talking about the government now, not a TD. A few people on here seem to think a single TD is the government. Debenhams staff have paid money for year to Mandate, a union if you could call it that. As soon as any issue what do Mandate do? well they run to the government. So why don't Mandate just tell the staff to pay direct to the government in extra tax instead of wasting it by giving it to them? The workers should be after Mandate, the best Mandate could come up with was "Mandate General Secretary John Douglas reminds the minister that there will be a significant cost to the State in redundancy and welfare payments if the staff are made redundant". Now if I was paying to a union and I read that I would cancel all payments and look for a refund. How useless are they? KPMG are liquidators and why is Mandate not working with them? If people are mad at anyone here it should be Mandate. My suggestion, if anyone is paying into these "unions" tell them to f**k right off and just point them to the carry on of Mandate for the reason why
Brendan Bendar wrote: » I didn’t get from the lads post that he “hated people on social welfare” I took that like most decent folk he didn’t approve of folk ‘gaming ‘ the system. Do you approve of folk gaming the system?
smurgen wrote: » I was one of those young people. Been paying USC and a lot of tax since I graduated. Successive FG and FF Government has wasted our taxes and provided a below par return. The sense of superiority that exists from these parties is unfounded and they can no longer rest on their laurels. They are as much a leech class as those on social welfare you hate. Corrupt politicians cheat us all.
Nevin Parsnipp wrote: » No hate at all my friend..what makes me angry though is to see young folk having to scrimp and save to make their own way in the world and provide for themselves without recourse to the State. To see young folk trying to better themselves by education and hard work and having to pay for everything...while another cohort are happy to leech from the State contribute nothing and expect to get everything for free. Who is the voice of the hard working young people with mortgages and medical bills to pay ...I see no political party championing their cause ? Is it fair that these young people are further burdened to pay for the dissolute lifestyles of those who make no effort to better themselves ? I don't think so.....and that DOES make me angry. !
blanch152 wrote: » I don't recall him saying he shared a confidential document with a vested interest. The document wasn't confidential in the way you mean and the interest wasn't vested. You are spinning what happened again. Leo wasn't the target, O'Toole was. Sinn Fein, Bowes and the Village were used.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f054c80ff399c4eba8d719c617220a57.svg)
