• limpid

      Just visiting?   27/12/16

      Please click "Sign Up" and login to use the full functionality of the site.


Full Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,024 Excellent

About snowychap

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,598 profile views
  1. General Chat

    Not quite.
  2. General Chat

  3. General Chat

    I'm not sure that the ability to follow health and safety legislation, other laws and so on when the circumstances demand it, i.e. when they'd presumably be drummed off the site and lose existing and future work quicker than you could say Roy Rogers if they didn't follow proper practice(s), and being 'laid back' elsewhere or that they've been around since the 70s precludes them from being called a cowboy outfit. The more you describe them, the more they sound like the kind of lot who would do the least they can get away with and **** the potential consequences. It isn't just your bosses who are responsible for complying with health and safety regulations and legislation, is it, though?
  4. General Chat

    Your description of the working conditions, the complete lack of concern for the welfare of workers and third parties, that everyone thought it was great and a good old laugh, and that you all carried on without doing anything about it doesn't just suggest otherwise, it says it.
  5. VillaTalk Deadpool 2018

    Peter Mayle.
  6. Snow Watch!

  7. Things that piss you off that shouldn't

    I hope you're careful where you stand when you're waiting at a pedestrian crossing.
  8. I believe the cabinet office said he didn't continue that role under May. He's called Philip Green. No, not that Philip Green but this Philip Green:
  9. Mogg to be the new chair of the 'ERG'.
  10. I think they're all fair points. I wonder how many directors do actually get disqualified as a result of action taken by liquidators? Perhaps we ought to make it automatic for a certain period and make it longer lasting for those deemed to be the worst culprits? I also think that we need to think about how we treat suppliers as creditors in cases like this. My memory's a bit sketchy on the hierarchy of creditors but aren't suppliers likely to be unsecured creditors and thus at the back of the queue? Maybe they ought to treat suppliers of a certain size or below as preferential creditors along with employees?* *I guess that putting some suppliers above secured creditors may have an unwanted negative effect upon investment.
  11. We need to rethink the mechanism(s) by which we hold directors of companies to account for not fulfilling their statutory duties. The directors' duties codified in the CA 2006 have no real bite. The remedies for breach are limited to a claim by the company, by a liquidator/administrator once the company is insolvent or by shareholders through derivative claims. None of these are good enough or take in to account, sufficiently, the duties to employees, suppliers, customers and the community [CA 2006 s 172 (1) (b),(c), (d).].