Irish freight company goes to the wall . . .

theblueirish

hgv....eeer wrote: »

But maybe, just maybe, they did!!!! let us not forget them poor lads/lasses in the sit in, waiting for their pay, back pay, holiday pay and redundancy... they went home once told by the liquidator that there is in fact no mony at all. They will have to get there redundancy from us, the tax payer. They also explained that they would help them all they can to speed things up.

I think, the tax man new a hell of a lot more than he can let on due to Mr McBrien NOT allowing by not signing a disclosure waiver... hense the reason why polititions will not and can not get involved!!! It would be illegal.

What about the NI workers who work for a different company that did not have its accounts frozen, why did they not get paid? One of the sub contactors is owed in excess of £10,000 from the NI company that did not have its account frozen yet he will get nothing.

I was speaking to a few guys who were in head office today to be told they would get nothing for four to six months. They said they were gutted and should have guessed when managment in their depot were syphoning diesel from lorries to fill their and their wifes cars on Monday and taking goods home with them.

One of the senior managers took up a post with a new company less than 36 hours after drivers were told of Target closing.

We have had people in here saying they hadn't been paid by Target for quite a few months.

Its seems pretty clear that the senior managment knew alot sooner than the drivers did.

But hen its easier to blame it all on the revenue who have a policy of not commenting.

hgv....eeer

theblueirish wrote: »

What about the NI workers who work for a different company that did not have its accounts frozen, why did they not get paid? One of the sub contactors is owed in excess of £10,000 from the NI company that did not have its account frozen yet he will get nothing.

I was speaking to a few guys who were in head office today to be told they would get nothing for four to six months. They said they were gutted and should have guessed when managment in their depot were syphoning diesel from lorries to fill their and their wifes cars on Monday and taking goods home with them.

One of the senior managers took up a post with a new company less than 36 hours after drivers were told of Target closing.

We have had people in here saying they hadn't been paid by Target for quite a few months.

Its seems pretty clear that the senior managment knew alot sooner than the drivers did.

But hen its easier to blame it all on the revenue who have a policy of not commenting.

Mate, I do not have the answers. I have tried to put over a drivers point of view that is all.

Lets go into rumourville now... I was told tonight, what spooked revenue, was that they believed the Quinn family.... had interests!!!! maybe that would answer some questions for you. But they are rumours down here.

And I have not blamed Revenue as in badly, but in a praising way.

Scortho

On the matter of the attachment order shutting down the company it didn't.

Mr Mcbrien could have sought an injunction having this lifted. Or he could have gone down the examinership process. He was on the radio the next morning talking about a forecasted yearly profit of 1.6 million. If this was the case he could have gotten a few investors on board. The fact that he didnt suggests to me that there were much bigger issues at hand than the revenue debt.

Also there was talk today on Rte radio 1 about a property company being linked to the Target company which may have caused some of their problems.

theblueirish

Scortho wrote: »

Also there was talk today on Rte radio 1 about a property company being linked to the Target company which may have caused some of their problems.

Probably Farnley Investments:
https://www.duedil.com/company/IE360208/farnley-investments-r-o-i-limited

There is also a Farnley Investments NI LTD

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

Don't think they would have done it that way. The company was up sh1t creek the Revenue did something they do at times but not regularly and McBrien thought I can now close it down and blame someone else and look good. Did not work out. If Revenue knew what you are suggesting then they would have liquidated and got a receiver in before the tax bill got any bigger.

Again you are having it both ways, 'the company was up **** creek'....how did Revenue know this was more than a failure to pay tax? How did Pat Rabitte know that there was a liquidity problem in the company?
How do the workers know that companies where set up to strip out the company, yet nobody with oversight did anything to stop it? If this company where in difficulty with Revenue, they should have been under extremely close scrutiny (which I think they were and nobody did anything to prevent what was obviously happening)
McBrien took the money and ran but so did Revenue and the taxpayer and the workers, as usual are left carrying the can.

Again; there has to be a better way to avoid this carnage, it's not the first time it has happened. It's called 'joined up thinking'.

Valetta

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again you are having it both ways, 'the company was up **** creek'....how did Revenue know this was more than a failure to pay tax? How did Pat Rabitte know that there was a liquidity problem in the company?
How do the workers know that companies where set up to strip out the company, yet nobody with oversight did anything to stop it? If this company where in difficulty with Revenue, they should have been under extremely close scrutiny (which I think they were and nobody did anything to prevent what was obviously happening)
McBrien took the money and ran but so did Revenue and the taxpayer and the workers, as usual are left carrying the can.

Again; there has to be a better way to avoid this carnage, it's not the first time it has happened. It's called 'joined up thinking'.

I don't see anything that says McBrien took any money and "ran". Maybe you know something?

Also, the revenue represent the taxpayers, so to say they took the money and left the taxpayers carrying the can is a contradiction, as they are effectively one and the same.

What Pat rabbitte knew or didn't know is irrelevent. Government ministers can't get involved in the running of private companies.

Happyman42

Valetta wrote: »

I don't see anything that says McBrien took any money and "ran". Maybe you know something?

Apologies for not prefacing that with 'In my opinion'

Also, the revenue represent the taxpayers, so to say they took the money and left the taxpayers carrying the can is a contradiction, as they are effectively one and the same.

What Pat rabbitte knew or didn't know is irrelevent. Government ministers can't get involved in the running of private companies.

The institutions of the State (all of them) are there to protect the interests of the state. Do you think the interests of the State (us) where protected here? It doesn't look like it from where I'm standing.
p.s. The liquidators knew yesterday, having been in for a day, that there was no money left in the company to pay workers what they where entitled to.

Valetta

Happyman42 wrote: »

Apologies for not prefacing that with 'In my opinion'



The institutions of the State (all of them) are there to protect the interests of the state. Do you think the interests of the State (us) where protected here? It doesn't look like it from where I'm standing.
p.s. The liquidators knew yesterday, having been in for a day, that there was no money left in the company to pay workers what they where entitled to.

Yes. I think the interests of the state were definitely protected.

Allowing an insolvent company to continue to trade would be the height of irresponsibility, and would have put many more jobs at risk than Target's employees.

Happyman42

Valetta wrote: »

Yes. I think the interests of the state were definitely protected.

Allowing an insolvent company to continue to trade would be the height of irresponsibility, and would have put many more jobs at risk than Target's employees.

But according to others on here, they didn't stop an insolvent company. They took what was owed, and that in itself didn't mean the company would stop trading. McBrien decided to stop trading. Thats the confusion some here seem to have. Which is it?
In my opinion they took the action because they knew about the liquidity problems, and consequently failed to protect the taxpayer and the workers. By only intervening to recoup tax, they cut of our noses to spite our faces. If it's a lack of legislative power then they should have it.
It's not unique to McBrien either, it happens all the time on a smaller scale.

Valetta

Happyman42 wrote: »

But according to others on here, they didn't stop an insolvent company. They took what was owed, and that in itself didn't mean the company would stop trading. McBrien decided to stop trading. Thats the confusion some here seem to have. Which is it?
In my opinion they took the action because they knew about the liquidity problems, and consequently failed to protect the taxpayer and the workers. By only intervening to recoup tax, they cut of our noses to spite our faces. If it's a lack of legislative power then they should have it.
It's not unique to McBrien either, it happens all the time on a smaller scale.

I would prefer to take the word of the provisional liquidator over anonymous posters here.

he said the company was "hopelessly insolvent".

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again you are having it both ways, 'the company was up **** creek'....how did Revenue know this was more than a failure to pay tax? How did Pat Rabitte know that there was a liquidity problem in the company?
How do the workers know that companies where set up to strip out the company, yet nobody with oversight did anything to stop it? If this company where in difficulty with Revenue, they should have been under extremely close scrutiny (which I think they were and nobody did anything to prevent what was obviously happening)
McBrien took the money and ran but so did Revenue and the taxpayer and the workers, as usual are left carrying the can.

Again; there has to be a better way to avoid this carnage, it's not the first time it has happened. It's called 'joined up thinking'.

Revenue JOB is to collect monies that it is owed. What is did it did to do just that not because of the company was in difficult. It just so happened Mr. McBrien decided to pull the plug amd blame Revenue. I will say it again so you can finally get it MR. McBrien CLOSED THE COMPANY NOT REVENUE. What part of that do you not get. I have no Idea what Pat Rabbitt but I guess he knows whatever he was told. Why did no one blow the whistle on the company stripping them I DO NOT KNOW. The only sure way to stop this is to have people blow tthe whistle or have a official employed permantly in any business or anyone who pays taxes. (suippose it would lower our unemployment)

bucketybuck

I for one have been totally convinced by Happymans arguments. I demand that the Revenue allow insolvent companies to keep operating tax free, and that a minister be appointed to champion every company that cannot pay their debts.

If even one company goes bust, then the Revenue should be disbanded and a new state entity be brought into existence to do what they were doing before, except to do it more pro-actively.

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

Revenue JOB is to collect monies that it is owed.

Revenue have a whole range of powers where they suspect something, over and above the collection of taxes. They used only one here, adding an attachment. By your own addmission this rarely happens unless they suspect they won't get their money.
My point is, why, if they thought the company was insolvent (which you say they did) did they not use any of all the other powers they have? See the Revenue site for a list of their legislative powers. They are responsible to the Minister of Finance, who has a whole host of powers too.

Of course on other occaisions, when it suits your argument, you claim the Revenue didn't or couldn't know the state of this company's liquidity. :rolleyes:

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

I demand that the Revenue allow insolvent companies to keep operating tax free.

It's the 'they knew the company was insolvent' time again. :rolleyes:

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's the 'they knew the company was insolvent' time again. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm with you Happyman. Curse those fools at the revenue, curse them all to hell. Its their fault, not Mr McBriens. In fact, they should give him his money back, why hasn't there been a minister demanding they give this company its taxes back? Its an outrage!

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Hey, I'm with you Happyman. Curse those fools at the revenue, curse them all to hell. Its their fault, not Mr McBriens. In fact, they should give him his money back, why hasn't there been a minister demanding they give this company its taxes back? Its an outrage!

You seem to be a prime candidate for Moan Along With Joe, you get on to him and condemm and gloat, that should sort it all out. Get Mr Rabitte to do a Greek chorus along with you. Remember now! Don't be discussing better ways to do things, down with that sort of thing!

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

You seem to be a prime candidate for Moan Along With Joe, you get on to him and condemm and gloat, that should sort it all out. Get Mr Rabitte to do a Greek chorus along with you. Remember now! Don't be discussing better ways to do things, down with that sort of thing!

But I agree with you on everything?

Perhaps the problem is that you don't actually know what you are actually saying, so you don't realise I agree

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

But I agree with you on everything?

No you don't, I don't moan or indulge in pointless condemmnation, if I have constructive criticism to make, I make it.
Makes me unsuitable for Moan Along With Joe, but you'll get his number here www.rte.ie

buck65

But Happyman your argument is more Joe Duffy than anyones.

Da poor peeple.

Happyman42

buck65 wrote: »

But Happyman your argument is more Joe Duffy than anyones.

Da poor peeple.

So you are happy to sit around and moan about this until it happens again? Because it will.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you are happy to sit around and moan about this until it happens again? Because it will.

Correct. If businesses don't pay their PAYE or other taxes then the Revenue will take action. This indeed will happen again in those cases. It strange that you have a problem with this.

buck65

Happyman42 wrote: »

So you are happy to sit around and moan about this until it happens again? Because it will.

I run a business, I directly employ 32 people, I pay my taxes , rates, rent, wages, PRSI, pension contributions - mightn't agree with the rates etc. it but I do.
If I decided to stop paying or avoid paying my taxes do i deserve to be helped or stopped?
Really isn't this what it boils down to?

Happyman42

buck65 wrote: »

I run a business, I directly employ 32 people, I pay my taxes , rates, rent, wages, PRSI, pension contributions - mightn't agree with the rates etc. it but I do.
If I decided to stop paying or avoid paying my taxes do i deserve to be helped or stopped?
Really isn't this what it boils down to?

If you are paying, no problem.
If you are in genuine difficulties but are making contact and payment, no problem.
If you are obviously insolvent then the Revenue need to act and if you are setting up companies to asset strip then the Revenue and other state institutions should use their many powers to stop you. What is the point of spending millions upon millions chasing money that is most likely gone? Prevent rather than react.

martingriff

Valetta wrote: »

I would prefer to take the word of the provisional liquidator over anonymous posters here.

he said the company was "hopelessly insolvent".

He did pull the plug himself he has even said it but blamed revenue for doing it. Revenue had no idea it was insolvent or what it was doing as all they had to go on was what they had been given. It was by the attachments been put on that the whole picture came out and the company went to liquidation

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Revenue have a whole range of powers where they suspect something, over and above the collection of taxes. They used only one here, adding an attachment. By your own addmission this rarely happens unless they suspect they won't get their money.
My point is, why, if they thought the company was insolvent (which you say they did) did they not use any of all the other powers they have? See the Revenue site for a list of their legislative powers. They are responsible to the Minister of Finance, who has a whole host of powers too.

Of course on other occaisions, when it suits your argument, you claim the Revenue didn't or couldn't know the state of this company's liquidity. :rolleyes:

The Revenue did not think it was insolvent I would say the whole range of powers the Revenue have are for the same purpose to collect taxes due and then if they susspect a company/individual is bad they do insolvency/bankrupcy. An attachment in itself does not close a company down. What an attachment does is it places an order on the bank to give any money in the said account to the revenue untill it is paid to the sum it sets out then it is lifted (IT IS NOT FOR CLOSING DOWN A COMPANY) They also can use sheriffs or a solisitor, and do judgement morgages. Before you ask I have no way of knowing why they picked the attachment but would have not used it if they thought the company would go into liquidation.

ejmaztec

martingriff wrote: »

The Revenue did not think it was insolvent I would say the whole range of powers the Revenue have are for the same purpose to collect taxes due and then if they susspect a company/individual is bad they do insolvency/bankrupcy. An attachment in itself does not close a company down. What an attachment does is it places an order on the bank to give any money in the said account to the revenue untill it is paid to the sum it sets out then it is lifted (IT IS NOT FOR CLOSING DOWN A COMPANY) They also can use sheriffs or a solisitor, and do judgement morgages. Before you ask I have no way of knowing why they picked the attachment but would have not used it if they thought the company would go into liquidation.

If it was insolvent, then I would imagine that the figures produced by the company to support the original instalment arrangement, must have been wrong. I can see a company trying to paint a rosier picture when trying to get the Collector General to agree to an instalment arrangement, in an attempt to put off the inevitable.

The only accounts to be assumed to be true and fair would be the annual audited accounts, so Happyman42's "prevention" wouldn't work, because no-one in an official capacity would know what the situation really was until the audited accounts were filed, and even these wouldn't be up to date.

bucketybuck

ejmaztec wrote: »

If it was insolvent, then I would imagine that the figures produced by the company to support the original instalment arrangement, must have been wrong. I can see a company trying to paint a rosier picture when trying to get the Collector General to agree to an instalment arrangement, in an attempt to put off the inevitable.

The only accounts to be assumed to be true and fair would be the annual audited accounts, so Happyman42's "prevention" wouldn't work, because no-one in an official capacity would know what the situation really was until the audited accounts were filed, and even these wouldn't be up to date.

The Revenue should be pro-active and have every company in Ireland provide them with up-to-date accounts weekly, so they can keep on top of things like these.

martingriff

ejmaztec wrote: »

If it was insolvent, then I would imagine that the figures produced by the company to support the original instalment arrangement, must have been wrong. I can see a company trying to paint a rosier picture when trying to get the Collector General to agree to an instalment arrangement, in an attempt to put off the inevitable.

The only accounts to be assumed to be true and fair would be the annual audited accounts, so Happyman42's "prevention" wouldn't work, because no-one in an official capacity would know what the situation really was until the audited accounts were filed, and even these wouldn't be up to date.

My point exactly

martingriff

bucketybuck wrote: »

The Revenue should be pro-active and have every company in Ireland provide them with up-to-date accounts weekly, so they can keep on top of things like these.

Have you any idea what kinda work that would be for the revenue and for the companies themself. Taxes are either send in monthly for some bi monthly and sometimes quaterly but your idea would be a nightmare.

barneystinson

bucketybuck wrote: »

ejmaztec wrote: »

If it was insolvent, then I would imagine that the figures produced by the company to support the original instalment arrangement, must have been wrong. I can see a company trying to paint a rosier picture when trying to get the Collector General to agree to an instalment arrangement, in an attempt to put off the inevitable.

The only accounts to be assumed to be true and fair would be the annual audited accounts, so Happyman42's "prevention" wouldn't work, because no-one in an official capacity would know what the situation really was until the audited accounts were filed, and even these wouldn't be up to date.

The Revenue should be pro-active and have every company in Ireland provide them with up-to-date accounts weekly, so they can keep on top of things like these.

To hell with that, too much could happen in a week. They should run every individual transaction past their proactively appointed Revenue financial controller!

ejmaztec

barneystinson wrote: »

To hell with that, too much could happen in a week. They should run every individual transaction past their proactively appointed Revenue financial controller!

What we really want is a super-computer that automatically picks up every single transaction that takes place throughout the whole country, and mashes these together into thousands of cross-referenced accounts, so that if anyone is more than five minutes behind with their payments, they get a knock on the door from the "Liquidators" who drive around all day in black SUVs waiting for the call.

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

The only accounts to be assumed to be true and fair would be the annual audited accounts, so Happyman42's "prevention" wouldn't work, because no-one in an official capacity would know what the situation really was until the audited accounts were filed...............

.............except Pat Rabitte the next morning, before the liquidators went in. :rolleyes: 'It is obvious that there are serious liquidity issues at Target' (or words to that effect)

People keep saying 'Revenue don't issue attachments unless they have exhausted all other avenues' (isn't that what you and others have said martingriff?) and there was a former senior tax official on Drivetime yesterday saying exactly the same thing.
This is where I have a problem with posters, one minute it's, 'the revenue couldn't know the insolvency of the company and the next minute it's 'Revenue where right to close this 'insolvent' company, to prevent it incurring even more arrears'.
It seems to me they knew exactly what the situation was.
I wish people would stop confusing tax collection with the full function of the Revenue Commissioners. Revenue's mandate extends a lot further than tax collection.

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

.............except Pat Rabitte the next morning, before the liquidators went in. :rolleyes: 'It is obvious that there are serious liquidity issues at Target' (or words to that effect)

People keep saying 'Revenue don't issue attachments unless they have exhausted all other avenues' (isn't that what you and others have said martingriff?) and there was a former senior tax official on Drivetime yesterday saying exactly the same thing.
This is where I have a problem with posters, one minute it's, 'the revenue couldn't know the insolvency of the company and the next minute it's 'Revenue where right to close this 'insolvent' company, to prevent it incurring even more arrears'.
It seems to me they knew exactly what the situation was.
I wish people would stop confusing tax collection with the full function of the Revenue Commissioners. Revenue's mandate extends a lot further than tax collection.

Go on, tell us all about the Revenue Commissioners, I've got a big bag of popcorn at the ready

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've got a big bag of popcorn at the ready

Do you need adult help to open it?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

.............except Pat Rabitte the next morning, before the liquidators went in. :rolleyes: 'It is obvious that there are serious liquidity issues at Target' (or words to that effect)

People keep saying 'Revenue don't issue attachments unless they have exhausted all other avenues' (isn't that what you and others have said martingriff?) and there was a former senior tax official on Drivetime yesterday saying exactly the same thing.
This is where I have a problem with posters, one minute it's, 'the revenue couldn't know the insolvency of the company and the next minute it's 'Revenue where right to close this 'insolvent' company, to prevent it incurring even more arrears'.
It seems to me they knew exactly what the situation was.
I wish people would stop confusing tax collection with the full function of the Revenue Commissioners. Revenue's mandate extends a lot further than tax collection.

I never said this. However over many many months or whatever with a company the Revenue may get a picture that a company is not making it repayments and never will so when that happens they LIQUIDATE a company not issue an ATTACHMENT. It is not because they think it is insolvent but because they do not pay there bills want to close it down so it does not get any bigger issue a receiver and get as much money for the taxpayer as the creditor. I am at a loss at what you dont get.

ATTACHMENT. An order to a said bank or maybe supplier to issue mopney to the revenue and not the company up to an amount at which time the attachment is lifter THIS IS WHAT WAS DONE

LIQUIDATION in revenues eyes. To close down a company which as not been paying it bills where all other avenues have been exhausted to get a much money back as possible that is owed. THIS WAS NOT DONE

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you need adult help to open it?

How about you answer the question name all the other jobs the Revenue do which is not for collecting or making sure they are collecting the right taxes

martingriff

ejmaztec wrote: »

What we really want is a super-computer that automatically picks up every single transaction that takes place throughout the whole country, and mashes these together into thousands of cross-referenced accounts, so that if anyone is more than five minutes behind with their payments, they get a knock on the door from the "Liquidators" who drive around all day in black SUVs waiting for the call.

I am sensing a whiff of sarcasm in your posts well I hope I am Edit. Sorry wrong poster

bucketybuck

martingriff wrote: »

Have you any idea what kinda work that would be for the revenue and for the companies themself. Taxes are either send in monthly for some bi monthly and sometimes quaterly but your idea would be a nightmare.

But we need to be pro-active...

How about we form a new state body to check accounts week by week!

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do you need adult help to open it?

Is the one who opens yours up to it, or haven't they got enough spare time?

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

But we need to be pro-active...

Which would you prefer, an early warning system or to sit back and watch it happen over and over again?

Revenue work with the Fraud Squad all the time, do you think they will be interested in this case at some point? Why couldn't they have gotten involved sooner?
If the business community knew that certain actions where going to bring more scrutiny do you think it would deter this kind of thing?
Considering what the likes of Quinn and now this, has cost the State, investing some money into preventative mechanisms and extra staff would be well spent.

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

Is the one who opens yours up to it, or haven't they got enough spare time?

I wouldn't take it off the children.;)

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

bucketybuck wrote: »

But we need to be pro-active...

Which would you prefer, an early warning system or to sit back and watch it happen over and over again?

Revenue work with the Fraud Squad all the time, do you think they will be interested in this case at some point? Why couldn't they have gotten involved sooner?
If the business community knew that certain actions where going to bring more scrutiny do you think it would deter this kind of thing?
Considering what the likes of Quinn and now this, has cost the State, investing some money into preventative mechanisms and extra staff would be well spent.

I'm all ears waiting for you to tell us about this early warning system; do you think everyone in Revenue and other State bodies are just sitting there in a kind of stasis? Systems to attempt to monitor risk in real-time are neither cheap nor simple, but they're being rolled out. Things are moving towards everything being filed online, including full financial statements for companies, so that should help to refine the State's risk systems further.

The main problem that I and, based on the sarcastic replies, several others have here is that you just appear to be like a dope in the pub giving out about something he has no understanding of: either explain HOW this increased level of proactivity should happen, or what other country's system we should be copying, or stop talking shoyte please, because you're using up my bandwidth..!

Happyman42

barneystinson wrote: »

I'm all ears waiting for you to tell us about this early warning system; do you think everyone in Revenue and other State bodies are just sitting there in a kind of stasis?

They certainly are sitting holding their hands now, and after Quinn rode off into the sunset.

Systems to attempt to monitor risk in real-time are neither cheap nor simple, but they're being rolled out. Things are moving towards everything being filed online, including full financial statements for companies, so that should help to refine the State's risk systems further.

Yes, you are correct, technology makes this a lot easier. I said it before it called 'joined up thinking'. If an account passes a certain figure in arrears then it is handed over to somebody with expertise and access to records on directors and their previous businesses.(if any) They have a look, maybe even have special powers when they have to be are involved. Who thought that CAB would work for instance and why did it take so long to have a department to deal effectively with that? I don't have all the answers, I have the question, why can't it be done? They issued over 4000 attachments last year, there has to be a database of repeat offenders and risks.
All over this country people shut down businesses and walk away from debts and are back up and running the following week. Has happened in my business several times. There has to be a way to deter that or stop it and to my mind Revenue and the knowledge they are capable of gathering are the ones to do it.

The main problem that I and, based on the sarcastic replies, several others have here is that you just appear to be like a dope in the pub giving out about something he has no understanding of: either explain HOW this increased level of proactivity should happen, or what other country's system we should be copying, or stop talking shoyte please, because you're using up my bandwidth..!

You know where the door is if you don't want to take part, I don't see many others trying to investigate constructive ways to learn from the shoyte this company and it's former employees and us, the taxpayer are in.

ofcork

Latest now is masterlink want to take over the name and customer list from target,maybe they will hire some of the guys.

luckyfrank

ofcork wrote: »

Latest now is masterlink want to take over the name and customer list from target,maybe they will hire some of the guys.

Masterlink........ just like target they send drivers out with full loads without pallat trucks, ive heard they are a nightmare to work for