Bluff and bluster fails.

[Notch7]

Why don’t you have a look.

You claimed the company only ever had £4m

You tell us.

 

[motorbiking]

I already did.

 

[motorbiking]

Medpro was only set up to create a British company so the govt could pay the money to them.



“However, Mr Barrowman has admitted receiving a large share of the proceeds himself.

In his 2023 interview, he told the BBC he had received around £60m from PPE Medpro.

Baroness Mone said that a share of that sum was paid into a trust in the Isle of Man, of which she and her children are beneficiaries, and so potentially stand to receive the money.

Loudwater's parent company, Loudwater Holdings Ltd, is based in North London. It had net assets of more than £55m, according to its latest accounts, and a turnover of £95m.”

A different company.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Has the penny finally dropped that the company was insolvent and the directors had a duty to wind up?

Glad we got there.

You keep going round in your circles.

As originally stated,

Swerve, tell me they didn't make profit, etc etc but that fact remains

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Mbk won't accept it was deliberate because they are Tories

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Medpro was only set up to create a British company so the govt could pay the money to them.



“However, Mr Barrowman has admitted receiving a large share of the proceeds himself.

In his 2023 interview, he told the BBC he had received around £60m from PPE Medpro.

Baroness Mone said that a share of that sum was paid into a trust in the Isle of Man, of which she and her children are beneficiaries, and so potentially stand to receive the money.

Loudwater's parent company, Loudwater Holdings Ltd, is based in North London. It had net assets of more than £55m, according to its latest accounts, and a turnover of £95m.”

Apparently mbk hasn't read this, or understood it.

They were unprofitable!

 

[motorbiking]

You keep going round in your circles.

As originally stated,

Swerve, tell me they didn't make profit, etc etc but that fact remains

Mbk won't accept it was deliberate because they are Tories

Apparently mbk hasn't read this, or understood it.

They were unprofitable!

It would be handy if you actually understood the facts. You seem to have no understanding of the fundamentals of business.

1) Insolvency - is when a company does not have the means to pay its debts. Profitability is irrelevant. Profitable companies go bust all the time.
2) Wrongful Trading - is the unlawful act of continuing to trade when you are insolvent.
3) Revenue Recognition - Revenue is recognisable when the product or service is delivered.

its got nothing to do with my politics, in fact its your politics that blinds you. You want them to be evil nasty tories. I don't suggest they aren't but you have to look at the facts.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

It would be handy if you actually understood the facts. You seem to have no understanding of the fundamentals of business.

1) Insolvency - is when a company does not have the means to pay its debts. Profitability is irrelevant. Profitable companies go bust all the time.
2) Wrongful Trading - is the unlawful act of continuing to trade when you are insolvent.
3) Revenue Recognition - Revenue is recognisable when the product or service is delivered.

its got nothing to do with my politics, in fact its your politics that blinds you. You want them to be evil nasty tories. I don't suggest they aren't but you have to look at the facts.

It would be much easier if you avoided swerving and trying to suggest that I don't understand business.

Let me remind you I needed to explain what profit was to you, and the importance of traceability and sourcing.

Try knitting your fog on the next subject. This isn't the 1st where you've gone on for pages and pages twisting and turning, and trying to confuse things

Leys compare your hounding of Raynor and starmer to this case, and look at the values, and then say it's nothing to do with politics.

Don't fool yourself, do you actually believe you are as clever as you try to portray?

You're a charlatan.

 

[motorbiking]

It would be much easier if you avoided swerving and trying to suggest that I don't understand business.

Its a fact - you've no clue and demonstrated this

Let me remind you I needed to explain what profit was to you, and the importance of traceability and sourcing.

No you actually showed you don't understand the difference between gross and net profit and why being profitable has no baring on viability.

Try knitting your fog on the next subject. This isn't the 1st where you've gone on for pages and pages twisting and turning, and trying to confuse things

Its very hard if the person has no clue of the subject

Leys compare your hounding of Raynor and starmer to this case, and look at the values, and then say it's nothing to do with politics.

Raynor, the MP that still hasn't learned her lesson - choosing to use her tax payer funded protection team as men with a van for her bf, you mean.

Don't fool yourself, do you actually believe you are as clever as you try to portray?

You've showed you have a simplistic and naive view of business. I'm sorry that upsets you.

On this topic - you feel that the insolvency was a cynical move to dodge paying the judgement. I've told you the first rule of litigation is make sure they can pay. They clearly couldn't pay. I've also told you that they had no choice to but to liquidate or face penalties for wrongful trading - you had no clue.

You're a charlatan.

ad hom noted

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Its a fact - you've no clue and demonstrated this

No. I gave you a few facts you tried to pretend weren't true

No you actually showed you don't understand the difference between gross and net profit and why being profitable has no baring on viability.

No, I think that's you. Umpteen million been taken out of the business but you said they weren't profitable. The money was moved before the judgement that's all

They took the money and ran. Legally, of ciurse

Its very hard if the person has no clue of the subject

I know. You go on for pages knitting fog and twisting and turning to deny what you've said before

Raynor, the MP that still hasn't learned her lesson - choosing to use her tax payer funded protection team as men with a van for her bf, you mean.

See. Politically inspired prejudice

You've showed you have a simplistic and naive view of business. I'm sorry that upsets you.

I run a successful business. Business is really simple. If you receive more money than you spend you make a profit. How much more complicated do you want ?

On this topic - you feel that the insolvency was a cynical move to dodge paying the judgement. I've told you the first rule of litigation is make sure they can pay. They clearly couldn't pay. I've also told you that they had no choice to but to liquidate or face penalties for wrongful trading - you had no clue.

The no clue is your lack of understanding of the fact that

THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN

ad hom noted

No ad hom. It's my genuine opinion of you. I repeat. You are a charlatan

 

[motorbiking]

No. I gave you a few facts you tried to pretend weren't true

they were untrue - you claimed they cynically liquidated the company. I told you they had a duty to creditors to do this. You argued that this was untrue because they were "profitable". I told you the definition of insolvency and you stuck your head in the sand.

No, I think that's you. Umpteen million been taken out of the business but you said they weren't profitable. The money was moved before the judgement that's all

The revenue was recognisable and the profits legitimate from a business point of view - shareholders are entitled to take profits.

They took the money and ran. Legally, of ciurse

I know. You go on for pages knitting fog and twisting and turning to deny what you've said before

You remain as clueless now as you were when you incorrectly stated they cynically liquidated the company.

See. Politically inspired prejudice

she can't help herself it seems - If I need a man with a van, I don't expect the police to provide the service FoC.

I run a successful business. Business is really simple. If you receive more money than you spend you make a profit. How much more complicated do you want ?

This is of course nonsense and further shows you have no clue. Money received for orders not shipped, services not delivered, terms and conditions I have to fulfil. etc etc. None of this is recognisable revenue. Being self employed, does not mean you have knowledge of how to run a successful business.

The no clue is your lack of understanding of the fact that

THEY TOOK THE MONEY AND RAN

No ad hom. It's my genuine opinion of you. I repeat. You are a charlatan

You are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed. This is my genuine opinion of you.

 

[blup]

Greed is not a crime. If my mechanic fits fake parts he is not automatically acting fraudulently, even if I have specified OEM warranted parts only. But if he is the sole shareholder of a company whose true ownership is disguised there are separate regulatory and criminal implications. Corporate service providers are usually appointed directors not shareholders according to this article by TPA. So there are separate lines of inquiry beyond the immediate contract

Barrowman’s potentially criminal PPE cover-up

The Guardian recently reported that two UK companies ultimately controlled by businessman Douglas Barrowman were the subject of PPE contract lobbying by his wife. I’ve no expertise or interest in the…

taxpolicy.org.uk

 

[motorbiking]

He's talking about Persons of Significant Control, (PSC) - there has already been a complaint filed by tax watch. But this is not the focus of the criminal investigation.

 

[Notch7]

A different company.

No it isn’t, it’s the same PPE Medpro.

Stop deflecting

 

[carmanmemoranda]

they were untrue - you claimed they cynically liquidated the company. I told you they had a duty to creditors to do this. You argued that this was untrue because they were "profitable". I told you the definition of insolvency and you stuck your head in the sand.

The revenue was recognisable and the profits legitimate from a business point of view - shareholders are entitled to take profits.

You remain as clueless now as you were when you incorrectly stated they cynically liquidated the company.

she can't help herself it seems - If I need a man with a van, I don't expect the police to provide the service FoC.

This is of course nonsense and further shows you have no clue. Money received for orders not shipped, services not delivered, terms and conditions I have to fulfil. etc etc. None of this is recognisable revenue. Being self employed, does not mean you have knowledge of how to run a successful business.


You are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed. This is my genuine opinion of you.

Keep going round in circles knitting your fog.

Charlatan