oddtablet Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 yip , quite a good suggestion where to go next , armed wi your little iceplick thingie and a great hot air blower , it might be prudent to go furt n try something constructive like doin a little snow clearing , maybe Frank Millers path n drive??So tell us this hoosn.Why do you keep coming back to the Judane Thread?Why do you continue to contribute (if you can call it that) to this Thread?Just wondered, that's all. Aren't you the one that stated that nobody was interested in Judane and that todays' newspaper was tomorrows firelighter.Erudite. well said Icepick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosn Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 its morbidly entertaining coming n havin a laugh at this thread. What do you think you are going to achieve (all 6 of you, if that) that the officials who are already investigating aren't going to achieve??? , or is it just some kinda hate campaign bein whipped up ?? some kinda personal vendetta against Cruella De'Miller ?? and Frank'enstien , its plain to see its not about a business failling because of the relentless spite and venom coming from the same mouths. Gi it a rest, you are total underlings to the proper authorities who ARE dealing with it, or are you just basquing in the glory of somebodys downfall ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I thought that Herr Icepick had withdrawn from debate so maybe you would like to tell us all why you are back!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddtablet Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I thought that Herr Icepick had withdrawn from debate so maybe you would like to tell us all why you are back!. this is a serious issue, and I, for one, am satisfied with the debate. There are so many questions that need to be answered and deviousness/ avoidance etc does not cover this issue at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Yes of course there are serious questions that need answered about the whole Chris Hodge and Judane issue. And since I voted for Caroline Miller at the last election in the hope that she would be a bit more on Chris Hodge's side than some councillors I really want to see a resolution to the whole issue. If Caroline Miller has made an honest mistake with paying rent into the wrong account then let's hear her say so. If the planning department have made a mistake over Chris Hodge then let them say so. Meanwhile I am starting to feel that I lack proper representation within the council. Alan Wishart is too busy running Viking stuff, Caroline Miller is tied up with the Judane issue and Sandy Cluness is too busy being Convenor. Now if any of them want to PM me to say that they can also represent the voters I will be delighted to hear from them/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted January 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 ^^^^ As for this latest 'outpouring' from hoosn.you've certainly got it so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddtablet Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 Meanwhile I am starting to feel that I lack proper representation within the council. Alan Wishart is too busy running Viking stuff, Caroline Miller is tied up with the Judane issue and Sandy Cluness is too busy being Convenor. Now if any of them want to PM me to say that they can also represent the voters I will be delighted to hear from them/ that goes for me to !! I await a response though maybe will need to e-mail them direct to ensure they know my viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 (** mod edit - inappropriate comment removed **) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 All money paid into an account for a company called Northern Isles Knitwear owned by Lerwick North councillor and Judane adviser Caroline Miller was used to pay Judane’s creditors, according to a letter issued by her lawyers. That's fine, assuming of course she can provide a genuine paper trail of proof. However, to take a month of throwing heavyweight but empty legal threats around, to provide a simple answer to a simple question says a great deal about the lady. But the letter notes: “The Court of Session has made no ruling regarding whether the statements which have been made regarding Mrs Miller are defamatory. Our client therefore reserves her rights in full to take any further action which she considers necessary to protect her reputation.†I shouldn't have thought the reputation she's built for herself of late was one she'd care to preserve, but there you go, there's no accounting for some folk. http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/01/12/hodge-payments-all-used-to-pay-off-judane-creditors-%E2%80%93-miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandhopper Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Northern Isles Knitwear was no longer an active firm. The account which it held was therefore used for the purpose which we have explained. There was a no longer active firm ...Which had a no longer active account ...Then you re-activate that account for some kind of business transactions ...Without automatically re-activating the (still existing but so long not active) firm ??? Funny world! The customs and revenues officers over here would tell me something completely different and would kindly ask me to produce the books of what once was 'a no longer active firm' ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swc123 Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 I am glad that at least now we have some information in the public domain on this matter. As someone who has assisted numerous businesses over the years I find it very strange the way that this separate unrelated business account was utilised in this manner, but glad that Ms Miller explained how it was used to pay creditors rather than some other motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giant Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 In Caroline Millers press statement she states that the Royal Bank had insisted that Judane's account was made into a 'reduction only account'. Does anyone know how these accounts work or anything about them? I haven't heard of them before, and i can't find anything about them on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 ^^ If my memory serves me correctly, a "balance reduction/reducing account" is just that - if you have a loan with a bank then the bank if insisting upon this, would have monies be paid into it but you would not have withdrawal facilities. On a separate note, the issue of the insurance claim for "loss of profits". Most UK insurance companies go by the English Courts' ruling precedents which state that you cannot put in an insurance claim for economic loss and hence they do not provide cover for this. However, Scottish law does allow (I'm pretty sure) that you can bring a claim for this under consumer law, etc. Therefore, given that many of the Council's insurance policies are with the Zurich, they would not offer insurance on this. If RBS were a major creditor, put together with the fact that the Council would not be insured for "loss of profits" they may well have decided, upon advice from the Insurers, that the litigation risk was too great and hence the settlement agreed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giant Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Thanks, yeah thats pretty much what i thought it would be, but i cant understand why the Royal Bank would allow this money to then be paid into a different companies account, surely this defeats the purpose of having this 'balance reduction only' account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddtablet Posted January 12, 2010 Report Share Posted January 12, 2010 Northern Isles Knitwear was no longer an active firm. The account which it held was therefore used for the purpose which we have explained. There was a no longer active firm ...Which had a no longer active account ...Then you re-activate that account for some kind of business transactions ...Without automatically re-activating the (still existing but so long not active) firm ??? Funny world! The customs and revenues officers over here would tell me something completely different and would kindly ask me to produce the books of what once was 'a no longer active firm' ... The whole thing stinks. Many questions remain unanswered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now