Fascinating court case unfolding in Belfast between the Taggart brothers (of the now defunct Taggart Holdings) & Ulster bank.
Many lads on here following it?
Taggart the builders? Held a wedding in Drumsurn that cost an obscene amount of money shortly before leaving a tonne of subbies completely busted. Up sticks and carry on thier shenanigans in Thailand and now seem to be back in business here under the name Taggart again...I hope they get the book thrown at them. Crooks of the highest order
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2014, 02:39:18 PM
Taggart the builders? Held a wedding in Drumsurn that cost an obscene amount of money shortly before leaving a tonne of subbies completely busted. Up sticks and carry on thier shenanigans in Thailand and now seem to be back in business here under the name Taggart again...I hope they get the book thrown at them. Crooks of the highest order
thats the boys alright,i know one man personelly who went bust because of these crooks,hope they do get the book thrown at them but like most of that sort they will wriggle out of it some way.
Smacks of a pair of greedy developers trying to wriggle their way out of a large financial debt. Feel sorry for unsuspecting borrowers who are in negative equity on their homes but these big developers wanted more and more off the banks when they were giving it out. Seems grossly unfair that they can leave workers lower down the food chain standing high and dry and now sue the bank for damages.
At the risk of this coming across as excessively naive, I'd say some of the sub contractors who were owed money might actually just be the ones praying hardest on behalf of the brothers for a favourable financial outcome.
If they win this case wouldn't you be the first at their door if you were a sub contractor who lost out previously.
I don't know the lads but I do know a few people who do know them - and wouldn't be surprised if they do win this, then a few others will do ok too.
Yes greed has a big part to play but these guys were self made entrepreneurs who might just have enough clout to help kick start some kind of recovery in the trade sector.
Quote from: cockahoop on December 16, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2014, 02:39:18 PM
Taggart the builders? Held a wedding in Drumsurn that cost an obscene amount of money shortly before leaving a tonne of subbies completely busted. Up sticks and carry on thier shenanigans in Thailand and now seem to be back in business here under the name Taggart again...I hope they get the book thrown at them. Crooks of the highest order
thats the boys alright,i know one man personelly who went bust because of these crooks,hope they do get the book thrown at them but like most of that sort they will wriggle out of it some way.
I'm sure the same boys had no problem taking money of the Taggarts when things were going well. It was Ulster Bank that closed up shop not the Taggarts.
Don't be surprised if the Taggarts win this case it's the banks who I would describe as the crooks of the highest order.
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 04:15:11 PM
Quote from: cockahoop on December 16, 2014, 02:42:06 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2014, 02:39:18 PM
Taggart the builders? Held a wedding in Drumsurn that cost an obscene amount of money shortly before leaving a tonne of subbies completely busted. Up sticks and carry on thier shenanigans in Thailand and now seem to be back in business here under the name Taggart again...I hope they get the book thrown at them. Crooks of the highest order
thats the boys alright,i know one man personelly who went bust because of these crooks,hope they do get the book thrown at them but like most of that sort they will wriggle out of it some way.
I'm sure the same boys had no problem taking money of the Taggarts when things were going well. It was Ulster Bank that closed up shop not the Taggarts.
Don't be surprised if the Taggarts win this case it's the banks who I would describe as the crooks of the highest order.
That's how I see it Angermanement. When you consider the case against the backdrop of the Tomlinson report, I can definitely see where the Taggarts are coming from.
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 04:05:27 PM
At the risk of this coming across as excessively naive, I'd say some of the sub contractors who were owed money might actually just be the ones praying hardest on behalf of the brothers for a favourable financial outcome.
If they win this case wouldn't you be the first at their door if you were a sub contractor who lost out previously.
I don't know the lads but I do know a few people who do know them - and wouldn't be surprised if they do win this, then a few others will do ok too.
Yes greed has a big part to play but these guys were self made entrepreneurs who might just have enough clout to help kick start some kind of recovery in the trade sector.
That original company has been wound up ?? Debts would have been with company. Cant imagine any payout from a busted company
Quote from: Bensars on December 16, 2014, 04:47:34 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 04:05:27 PM
At the risk of this coming across as excessively naive, I'd say some of the sub contractors who were owed money might actually just be the ones praying hardest on behalf of the brothers for a favourable financial outcome.
If they win this case wouldn't you be the first at their door if you were a sub contractor who lost out previously.
I don't know the lads but I do know a few people who do know them - and wouldn't be surprised if they do win this, then a few others will do ok too.
Yes greed has a big part to play but these guys were self made entrepreneurs who might just have enough clout to help kick start some kind of recovery in the trade sector.
That original company has been wound up ?? Debts would have been with company. Cant imagine any payout from a busted company
Was curious about that myself.
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Are you mental in the head or something? Holy f**k the nativity of it all!
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on December 16, 2014, 06:11:07 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Are you mental in the head or something? Holy f**k the nativity of it all!
Tis the season I suppose BC ;)
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
To quote John McEnroe 'You cannot be serious'. When did morals enter the vocabulary of property developers. If they win the case and you believe they will suddenly have their moral conscience pricked and re-imburse all their creditors then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. This is about trying to restore their own wealth (even if it was paper wealth) not about fighting on behalf of stricken creditors.
Put yourselves in their position. Say it's you and all of a sudden you manage to pull off a shock verdict against the bank and suddenly find yourself flush again.
In your conscience you know you screwed over ( by accident or design) some good hard working honest subbies - who were once good friends and neighbours. Because that's the reality here in many individual cases.
Would you take your money and run, or would you attempt at least to make some kind of meaningful financial gesture of the kind that would at least show you had some moral compass?
I know many wouldn't bother to do this - but I'd be heartened at least to know that some of you would/might. That's all.
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Is it? In Ireland the insolvency queue is generally fixed charged holders, then the liquidators and followed by preferential debt holders, which includes the tax man, employee salaries etc.
It's a convenient story that the big bad tax man always gets his take but he generally loses out more than other creditors.
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 08:11:16 PM
Put yourselves in their position. Say it's you and all of a sudden you manage to pull off a shock verdict against the bank and suddenly find yourself flush again.
In your conscience you know you screwed over ( by accident or design) some good hard working honest subbies - who were once good friends and neighbours. Because that's the reality here in many individual cases.
Would you take your money and run, or would you attempt at least to make some kind of meaningful financial gesture of the kind that would at least show you had some moral compass?
I know many wouldn't bother to do this - but I'd be heartened at least to know that some of you would/might. That's all.
Those ba5tards reneged on doing the right thing to subbies, suppliers and many of the home buyers who were unfortunate to deal with these charlatans , when they were a pair of the wealthiest men in the north. Conscious bypass the pair of them.
Don't really see what case the taggarts have here, they are claiming the bank were negligent in not informing them they had concerns about the recoverability of their loans. Surely the only reason the banks would have to be concerned was if the company wasn't meeting it's loan repayments. As directors of the company these boys should have been fully aware if they were meeting their debt obligations. Id be surprised if the bank hadn't raised concerns prior to any legal action.
It does look like a technicality. As I understand it the Taggrts are claiming that if they had known earlier the bank had concerns they could have sold other assets to make good?
While this might have been pre the complete collapse of the property market, given the scale of the exposure to development land, surely this would just have been kicking the can down the road in any case until the crash? i.e. they would have been in the same situation a few months later? ( I know the brothers deny this but seriously?)
On a separate point, any money they made and extracted from the business pre financial difficulty is theirs, end of story as far as I am concerned. If you own a company you should not be forced to retain profits simply to cover every eventuality. Anybody who wanted additional security over getting paid should have demanded payment in advance or sought bonds/Letters of Credits. Clearly they would not have got these in this situation and would not have got the work but thats the price of doing business with a Limited Liability Company and it was thier call.
However, If a comapy was trading, knowing full well they would not be able to pay thier debts then directors should be held personally liable under wrongful trading law.
I'd agree with that Tabclear. Its Ulster Bank that have signed personal guarantee's to the tune of £8.3M from the brothers.
The Taggarts defence seems to be that they did not know what they were signing as they signed stacks of paperwork from the bank? Surely that's not a proper legal defence? I cant see how the Taggarts could possibly hope to win this case. Maybe that's why Michael Taggart is defending himself and not some top barrister
Whilst Ulster Bank in particular were the biggest shower of sh'ite here, often acting immorally and against the spirit of the agreements they entered - it does look like they've kept themselves to the right side of the letter of the law.
Makes you wonder why the Quinn case can't be heard as quickly as this one.
Quote from: God14 on December 17, 2014, 08:28:27 AM
I'd agree with that Tabclear. Its Ulster Bank that have signed personal guarantee's to the tune of £8.3M from the brothers.
The Taggarts defence seems to be that they did not know what they were signing as they signed stacks of paperwork from the bank? Surely that's not a proper legal defence? I cant see how the Taggarts could possibly hope to win this case. Maybe that's why Michael Taggart is defending himself and not some top barrister
Whilst Ulster Bank in particular were the biggest shower of sh'ite here, often acting immorally and against the spirit of the agreements they entered - it does look like they've kept themselves to the right side of the letter of the law.
Even if you sign, you're not automatically bound to the contract if it is deemed particularly onerous or unbalanced and the court could discharge you. However, that's relevant to the position of those who enter the contract. These were successful businessmen who dealt with banks frequently in relation to loans of large amounts of money. They knew exactly what they were getting into (I expect).
Quote from: TabClear on December 17, 2014, 07:28:19 AM
It does look like a technicality. As I understand it the Taggrts are claiming that if they had known earlier the bank had concerns they could have sold other assets to make good?
While this might have been pre the complete collapse of the property market, given the scale of the exposure to development land, surely this would just have been kicking the can down the road in any case until the crash? i.e. they would have been in the same situation a few months later? ( I know the brothers deny this but seriously?)
On a separate point, any money they made and extracted from the business pre financial difficulty is theirs, end of story as far as I am concerned. If you own a company you should not be forced to retain profits simply to cover every eventuality. Anybody who wanted additional security over getting paid should have demanded payment in advance or sought bonds/Letters of Credits. Clearly they would not have got these in this situation and would not have got the work but thats the price of doing business with a Limited Liability Company and it was thier call.
However, If a comapy was trading, knowing full well they would not be able to pay thier debts then directors should be held personally liable under wrongful trading law.
It is also the price they pay for doing business with a Bank. (While they may have been no angels either, they were under significant pressure to rebalance their loan book) They were leveraged to the hilt and the bank had them sign guarantees.
In so the much the same way they had their subbies by the short and curlies , the bank also had them in a similar position.
Quote from: Bensars on December 17, 2014, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: TabClear on December 17, 2014, 07:28:19 AM
It does look like a technicality. As I understand it the Taggrts are claiming that if they had known earlier the bank had concerns they could have sold other assets to make good?
While this might have been pre the complete collapse of the property market, given the scale of the exposure to development land, surely this would just have been kicking the can down the road in any case until the crash? i.e. they would have been in the same situation a few months later? ( I know the brothers deny this but seriously?)
On a separate point, any money they made and extracted from the business pre financial difficulty is theirs, end of story as far as I am concerned. If you own a company you should not be forced to retain profits simply to cover every eventuality. Anybody who wanted additional security over getting paid should have demanded payment in advance or sought bonds/Letters of Credits. Clearly they would not have got these in this situation and would not have got the work but thats the price of doing business with a Limited Liability Company and it was thier call.
However, If a comapy was trading, knowing full well they would not be able to pay thier debts then directors should be held personally liable under wrongful trading law.
It is also the price they pay for doing business with a Bank. (While they may have been no angels either, they were under significant pressure to rebalance their loan book) They were leveraged to the hilt and the bank had them sign guarantees.
In so the much the same way they had their subbies by the short and curlies , the bank also had them in a similar position.
I agree. If the guarantees were procured by the bank legally then they should be bound by them. Interesting correlation with the Quinn case where the family argument is that the guarantees were not legal due to the purpose. Do banks not need to recommend independent legal advice before people sign guarantees?
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
Quote from: deiseach on December 17, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
If a court decides that a creditor has a duty of care to let the debtor know they have concerns over inability to pay their debts so the debtor can make decisions about how they run their business, then we're all fucked.
Quote from: deiseach on December 17, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
Mac an tSagairt
Son of the priest
Stands to reason
Quote from: gallsman on December 17, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 17, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
If a court decides that a creditor has a duty of care to let the debtor know they have concerns over inability to pay their debts so the debtor can make decisions about how they run their business, then we're all fucked.
Fair point. I can't think of any other basis on which this claim can succeed though. Any idea?
Quote from: gallsman on December 17, 2014, 01:29:33 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 17, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
If a court decides that a creditor has a duty of care to let the debtor know they have concerns over inability to pay their debts so the debtor can make decisions about how they run their business, then we're all fucked.
Exactly, and no concern was raised over the first 2 or 300 million or more that the bank loaned over a succession of years.
What happened here was that not only did they greedy putting all the eggs in one basket they left themselves no out option. Its alright crying about it afterwards if only they had more time etc etc. they were around long enough to know the rules of the game and no doubt ways around it. The simple fact here was that they over extended themselves. Rather than blame the bank, they should be looking at themselves and those who they employed to give advice.
It was said in some of the reports on the case that caution was advised in board meetings regarding payment of bonus etc at a time financial pressure on the company. Seems that some of those warnings went unheeded.
Quote from: gallsman on December 16, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Free? NO
But charging up to £300/hr & the average hourly rate working out at around the £150-£170 doesn't leave much for the creditors.
These boyos can easily strip £500,000 out of a company and then the report states that there is no money left for creditors!
I cannot see any way the taggarts can win this. For ub to appoint administrators means the company had to have breached it's loan agreements in a material way. The personal guarantee point appears to be the brothers defense against the Ulster Bank counter claim ie we didn't know they were there.
Don't fancy their chances on that either.
Quote from: cornerback on December 17, 2014, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 16, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Free? NO
But charging up to £300/hr & the average hourly rate working out at around the £150-£170 doesn't leave much for the creditors.
These boyos can easily strip £500,000 out of a company and then the report states that there is no money left for creditors!
The liquidators are finance professionals who could command similar fees doing other finance work that is a hell of a lot less risky and stressful. Supply and demand.
Quote from: TabClear on December 17, 2014, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: cornerback on December 17, 2014, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 16, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Free? NO
But charging up to £300/hr & the average hourly rate working out at around the £150-£170 doesn't leave much for the creditors.
These boyos can easily strip £500,000 out of a company and then the report states that there is no money left for creditors!
The liquidators are finance professionals who could command similar fees doing other finance work that is a hell of a lot less risky and stressful. Supply and demand.
They're also not at the front of the queue. Anyone petitioning the courts for a company to be wound up inherently accepts the fact that the liquidators will get paid too. If this reduces the pot, then so be it.
Quote from: gallsman on December 17, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 17, 2014, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: cornerback on December 17, 2014, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 16, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Free? NO
But charging up to £300/hr & the average hourly rate working out at around the £150-£170 doesn't leave much for the creditors.
These boyos can easily strip £500,000 out of a company and then the report states that there is no money left for creditors!
The liquidators are finance professionals who could command similar fees doing other finance work that is a hell of a lot less risky and stressful. Supply and demand.
They're also not at the front of the queue. Anyone petitioning the courts for a company to be wound up inherently accepts the fact that the liquidators will get paid too. If this reduces the pot, then so be it.
I've been to a few of these creditor meetings held by the administrators & you hear the usual "we'll try our best to get as much for the creditors as possible"... the final report lands in & there is nothing for the creditors yet they have just creamed off over half a million pounds.
I know it's not going to change but its just a gear-grinder!!
Quote from: cornerback on December 17, 2014, 04:15:49 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 17, 2014, 03:07:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 17, 2014, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: cornerback on December 17, 2014, 02:17:34 PM
Quote from: gallsman on December 16, 2014, 08:55:50 PM
Quote from: angermanagement on December 16, 2014, 08:44:38 PM
Quote from: The Subbie on December 16, 2014, 07:07:25 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Legally and technically they wouldn't have to pay anything from a busted company to a busted company according to the letter of company law.
But I'd like to think if they were successful here they might ...just might...be morally troubled enough to make some restitution of some kind. Even if that had to be in a personal capacity. Is that really out of the question?
Seriously? To quote a Joe brolly tweet from earlier today, what a sheltered life you must have lead up to now.
The Taggart company or multiple companies under the Taggart umbrella has went bust and with that goes the chance multiple subbies had of ever getting a penny on the various amounts owing to them.
Its always Tax man first,banks second and every one else third in these situations, by the time the first two have feasted on the carcass there is very little left.
Finally you don't know too many contractors if you think that they might be morally troubled, the level that these boys were operating at is not usually inhabited by people with with a well calibrated moral compass.
Don't forget the administrators by the time their finished there's usually not much left for the banks or the taxman their always in a win win.
For a start, there's a difference between liquidation and administration. Secondly, the liquidator is frequently appointed at the creditors' request. They (well, really the courts) task him or her with discharging the company's assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. Should they do this for free?!
Free? NO
But charging up to £300/hr & the average hourly rate working out at around the £150-£170 doesn't leave much for the creditors.
These boyos can easily strip £500,000 out of a company and then the report states that there is no money left for creditors!
The liquidators are finance professionals who could command similar fees doing other finance work that is a hell of a lot less risky and stressful. Supply and demand.
They're also not at the front of the queue. Anyone petitioning the courts for a company to be wound up inherently accepts the fact that the liquidators will get paid too. If this reduces the pot, then so be it.
I've been to a few of these creditor meetings held by the administrators & you hear the usual "we'll try our best to get as much for the creditors as possible"... the final report lands in & there is nothing for the creditors yet they have just creamed off over half a million pounds.
I know it's not going to change but its just a gear-grinder!!
It all depends on the classification and the security of the debt. At the end of the day there is inherent risk in all business - if directors of a company run it in it utmost good faith and creditors get burned, well so be it, that's just bad luck. If they run it fraudulently or recklessly, well that's why there are criminal and civil implications.
Case adjourned til the new year...
Copied from the Irish Times
Michael Taggart denies receiving bank letters calling in guarantees
Counsel for Ulster Bank accuses former developer of lying in court
Thu, Dec 18, 2014, 17:46
First published:
Thu, Dec 18, 2014, 17:46
A former property developer was accused of lying in court in Belfast on Thursday over claims he never received bank letters calling in millions of pounds in personal guarantees.
Senior counsel for the Ulster Bank challenged Michael Taggart's honesty after the businessman alleged the demands for payment had been fabricated.
Amid tense exchanges, Stephen Shaw QC put it to Mr Taggart: "You're a liar because if you had not received them you would have been shouting from the rooftops and you never breathed a word of it."
As his cross-examination ended after 16 days in the witness box at the High Court in Belfast, Mr Taggart denied the accusation and a separate assertion that he thought he was "smarter than the market".
The one-time tycoon and his brother John Taggart are suing Ulster Bank for alleged negligence and improper conduct which they say contributed to the fall of their house-building empire.
The Taggart Group had been a massive operation with developments on both sides of the Border, in Britain and with further interests in the US. It collapsed when the property market crashed in 2007 and went into administration a year later.
Credit concerns
The brothers, from Co Derry, claim they were kept in the dark about credit concerns within the bank.
Had they been warned, they contend, assets could have been sold to offset loans.
In a counterclaim, Ulster Bank is seeking £5million and €4.3 million it says the Taggarts owe in personal guarantees over land purchases in Kinsealy, north Co Dublin and in Northern Ireland.
Continuing his evidence in the case, Mr Taggart insisted that neither he nor his brother received letters allegedly sent from the bank in September 2008 to call in the guarantees.
He told Mr Justice Burgess: "We never got them, and that's not the only letters that have been, in my opinion, fabricated."
But Mr Shaw argued that no mention of any non-receipt featured in the Taggarts' statements for the case.
Questioning the businessman's honesty, the barrister insisted he would have already "told the world" the bank was not entitled to the guarantees because demands were never served.
"I have said you were a liar about guarantees being called up, that's not something counsel does lightly," he said.
Mr Taggart replied: "I do not accept what Mr Shaw is putting to me, and if there's one thing I'm not in my life is a liar."
The court also heard how he claimed in a press interview that he thought the market had bottomed out in July 2008.
Mr Shaw suggested he was "standing solitary against the world" at that time.
Relaxed and indifferent
The barrister said bank witnesses will claim Mr Taggart adopted a relaxed and indifferent air at meetings, looking out the window and not paying attention to what was being discussed.
"I don't agree with that, we were in a work out situation since October," the former company boss insisted.
"The banks were charging us £40,000 a month and we were reporting on a daily basis."
But Mr Shaw maintained: "You were someone who thought that you were smarter than the market and other people, and that you had no difficulty in riding out this storm. Isn't that right?"
Again the witness rejected the assessment being put to him.
He told his own counsel, Gerald Simpson QC, that the Taggart Group would not have come under the same pressures if the bank's concerns had been relayed in Spring 2007.
"It wouldn't have been just me, it would have been each and every director in the company," he said.
"There would have been uproar. many of the things that happened would never have happened."
The case was adjourned until the New Year.
Quote from: seafoid on December 17, 2014, 01:40:48 PM
Quote from: deiseach on December 17, 2014, 11:35:09 AM
I'm guessing the Taggart case is going to turn on an obscure point of law about duty of care or something like that. It might be useful to establish the extent to which a bank has responsibility to their clients. Even if the Taggarts are successful though, they're still a shower of chancers.
Mac an tSagairt
Son of the priest
Stands to reason
Oh for Fux sake !!!
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 08:11:16 PM
Put yourselves in their position. Say it's you and all of a sudden you manage to pull off a shock verdict against the bank and suddenly find yourself flush again.
In your conscience you know you screwed over ( by accident or design) some good hard working honest subbies - who were once good friends and neighbours. Because that's the reality here in many individual cases.
Would you take your money and run, or would you attempt at least to make some kind of meaningful financial gesture of the kind that would at least show you had some moral compass?
I know many wouldn't bother to do this - but I'd be heartened at least to know that some of you would/might. That's all.
Despite others saying your notion is daft - I kind of agree with you here.
However I doubt that even if successful the taggarts could find such repayments/gifts.
I'd expect that if they get back in business, they'd try to look after/employ those men/subbies that they didn't pay prev ( poss with an up front payment if they could afford it!)
A lot of the men out of pocket are near neighbours or folk from that hinterland and the taggert family would like to be seen to do right back among their peers
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 19, 2014, 06:13:42 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 08:11:16 PM
Put yourselves in their position. Say it's you and all of a sudden you manage to pull off a shock verdict against the bank and suddenly find yourself flush again.
In your conscience you know you screwed over ( by accident or design) some good hard working honest subbies - who were once good friends and neighbours. Because that's the reality here in many individual cases.
Would you take your money and run, or would you attempt at least to make some kind of meaningful financial gesture of the kind that would at least show you had some moral compass?
I know many wouldn't bother to do this - but I'd be heartened at least to know that some of you would/might. That's all.
Despite others saying your notion is daft - I kind of agree with you here.
However I doubt that even if successful the taggarts could find such repayments/gifts.
I'd expect that if they get back in business, they'd try to look after/employ those men/subbies that they didn't pay prev ( poss with an up front payment if they could afford it!)
A lot of the men out of pocket are near neighbours or folk from that hinterland and the taggert family would like to be seen to do right back among their peers
You pair are living in cloud cuckoo land
(And they are back in business)
Quote from: JoG2 on December 19, 2014, 07:34:58 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 19, 2014, 06:13:42 PM
Quote from: bannside on December 16, 2014, 08:11:16 PM
Put yourselves in their position. Say it's you and all of a sudden you manage to pull off a shock verdict against the bank and suddenly find yourself flush again.
In your conscience you know you screwed over ( by accident or design) some good hard working honest subbies - who were once good friends and neighbours. Because that's the reality here in many individual cases.
Would you take your money and run, or would you attempt at least to make some kind of meaningful financial gesture of the kind that would at least show you had some moral compass?
I know many wouldn't bother to do this - but I'd be heartened at least to know that some of you would/might. That's all.
Despite others saying your notion is daft - I kind of agree with you here.
However I doubt that even if successful the taggarts could find such repayments/gifts.
I'd expect that if they get back in business, they'd try to look after/employ those men/subbies that they didn't pay prev ( poss with an up front payment if they could afford it!)
A lot of the men out of pocket are near neighbours or folk from that hinterland and the taggert family would like to be seen to do right back among their peers
You pair are living in cloud cuckoo land
(And they are back in business)
Why?
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
It's the previous friends, neighbours and people who vested their trust in the Taggarts that I'm talking about. And there are many in this bracket alone who got badly stung.
Now shit happens in business, and company law protects the protagonists in this type of instance, but let's suppose the Taggarts get a result here that leaves them flush again.
I'd say they wouldn't last long in the community they come from IF they don't make some type of arrangement or gesture of goodwill.
If they were to adopt an "I'm ok Jack, tough shit about you" attitude - well I wouldn't fancy their quality of life let's put it that way. There is company law and there's another unwritten law that says you don't pish on those around you and expect to get away with it.
Quote from: bannside on December 21, 2014, 05:36:08 PM
It's the previous friends, neighbours and people who vested their trust in the Taggarts that I'm talking about. And there are many in this bracket alone who got badly stung.
Now shit happens in business, and company law protects the protagonists in this type of instance, but let's suppose the Taggarts get a result here that leaves them flush again.
I'd say they wouldn't last long in the community they come from IF they don't make some type of arrangement or gesture of goodwill.
If they were to adopt an "I'm ok Jack, tough shit about you" attitude - well I wouldn't fancy their quality of life let's put it that way. There is company law and there's another unwritten law that says you don't pish on those around you and expect to get away with it.
+1
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 21, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
They didn't give a fiddlers f**k for the subbies who worked for them when they making their money so where do you think this sense of loyalty is going to surface from?
Quote from: oakleafgael on December 21, 2014, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 21, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
They didn't give a fiddlers f**k for the subbies who worked for them when they making their money so where do you think this sense of loyalty is going to surface from?
Community /peer pressure that will manifest itself from within their own family members.
You obv don't understand what Bannside or myself are getting at here.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 22, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on December 21, 2014, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 21, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
They didn't give a fiddlers f**k for the subbies who worked for them when they making their money so where do you think this sense of loyalty is going to surface from?
Community /peer pressure that will manifest itself from within their own family members.
You obv don't understand what Bannside or myself are getting at here.
Lynchbhoy you obviously dont know john and michael taggart too well,michael especially,there is no chance in hell they would pay any money back to the subbies they bust no matter WHO they are ;)
Not in a million years. The only thing certain with guys like these is that they'd do it all again if they could.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 22, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on December 21, 2014, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 21, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
They didn't give a fiddlers f**k for the subbies who worked for them when they making their money so where do you think this sense of loyalty is going to surface from?
Community /peer pressure that will manifest itself from within their own family members.
You obv don't understand what Bannside or myself are getting at here.
I know exactly what Bannside and yourself are getting at but your so far off the reality of what type of people those two c***ts are.
Reading between the lines some of the poster's here have a fairly personal knowledge of the Taggarts and the type of people they are. And the consensus amongst them is not favourable towards the brothers.
I understand that. A fall from grace of their scale has a lot of ripple, knock on effects. Many people were badly stung.
Pattons are an example of a firm who callously rode rough shod over hundreds of subbies, and showed little or no remorse whilst padding their own soft landing - I was thinking the Taggarts (being of a small tight knit country parish) might (just possibly) be made of better stuff. And whilst the odds may be stacked against same, I am known for looking at the best traits in people.
If I thought they would be magnanimous, graceful and charitable in their attitude towards those who suffered most in their demise, I would be rooting for them getting a positive result. If I thought they would show no remorse or goodwill towards making good (to some pro rata degree ) I would hope they don't receive a crumb.
What goes around comes around, as they say!
Quote from: oakleafgael on December 22, 2014, 07:59:14 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 22, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
Quote from: oakleafgael on December 21, 2014, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on December 21, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 21, 2014, 11:27:43 AM
When they were worth an absolute fortune, many of those who bought houses and worked through them were ignored time and time again with a plethora of issues / complaints. You think they will gain a conscious now IF they fluke a few mil from the Ulster Bank.....2 hopes
You could be somewhat right and entitled to your opinion.
But it does not tackle that they are under pressure in their community to address the issue of men losing out on wages. I wouldn't expect back payment ( not yet and maybe not ever) but they would be seen to be trying to make amends if they went to re-hire those workmen that lost out.
No chance of those that bought houses being recompensed. Not sure how you thought I was advocating a 'brewsters millions' type of splurge !
They didn't give a fiddlers f**k for the subbies who worked for them when they making their money so where do you think this sense of loyalty is going to surface from?
Community /peer pressure that will manifest itself from within their own family members.
You obv don't understand what Bannside or myself are getting at here.
I know exactly what Bannside and yourself are getting at but your so far off the reality of what type of people those two c***ts are.
Not sure you do to be honest
Maybe so
But the rest of their family mightn't be
And it's nothing to do with paying back what's owed - that's not what I'm saying!
That won't and prob can't happen!
Like a phoenix from the flames. The brothers have built a big housing development in Limavady and have bought the land and laid the plans for 200 more luxury houses in Culmore. As well as this, they have purchased the Clarendon bar and license. A good friend of mine was speaking to a subbie yesterday who has just been fcuked over for £6k. He was initially being paid weekly, this was pushed to fortnightly, eventually monthly. Low and behold, a couple of months passed, no payment and the subbie wont be getting paid as the work is 'not up to scratch'. There is another subbie (that we know of )in the same boat. Builders and tradesmen are that desperate for work that they are gambling by working for these ar$eholes, and are losing again! Maddening
What's the story with the court case? Has it been settled? It's all gone very quiet in that regard.
Quote from: JoG2 on December 01, 2015, 10:59:43 AM
Like a phoenix from the flames. The brothers have built a big housing development in Limavady and have bought the land and laid the plans for 200 more luxury houses in Culmore. As well as this, they have purchased the Clarendon bar and license. A good friend of mine was speaking to a subbie yesterday who has just been fcuked over for £6k. He was initially being paid weekly, this was pushed to fortnightly, eventually monthly. Low and behold, a couple of months passed, no payment and the subbie wont be getting paid as the work is 'not up to scratch'. There is another subbie (that we know of )in the same boat. Builders and tradesmen are that desperate for work that they are gambling by working for these ar$eholes, and are losing again! Maddening
Hearing shite like this is going on makes me wonder why there was never a security of payments act brought in North or South.
That would soon sort out shite like this.
Most contracts allow for disputes over workmanship etc but blatantly financially out muscling a subbie for your own gain is an absolute f**king tramps act.
Unfortunately it is common practice up here. Contractors will always see their own ends are sorted before any subbies are paid in full.
I see the court case came to its inevitable conclusion yesterday. ulster Bank victorious. They can now enforce personal guarantees to the tune of £5M each.
Court fees alone would be huge.
Quote from: God14 on December 12, 2015, 03:34:13 PM
I see the court case came to its inevitable conclusion yesterday. ulster Bank victorious. They can now enforce personal guarantees to the tune of £5M each.
Court fees alone would be huge.
I am delighted the Bank won, these bastards need locked up and it is such a shame that the subbies get fecked.
Quote from: stew on December 12, 2015, 04:14:58 PM
Quote from: God14 on December 12, 2015, 03:34:13 PM
I see the court case came to its inevitable conclusion yesterday. ulster Bank victorious. They can now enforce personal guarantees to the tune of £5M each.
Court fees alone would be huge.
I am delighted the Bank won, these b**tards need locked up and it is such a shame that the subbies get fecked.
+1 . The 'subbie killers' brought down a peg or 2. The unscrupulous hooers are being bankrolled by a very wealthy family in the north-west. Id say all monies hit the investors accounts first before the Taggarts get their cut !
Good to see them getting took down a peg or two but sadly that's all it is, they'll dust themselves off and go again, few front men in place , their names not over the door or on any paper.
I'd reckon Santa Claus will still call to chez taggart, not so sure about the poor hoors they left in their wake
Have a look at the first comment and the reply on their Facebook page,
says it all really. No shame.
https://www.facebook.com/taggarthomes/reviews?ref=page_internal
Left a wee comment for the f**kers, I hope their dicks fall off!
' We pay our workers with love, aren't we great....................................................... Unbelievable, these bastards need a good kicking.
Stew. Did you have any personal dealings with these guys?
Quote from: Gaffer on December 13, 2015, 05:03:23 PM
Stew. Did you have any personal dealings with these guys?
Never met the hoors, I am disgusted that they are so callous when speaking about neighbors they failed to pay for their services.
I didn't realise it was neighbours and locals that they fucked over.
Its a bad enough cnut in the first place that doesn't pay up, but to fcuk over men that you know you are going to have to meet on the street and bump into at the petrol station etc etc, well that's cnutish behaviour on an entirely different level.
In any business there is no room for any sentimentality and I know from my own business dealings that the construction industry is not exactly the diplomatic corp in this regard either BUT there has always been the push to get different men/ subbies/ companies paid because there was a personal relationship existing at some level between main contractor and s/c.
This is the bedrock of most contracting organisations and by extension most business afaik, people behaving correctly and to societal norms.
The pair of Taggart cnuts haven't done that in this case and I do hope sincerely that the cnuts are reminded of it every time they leave their house, the absolute tramps.