Single question for Brahimhemdani

[craig 5,199]

If it has any relevance to the discussion (and it probably hasn't ) I wouldn't have signed the Accounts.

 

boss, are you a CA ? If you dont want to answer no worries.

 

As an auditor in a previous life (thank goodness I stepped to the other side of the fence before I lost my sanity... some would say I lost it anyway).... I would not have signed the accounts unless, at the very least, a related party transaction note was included in the footnotes. AT THE VERY LEAST.

[boss 0]

As an auditor in a previous life (thank goodness I stepped to the other side of the fence before I lost my sanity... some would say I lost it anyway).... I would not have signed the accounts unless, at the very least, a related party transaction note was included in the footnotes. AT THE VERY LEAST.

 

You speak much sense.

[boss 0]

Of course it has relevance....if that is a genuine professional opinion, again that raises the question as to why the accounts were put through unqualified, I may be simple but even I can see that both opinions can't be correct, or even meet in the middle....so my question is, should anyone have signed of these accounts as they were presented ?

 

The question you might have asked me is whether I would have refused to sign off the accounts as auditor as well as director.

 

And I would have refused to answer for professional reasons. But no doubt you could make a decent guess.

[craig 5,199]

Of course it has relevance....if that is a genuine professional opinion, again that raises the question as to why the accounts were put through unqualified, I may be simple but even I can see that both opinions can't be correct, or even meet in the middle....so my question is, should anyone have signed of these accounts as they were presented ?

 

The problem is wabash that professional opinion can still differ between professionals... am I being obtuse ?

 

Assuming boss is an accountant, and knowing BD is one, and I myself am a qualified accountant, then we could all have a differing opinion on whether the transaction merited being included in the financial statements.

 

Materiality is one area where it would be open to debate - however, given the loss of the Trust and, I assume (without having seen the accounts) that the "debt" formed a sizeable amount in terms of the overall financials, I would have thought this was a material item.

 

UK GAAP was always principles based which meant that there is a degree of professional judgement required. US GAAP is more rules based where less judgement is required and the standards (FASB in the US) are more prescriptive.

 

IFRS, as far as I am aware (being in insurance it hasnt hit us yet... thankfully), is more UK based.

 

So you can most definitely have varying opinions on the same transaction.

 

Sorry - firstly because I know this doesnt clear the issue any and secondly for describing in more detail than was probably necessary.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Thanks BH, I am probably a wee bit longer in the tooth than you, so being up at 4.00 am is a regular thing with uncertain waterworks, the joys of auld age...allegedly..

 

As is a Club55 Premier first class return to Aberdeen for �£23!

[wabashcannonball 0]

The problem is wabash that professional opinion can still differ between professionals... am I being obtuse ?

 

Assuming boss is an accountant, and knowing BD is one, and I myself am a qualified accountant, then we could all have a differing opinion on whether the transaction merited being included in the financial statements.

 

Materiality is one area where it would be open to debate - however, given the loss of the Trust and, I assume (without having seen the accounts) that the "debt" formed a sizeable amount in terms of the overall financials, I would have thought this was a material item.

 

UK GAAP was always principles based which meant that there is a degree of professional judgement required. US GAAP is more rules based where less judgement is required and the standards (FASB in the US) are more prescriptive.

 

IFRS, as far as I am aware (being in insurance it hasnt hit us yet... thankfully), is more UK based.

 

So you can most definitely have varying opinions on the same transaction.

 

Sorry - firstly because I know this doesnt clear the issue any and secondly for describing in more detail than was probably necessary.

 

 

In this case would any of those varying opinions get you arrested for pocklin', but.......having thought about that, it appears the last thing anyone gets porridge for...from graspin' fat greedy banking bastardos tae fat greedy graspin MP bastardos is pocklin'........... except of course unless it is wee Ina moppin a few closes tae but her weans claes or feed them. then the fekers dae her right left an centre, cos she is oan the social,,,, whit a fekin fuked up country...and don't start me on sharia law....

[craig 5,199]

In this case would any of those varying opinions get you arrested for pocklin', but.......having thought about that, it appears the last thing anyone gets porridge for...from graspin' fat greedy banking bastardos tae fat greedy graspin MP bastardos is pocklin'........... except of course unless it is wee Ina moppin a few closes tae but her weans claes or feed them. then the fekers dae her right left an centre, cos she is oan the social,,,, whit a fekin fuked up country...and don't start me on sharia law....

 

Personally I do not think that this would get anyone arrested for pockling - UK accounting standards are open to interpretation - which is a "get out" if you will. There are no doubt many sets of financial statements which have been approved by auditors that would, if reviewed by a different auditor, would not have been given a clean audit report.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Personally I do not think that this would get anyone arrested for pockling - UK accounting standards are open to interpretation - which is a "get out" if you will. There are no doubt many sets of financial statements which have been approved by auditors that would, if reviewed by a different auditor, would not have been given a clean audit report.

 

So there is no laws for the manky rich or parameters for cooking their books, only chains and bread and water for the proletariat, and the sweat of their brow to furnish the lifestyles of the idle rich, and useless bastardos known as MP'S, who rape the proletariat daily and regally, that is the trouble with this society......responsibility carries no responsibility......only perks and the power to blame every fuker else, Uncle Joe had a point.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The question that needs answering here seems to be the one that is being avoided, will it take a statement from the auditor(s) to rectify that.

 

One other thing, if the money that dinger had allegedly borrowed never existed in the accounts of rst, how could he have borrowed it.

 

As I understand it he gauranteed/underwrote any loss, with his money , maybe one of our resident bean counters can enlighten.

[plgsarmy 111]

The question that needs answering here seems to be the one that is being avoided, will it take a statement from the auditor(s) to rectify that.

 

One other thing, if the money that dinger had allegedly borrowed never existed in the accounts of rst, how could he have borrowed it.

 

As I understand it he gauranteed/underwrote any loss, with his money , maybe one of our resident bean counters can enlighten.

 

 

That is correct.