PEEL HOLDINGS
Well I'm nothing to do with Peel Holdings, Beafer. Indeed, I have at times stood accused here on PPRuNe of being a MAN 'fanboy', and as I'm sure you know MAN's principal local competition is LPL - a Peel operation. DSA (also Peel) is another direct MAN competitor. Having said that, I've nothing against Peel in particular; they are just a property company doing their thing.
However, it is very easy for casual observers to criticise successful businesses from a safe distance. Those funds which companies such as Peel accept from HMG are not obtained under duress. Such funds are allocated in accordance with policies pursued by your elected representatives serving what they perceive to be the national interest. You can't blame a progressive company for accepting this largesse if the politicians wish to put business their way. If you don't like that, you need to be protesting to your elected officials rather than criticising a business for taking on state-funded contracts.
On the subject of taxation, the question must be whether the company in question is in full compliance with its obligations under UK tax law as it stands. And that means the law as it exists today, not as some pressure groups would prefer it to be. If it is, then the company has done nothing wrong. If it is not, then it is incumbent upon HMRC to challenge the company and prove otherwise. The fact that some remote observers would like to see 'Company X' pay additional taxes does not necessarily mean that full compliance with the law has not been achieved. Prudent tax planning is a core concern within any major company … they have a duty to shareholders to lawfully pay what is due to the state but no more than is their obligation. Again, if observers are unhappy with that they should lobby their elected representatives for changes in legislation. No sensibly-run company is going to wilfully inflate its tax bill to put a smile on the face of afew interested agitators.
Basically, if one believes that a company is in breach of tax law, present the evidence to the appropriate authorities. But be careful not to libel them. One's dislike for a particular named company is not evidence of corporate wrongdoing on their part. Beware too of spreading innuendo about companies one may dislike in the absence of supporting evidence.
In this case, Peel Holdings is a substantial investor in UK development, much of this across the North, a region overlooked by many of its peers. Peel has been the catalyst in several transformational projects across the North - our quality of life would be noticeably diminished without them. I welcome and acknowledge these developments. In addition to this, Peel have provided employment and investment across some of the UK's most deprived regions. And, as a UK-domiciled company, Peel does pay its taxes to the UK Treasury. I have seen no evidence to indicate that Peel is not in full compliance with its tax obligations under the law. If politicians and tax authorities believe otherwise they have the authority to investigate any company or individual as they see fit.
I understand that the sad plight of MME is a matter of great concern to many readers of this thread. I too would like to see MME thrive, but that is simply not the reality at this time. Peel may be due some criticism for this - the unprecedented rejection of Thomson's business certainly raises eyebrows. But there is a big difference between criticising an operational decision such as that and suggesting that Peel Holdings should not receive public funding legitimately available for state-sponsored development initiatives. Such funds are not 'free government money given away'. They relate to very specific projects and developments which are deemed by HMG to serve the national interest. If you disapprove of regional development grants and the like, protest to your MP.