Father of Daughters #54 Delivering bargain basement content both literally and figuratively

[yellow_daisies]

Their tax bill didn't go from £60k to £15k.
Their corporation tax recoverable (as in, owed to the company by HMRC) went from £3.5k to £10.9k. The only reason they would be getting (previously paid) tax back from HMRC is if they now are making substantial losses. However I'm confused as to what expenses they can be putting through the company to make such losses? They also have trade creditors of £5k which is money they owe their suppliers. What suppliers?

Clemmie previously owed the company £56k and this was repaid in January 21. I'm assuming in order to do this, they had to take money out of the company (i.e. pay themselves dividends from retained profits) and then repay the loan back to the company.

Trade debtors £30 is a big fat LOL, as as far as I'm aware the company's activities are influencing, so that would mean they were owed £30 for a brand partnership at the end of December. Haha! (Nothing last year.)

You can't really tell an awful lot from these small company accounts but the situation has definitely worsened from their heyday. I'd say it's been over for them for a while (as we knew!).

PS. Who is their 3rd employee?

The snickers toting cleaner??

 

[Axatogrind]

He's yet again grumping about having moved to the coast

It's a major part of his brand now I guess.

 

[Titfer]

So if I'm reading it right, the bottom line is that ALL of their Father of Daughters / House of Hooper activities during the year 2021 resulted in a net loss to the company of some £68k?

As the filing is for year to end December 2021, it won't reflect the increased activity and deals he's had during 2022 so it will be interesting to see whether that's reflected in the filing next year.

Just guessing but the third employee could be some type of home help whether that's a family member or someone else? I've long suspected they have more help at home than they let on.

The Cleaner?

 

[rainbowlemon]

So angry especially with slamming the phone down. lol not a good look for any brand.

 

[Axatogrind]

Totally fake and pointless phone call and he's such a bad actor

Do you not have to swipe or tap to take a call on those Pixel phones?

 

[Emmadale]

So angry especially with slamming the phone down. lol not a good look for any brand.

Privileged ungrateful twit!

 

[Lipsofchicken]

What a pointless staged post.
But then, he is pointless he is a father

 

[Affiliatemebaby]

I spent some time on Glassdoor the other day for actual genuine purposes but then, as I was about to do something else, I looked up the salary for FoD’s role at his company. Obviously it’s a range and has global input but the highest salary in the average range given was £85k. Money goes further in Kent but the loss of the Gas and Air income must really be hurting.

I reckon Clemmie has been told to stay off social media for the sake of her job. I think they’re not using her on his account to pave the way for her return but sneakily to boost his followers/earnings/engagement without attracting adverse attention.

 

[Hatchet_job]

I spent some time on Glassdoor the other day for actual genuine purposes but then, as I was about to do something else, I looked up the salary for FoD’s role at his company. Obviously it’s a range and has global input but the highest salary in the average range given was £85k. Money goes further in Kent but the loss of the Gas and Air income must really be hurting.

I reckon Clemmie has been told to stay off social media for the sake of her job. I think they’re not using her on his account to pave the way for her return but sneakily to boost his followers/earnings/engagement without attracting adverse attention.

Sounds reasonable. Don't think it's working. 870k followers. And very low numbers on engagement.

 

[LuBiLu]

Well looking at what's been explained about the accounting for the company, I can see why he looks older than 55, is such a miserable fucker, and has more lines on his forehead than a lined notebook.

 

[Axatogrind]

I can see how an employee could face disciplinary action for using social media in a way that is detrimental to the employer's business, but I can't really see how an employer could ban an employee from having personal social media accounts that are not related to their job, e.g. if Clemmie wanted to come back and just do (say) fashion and/or interiors.

Surely what someone does outside work is their own business, provided it doesn't bring the employer into disrepute?

If she is somehow banned from having any public account, would she not be more circumspect about gallivanting all over her husband's account and him talking about her night shifts and catching babies etc? Let's face it, both accounts are pretty much joint husband and wife accounts in all but name.

 

[Libertine]

Clemmie never could just make it about fashion or interiors or even travel; she always had to remind us she was a baby catcher.

The midwifery gave her a unique selling point and I suppose we all think we can trust a midwife. Snort.

 

[Affiliatemebaby]

Clemmie never could just make it about fashion or interiors or even travel; she always had to remind us she was a baby catcher.

The midwifery gave her a unique selling point and I suppose we all think we can trust a midwife. Snort.

Yes, and it would be very easy indeed to lay herself open to further accusations of bringing the profession into disrepute. She’s so well known as a midwife that a small misstep (on the scale, say, of FoD’s AXA ad, could cause complaints. So heavy advice would be to lay off the social media.

I can see how an employee could face disciplinary action for using social media in a way that is detrimental to the employer's business, but I can't really see how an employer could ban an employee from having personal social media accounts that are not related to their job, e.g. if Clemmie wanted to come back and just do (say) fashion and/or interiors.

Surely what someone does outside work is their own business, provided it doesn't bring the employer into disrepute?

If she is somehow banned from having any public account, would she not be more circumspect about gallivanting all over her husband's account and him talking about her night shifts and catching babies etc? Let's face it, both accounts are pretty much joint husband and wife accounts in all but name.

I reckon they see this as a getaround. Let’s not forget this is not the Brains Trust.

 

[Toffeebythesea]

I was thinking maybe having no social media would be in the terms of her displinary at work. If she didn't get at least a warning I'm genuinely shocked. I'm a teacher and I know my boss would have let me go over what she did.

 

[OhMyWord]

I don’t remotely understand all the companies house and tax stuff.

So I just want to throw out there: didn’t Sly complain like 8 seconds about how he hated the beach? Why complain that you have to work and everyone else is at the beach when you hate the beach?

 

[bluekoala]

I don’t remotely understand all the companies house and tax stuff.

So I just want to throw out there: didn’t Sly complain like 8 seconds about how he hated the beach? Why complain that you have to work and everyone else is at the beach when you hate the beach?

God he’s such a twunt

 

[sarleyahson]

His latest story re. the paddle board.

Growing up, we didn’t have a lot of money. In fact, it wasn’t until I was in my 20s I found out that sometimes my mum wouldn’t know how we would buy school shoes for September. But I DO remember that my mum and dad gave us all the time in the world, when they were both working full time. Putting themselves before us. That means more to me now than anything materialistic would have done.

 

[Bizziebody]

Slyman, you're not working, you are playing with your phones & cameras or instagram head pats.

 

[gossipygertie]

I can see how an employee could face disciplinary action for using social media in a way that is detrimental to the employer's business, but I can't really see how an employer could ban an employee from having personal social media accounts that are not related to their job, e.g. if Clemmie wanted to come back and just do (say) fashion and/or interiors.

Surely what someone does outside work is their own business, provided it doesn't bring the employer into disrepute?

If she is somehow banned from having any public account, would she not be more circumspect about gallivanting all over her husband's account and him talking about her night shifts and catching babies etc? Let's face it, both accounts are pretty much joint husband and wife accounts in all but name.

here in Australia the Health Practioners Registration Board impose sanctions after complaints are investigated, social media use might be one of them. Being supervised would probably be one of them too, so I would guess she would be monitored.

my guess is that they are reinstalling her, so FOD can down the track change the name of his account to something like “Hooper fam” or “Squad of Girls” or something like that. Once Clemmies time in the work sin bin is served.

 

[Axatogrind]

Thanks for the replies on the topic, very interesting. It's quite scary to think someone could be deemed so toxic to midwifery that their employer can legally prevent them from having a non-work related instagram account, yet fine to have that person still caring for vulnerable birthing mothers (even under supervision).

Just thinking out loud but Clemmie has a private account for her 200 closest friends (lol) - would it be a problem if she decided to start accepting random followers on her private account and begin building a new fanbase that way?