[Strictly Jake]

A couple worth 8 million claimed 30K on furlough weeks after she won I'm a celebrity

Thoughts on this?

Did they need the furlough money??

I like both of them but I don't like this. Seems a bit greedy to me.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebri...lough-24308010

[arista]

They do not need it as much as others


Hence all the Anger.

[Oliver_W]

I like a good grift. Hate the game, not the players.

[Toy Soldier]

"An HMRC register of claims shows the pair received support shortly after Giovanna won the ITV reality show, although it's not clear if the Fletchers were claiming the money for themselves or for an employee."

Except that you can't claim furlough for yourself, it is claimed through a business expense for employees, so it IS fairly clear that this was for an employee.

You could argue that they should have continued to pay that employee out of their own pocket instead, but then, you could make the same argument about any successful business that has been using the furlough system for employees over the last year... but that's nonsense, that they'd pay for staff that they can't use. Realistically the options are furlough or let the staff member go. That's the whole point of the scheme.

Non-story and the papers know fine well it's almost certainly a business expense for someone(s) usually in their employ.

[Strictly Jake]

So yet newspapers again try and tarnish someone with false stories.

I regret posting the link now as I really like both of them

If it's for an employee then that makes sense! And what other rich businesses are doing.

Now she's getting a lot of hate on social media

[Marsh.]

Who are they employing? A nanny whilst she gives parenting advice on podcasts?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"An HMRC register of claims shows the pair received support shortly after Giovanna won the ITV reality show, although it's not clear if the Fletchers were claiming the money for themselves or for an employee."

Except that you can't claim furlough for yourself, it is claimed through a business expense for employees, so it IS fairly clear that this was for an employee.

You could argue that they should have continued to pay that employee out of their own pocket instead, but then, you could make the same argument about any successful business that has been using the furlough system for employees over the last year... but that's nonsense, that they'd pay for staff that they can't use. Realistically the options are furlough or let the staff member go. That's the whole point of the scheme.

Non-story and the papers know fine well it's almost certainly a business expense for someone(s) usually in their employ.

yes you can if you have a limited company, Mr C and his partner were able to when they weren't working, as technically they are employing themselves

[Strictly Jake]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who are they employing? A nanny whilst she gives parenting advice on podcasts?

Could be someone in PR, HR, Marketing, sectary etc?

[Cherie]

No way could they claim 30K though because it was capped

[UserSince2005]

dirty shameless thieves

[LeatherTrumpet]

what is even more sickening is that if you look at the photos from the article they are bringing up one of their kids to be a Spurs fan

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No way could they claim 30K though because it was capped

They could if they were claiming for 2 people. In the first 6 months of furlough my company claimed £66k in furlough and other business relief payments.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

They could if they were claiming for 2 people. In the first 6 months of furlough my company claimed £66k in furlough and other business relief payments.

oh I thought it said employee as in one person

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Cherie

oh I thought it said employee as in one person

No, you're right, it does say employee That will teach me to read the whole article. I will get back in my box now

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

No, you're right, it does say employee That will teach me to read the whole article. I will get back in my box now

steps on the lid

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Cherie

steps on the lid

Don't blame you

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...gh-scheme.html

[Livia]

As far as I'm aware, furlough wasn't means tested.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

As far as I'm aware, furlough wasn't means tested.

Nope.
My brother in law and family claimed it.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by smudgie

Nope.
My brother in law and family claimed it.

I was furloughed and am still flexi furloughed. The only stipulation was £2.5k cap per employee.

[Strictly Jake]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQJtuLyh...dium=copy_link

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Strictly Jake

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQJtuLyh...dium=copy_link

There you go, a non-story. They had staff on furlough like pretty much every other business in the country.

[Ammi]

Tom and Giovanna Fletcher say using furlough scheme was 'huge error in judgment' and have paid it back in full…


Tom and Giovanna Fletcher have apologised for a "huge error of judgment" in using the government's furlough scheme to pay an employee during the pandemic.

They shared identical statements to Instagram to address the matter after a report from The Sun at the weekend said they had received up to £30,000 from the taxpayer-funded scheme.

The couple claimed that while parts of the article and all figures mentioned were "inaccurate", they had indeed made a "mistake" in not financing it themselves and have paid it back in full.

The joint statement posted on Tuesday read: "Hi everyone, we’ve always had a very honest and open relationship with you all on here so we thought it was important to address questions that some of you have rightly asked us in the last 24 hours.


“This weekend there was an article in one of the Sunday papers about us using the government furlough scheme. While parts of the article were inaccurate (including all of the figures mentioned), it is true that we did follow financial advice to furlough someone we employ.”

The parents-of-three said the furlough cash was used for a staff member who “couldn’t carry out their role due to the pandemic” and the scheme was suggested as “the most effective way to give them job stability and security”.

The statement added: “Although it was a time of great uncertainty, we clearly should have thought more about the situation and funded it ourselves.

…full article…

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tom-giovan...091850342.html