seshme wrote:He only started the campaign once he got dementia. It's amazing how often it works that way around with celebrities.
And how does that make him any different from most other people? Most people who are involved with charities have some kind of personal experience that encourages them to help.
He used his celebrity to bring the lack of funding to a wider audience - how could that possibly be a bad thing?
Whilst appreciating the devaluation of woolies leasehold values with todays economic climate I find their valuation somewhat strange. In June they sold 4 of their London sites for £25.5million
seshme wrote:He only started the campaign once he got dementia. It's amazing how often it works that way around with celebrities.
And how does that make him any different from most other people? Most people who are involved with charities have some kind of personal experience that encourages them to help.
He used his celebrity to bring the lack of funding to a wider audience - how could that possibly be a bad thing?
I don't have a problem with it but it's not so altruistic asking for research into a disease you have yourself.
Last edited by seshme on Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
reject wrote:Whilst appreciating the devaluation of woolies leasehold values with todays economic climate I find their valuation somewhat strange. In June they sold 4 of their London sites for £25.5million
No your argument is off topic, I thought this was the idiotic lets buy Woolies thread.
I don't have an argument with Terry Pratchet of all people. Fucking hell 2 of my grandparents died of dementia which means I not only went through it with them I've got a good chance of getting it myself.
The thing that some people seem unable to understand is that there are limited resources in this world. Dementia largely affects the old and any research will be expensive so a call for more funding taking it away from other people perhaps has more weight if it comes with less apparent self interest.
Jayzus guys i is gettin well confused with this thread!!!
stayin totally off topic
St Gabriel is the patron saint of messengers (google rox!) and i blame him for the state of this thread...
Pratchett has alzheimers which leads to dementia (pedants rock)
No one should have to plead for funding into research..
On topicish at last!!!
Imagine if woolworths was nationalised and all profits that might be created were put into sorting out dementia instead of lining rich individuals pockets. That might be good?
I believe the whole woolies debacle exposes a lot of widely deep rooted problems that need addressed... The problems have been known for quite a while yet nowt was done.. now at the last minute the sh*t has hit the fan.
They appear to dramatically devalue the worth of their leaseholds.. why?
We are meant to see an american creation as english as fish n chips and feel their should be some nationalistic reason why it must be saved...
Im rantin but woolies is just the tip of the iceburg i believe.. we should examine the deeper rooted problems instead of the 'gawd bless woolies' reporting which appears to be commonplace...
you would think i was 17 instead of 38 sometimes with these red rants!!!
Some thoughts: Woolies does have a sentimental attachment that few other shops have as most of us were taken there to buy pick 'n' mix as kids and it was a shop that always seemed to sell a little bit of everything. Which is ironically it's downfall in these days of USP's and agressive marketing to a target audience. It's a shame and while I personally buy stuff from Woolies all the time (at least once a week) you'll find the vast majority of people don't and just like to remember all misty eyed but will sooner piss off to Tesco or Asda to buy things.
Nextly bollocks to the mere thought that you can't have a political opinion if you are famous without fearing comeback on it just because of that fame. If it is well thought out and balanced then go for it. If you are an eijit then take what you get. Terry Pratchett has, in my opinion, totally altruistically, raised awareness of the growing problem of alzheimers in our ageing society. While he has now publically came out as suffering from this his reasons are obvious it shouldn't stop him. Nor again should that stop anyone from providing suppose to any good cause. You can't raise money for Cnacer research cause you parent had cancer? Fuck that for a game of soldiers. People are motiviated by personal reasons. C'est la vie.
I work in the banking sector and don't think any business should get a government bail out...CEO's rake the cash in when the companies make the money. Now there are losses are they stopping? Are they buggery. Let the compnay die if, in the capatilist society we live in, they can't survive. Or let's go for a more socalist approach and help all.....but let's help people in poverty and poor health first rather than making sure another Saville Row besuited anus gets another 7 figure bonus please.
Here endeth the vitriol for now.
Last edited by cobweb on Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
To Lord Mandelson , Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
14th December 2008
Dear Peter,
I am writing to you to request an urgent meeting on the closure of Woolworths. As you will know, the administrators Deloittes brought in a couple of weeks ago have declared that they have been unable to find a buyer for the company and that some shops may even close before Christmas. Some 30,000 employees now face the prospect of losing their jobs, some even before Christmas and the rest shortly after. As such, this is the single biggest loss of jobs since the credit crunch struck, and at a time when it is increasingly difficult to get a job.
The experts have, of course, told us that Woolworths business model was wrong and that is why it has gone bust. Clearly Woolworths was at the weaker end of the retail business. But the proximate cause of its demise is the credit crunch itself. This led to banks refusing to roll over loans and insurance companies refusing to reinsure its debt.
Woolworths has been trading in Britain for 99 years and has survived two world wars, the Great Depression and the trauma of the recessions of 1974 and 1979. It has continued to provide a wide variety of cheap goods to those particularly on lower incomes. It has assumed an iconic place on virtually every major high street in the country.
The responses I have had from constituents across the diverse communities that make up my constituency, where there are not one but two Woolworths stores, is sadness that this unique store is threatened with extinction but also anger that nothing is being done to help either the stores or their employees. The contrast is being drawn between the assistance given to the financial sector and the lack of assistance going into saving 30,000 retail jobs of employees many of whom have worked for Woolies for many years.
It also will not be understood if, at a time when James Purnell is promoting controversial proposals to encourage people back into the jobs market, the government stands by and lets 30,000 jobs disappear in one fell swoop. Moreover, this addition to the dole queues will itself significantly increase the burden on the exchequer through unemployment benefit, mortgage support, housing benefit and other costs.
You are already on record as saying that you are drawing up a list of companies which the government may have to help in the face of the credit crunch. Life is going to be hard enough for this government given the scale of the recession which is upon us. But it will be even worse if such a popular and iconic chain of shops is simply allowed to disappear.
I want to discuss with you why I think the government should include Woolworths and why there is a viable company potentially here which could continue to employ tens of thousands of people. But with the clock ticking, I must ask that the meeting take place as a matter of urgency.
