Wilsons Selling Up. The Lot. All 700 Houses.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Nice post Graham. So, as per the orginal question, do you extend your moral values and the obvious knowledge you have about their business pratices and ethics in to other avenues of your life? For example, did you research how your bank operates before joining them?

As I said before, I ask from a curious point of view. I invest in a fund that has shares in BAE Systems and Imperial Tobacco, which doesn't really sit very easily with me, so I'm not being judgemental.

I don't really see how your question correlates with the wilsons in all honesty.

I don't like battery hens, so buy free range eggs. Is that what you mean?

Tesco's is business. It bargains and contracts in other business. Therefore, you have business up against a business.

The wilsons is business up against families.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But I think I have it correct in that you are asking whether I deal with Tesco's because they drive down the prices they pay to their suppliers? As I say, thats business vs business. Not business vs families.

It's a whole different ballgame.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Tesco's is business. It bargains and contracts in other business. Therefore, you have business up against a business.

The wilsons is business up against families.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But I think I have it correct in that you are asking whether I deal with Tesco's because they drive down the prices they pay to their suppliers? As I say, thats business vs business. Not business vs families.

It's a whole different ballgame.

I'd argue that it's completely the same ballgame. Tescos, through their practices and business plan, have a direct, negative effect on society and communities, and therefore families. Whether that's collecting masses of data on people for their own and other's use, specifically targetting small businesses so that communities suffer or the simple, yet quite depressing, act of trying to offer every service and product in an indentikit way which is slowly eroding our communities. Even their practice of buying land and not developing it, solely so that other businesses and services can't operate on it, has a negative impact on families and the public in the areas in whcih they live.

Look at what the banks do with tax avoidance. Billions and billions not going in to public services: health, education, benefits, transport etc. That isn't business vs business, that's business acting in a way that is detrimental to families and individuals.

The Wilson's ethical and moral stance to their business, whilst evidently completely unacceptable, is no different to a vast amount of other businesses that many of the posters shouting 'scum' at the Wilsons will use on a daily basis. It's just that the Wilson's don't seem to have a PR-savy bone in their bodies so you see it far more easily.

ninky_2

Cleaver wrote: »

So, the question is, does this moral view of a business being unethical stretch to other products and services that you use in life? In essense, do you put your money where your mouth is? I'd be interested to hear if you avoid Coca-Cola products due to their impact on developing nations and killing of union leaders at their plants. Whether you only use building societies because of the way in which pretty much all UK banks engage in tax avoision which costs billions to the public each year. Do you give Tesco a wide birth to their monopolistic tendencies and lack of any community engagement; in a very similar way to the Wilsons really. Do you ensure that you invest in funds that avoid the usual suspects: tobacco, defense, large pharmacuticals that don't have a good ethical record etc. Basically, does this moral code stretch in to the other areas of your lives?

.

absolutely. i try to be ethical where possible. sometimes i don't manage (lack of planning, lack of information, lack of time or laziness etc). i'm certainly not proud when i fail to live a kind and compassionate life. and if anyone pointed out the error of my ways i wouldn't gloat, make out i somehow deserved exemption for my behaviour or deserved reward because i'd "earned it" as some btlers do.

oh and i've been a renter as well before. doesn't mean i support private rentals - just didn't have much choice. i'd rather grow my own veg than go to tesco but been on the allotment waiting list for 5 years now. planning to go to a local pick your own this weekend instead and trying to cut down on my food waste. currently reading 'waste' by tristram stuart. enlightening stuff.

Cleaver

ninky wrote: »

absolutely. i try to be ethical where possible. sometimes i don't manage (lack of planning, lack of information, lack of time or laziness etc). i'm certainly not proud when i fail to live a kind and compassionate life. and if anyone pointed out the error of my ways i wouldn't gloat, make out i somehow deserved exemption for my behaviour or deserved reward because i'd "earned it" as some btlers do.

oh and i've been a renter as well before. doesn't mean i support private rentals - just didn't have much choice. i'd rather grow my own veg than go to tesco but been on the allotment waiting list for 5 years now. planning to go to a local pick your own this weekend instead and trying to cut down on my food waste. currently reading 'waste' by tristram stuart. enlightening stuff.

What a great post.

Your comment about lack of planning, information and time is so true. I guess that's a sign that to shop locally, ethically and, dare I say it, to gain pleasure from buying goods and services nowadays, you need to put in quite a bit of time, thought and energy. Which is quite sad in some ways.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

I'd argue that it's completely the same ballgame. Tescos, through their practices and business plan, have a direct, negative effect on society and communities, and therefore families. Whether that's collecting masses of data on people for their own and other's use, specifically targetting small businesses so that communities suffer or the simple, yet quite depressing, act of trying to offer every service and product in an indentikit way which is slowly eroding our communities. Even their practice of buying land and not developing it, solely so that other businesses and services can't operate on it, has a negative impact on families and the public in the areas in whcih they live.

I can't agree, I'm sorry.

As on the flip side of the coin, Tesco's gives millions of pounds to councils each year and also helps charities out with millions of pounds each year.

They give 100's of families jobs in the areas that they are in.

They are not eroding away the small shops, WE are. WE choose to shop there, tesco's do not force us to shop there etc. They do not buy up all the small shops to provide us with no choice.

Whereas the wilsons are forcing people to rent homes if they want to live in Ashford as they ARE eroding all the homes by buying all the FTB properties up before anyone else gets a chance.

The two scenarios are completely different. I do realise people do have a problem with big business however, so could see different sides of the fence dependant on how they see big corporate business.

I personally see that I have a choice. I can either shop in Tescos, Morrisins, my local high street, my local farm shop, or my very local corner shop.

If I went to live in ashford as a FTB, my choice would have been completely eradicated by two people who have forced that choice onto the people living there.

lostinrates

Cleaver wrote: »

What a great post.

Your comment about lack of planning, information and time is so true. I guess that's a sign that to shop locally, ethically and, dare I say it, to gain pleasure from buying goods and services nowadays, you need to put in quite a bit of time, thought and energy. Which is quite sad in some ways.

I agree, certainly in the beginning. Once you get into the swing of it its a bit easier. Time ease and costs of getting to places has to be factored in though.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Whereas the wilsons are forcing people to rent homes if they want to live in Ashford as they ARE eroding all the homes by buying all the FTB properties up before anyone else gets a chance.

how many people in Ashford do you know personally (not what people talk about on the these forums) that have been forced into rented homes because of the Wilsons?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

They give 100's of families jobs in the areas that they are in.
.

Don't agree with that.

the grocer, butcher, electrical shop, card shop, cloth's shops, news stores etc, etc, etc.
Their family's would not agree with you on that one.

Large supermarkets tend to wreak traditional high streets, they also employ less staff than the high streets they replace.

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

how many people in Ashford do you know personally (not what people talk about on the these forums) that have been forced into rented homes because of the Wilsons?

I live in Ashford and have been forced into rented accomodation by these people. I also know at least 700 other people who have, mainly my friends, family, aquaintances and total strangers.

These people are a menace!!! :mad:

ruggedtoast

The Wilsons's are parasites, but theyre just a drop in the ocean of pus in the btl boil.

Brown's government is to blame for creating an extraordinarily one sided and unfair regulatory environment , where speculators are allowed to ramp up property based entirely on notional assets that are priced upwards purely by their own ramping.

Insanely the more inflated notional house prices became, the less risk the speculators portfiolio appears and the more access to cheap credit they got. The Wilsons were very skilled in manipulating land reg figures and exploited every imaginable loophole to give their cache of humdrum properties more leverage potential.

In the meantime people who need and want to buy homes to live in are assessed on their actual tangible income and savings and have no hope of competing with the Wilsons and their ilk.

The real outrage is that Brown sees nothing wrong with this and is now pouring tax payer money into attempting to perpetuate it. Despite every sane fundamental economic indicator screaming at him that this model is now entirely BROKEN.