writes Anthony Reuben, a BBC Views Online Business Reporter, of the recently deceased Dame Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop, including this wonderfully astute observation:
The very idea of a commercially run business being set up to benefit anyone other than shareholders was a new one.
And I thought that any commercially run business sets out to benefit its customers through the provision of goods and services freely purchased.
Perhaps its due to the unique way the BBC is funded that British tellytaxpayers receive the benefit of such top-notch Beeboid wisdom, not freely purchased!
Thank you to Biased BBC reader Ryan Stephenson for the quote.
P.S. Our Beeboid ‘business reporter’ also overlooks many benevolent and socially responsible commercial employers from generations past in his rush to praise Dame Anita.
Just go to http://www.anitaroddick.com/links.php and see the moonbat sites she linked to (BBC Action Network is in there).
No wonder the al-Beebies liked her.
FYI — Anita Roddick stole the whole name and concept for The Body Shop from a hippie store in Berkeley, California in the 70s. After her stores hit it big, she had to pay the hippie store a few million bucks to buy off their lawsuit. They settled cheap, poor things. You can find more on this via Google.
I haven’t noticed this fact mentioned in the al-Beeb hagiography. But then, I didn’t really expect them to mention it.
I haven’t found it mentioned anywhere on the Beeb that she was forced to admit a few years ago that the Body Shop used ingredients that had, in fact, been tested on animals (it was only the final product that had not been tested on animals – deemed to be unnecessary as the ingredients had already been tested as safe).
Search around the web and you will quickly find all sorts of information on what the Body Shop is really like. Anita Roddick was not the deity the BBC would have us believe. She was simply an opportunist that found herself in the right place at the right time and exploited it fully.
My brother, now an active green party chap, used to campaign against the body shop on the basis that while they didn’t perform animal testing, they employed other peope who did, with the result that there was more than the industry average amount of animal testing done on Body Shop products. Sadly, the monolithic hypocrisy of this woman appears to have been ignored. 🙁
Since I presume he, like all the BBC lovies, shops in Waitrose on King’s Road, he should know that the the John Lewis Partnership is run for its employees not shareholders. He also has clearly never heard of the Co-op, or is ignorant enough about his brief not to understand the idea of co-operatives or for that matter building societies.
He should also look at his history, and some of the Victorian entrepreneurs.
the John Lewis Partnership is run for its employees not shareholders.
Depends what you mean. I always understood that its employees were its shareholders.
Either way, it’s nitpicking. That BBC quote is quite clearly nonsense. Reuben has obviously never heard of Adam Smith and enlightened self-interest.
I can’t remember who said it, but it’s important to bear in mind: never forget that business journalists are still journalists, not businessmen. War reporters aren’t soldiers; why should we expect business reporters to be any more sympathetic towards commerce than they are towards shooting people and blowing stuff up?
You guys are wasting your time talking about the philanthropy of Victorian entrepreneurs and the like. They got really, really rich in industry, not in any PC fashion. Ergo, they are evil, and don’t count. Any amount of money those folks may have given away wouldn’t be enough for the luvvies.
Indeed, Ryan. Isn’t that why they changed the wording on their products to ‘Against animal testing’ as opposed to ‘Not tested on animals’.
‘Against animal testing’ is a completely meaningless phrase, as if by saying that you’re not in favour of it excuses you from actually doing anything about it. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.