Oh dear Chris Giles, Oh Dear

You’re claiming, or getting close to claiming, that Harrods – a retailer – is making a 25% net margin.

Err, no.

What is the thing that we cannot see in those accounts? Any payment for the land and or building from which the retailing is done. And a store in central London does have the odd cost attached to it.

The base point may well still be true – that Harrods is a larger part of the UK economy than fishing. But I’d suggest that this dive into the accounts doesn’t show it.

13 thoughts on “Oh dear Chris Giles, Oh Dear”

  1. The “our fishing industry is so small, why are we worrying about it” argument really pisses me off. Its small because we sacrificed it to could join the EC and then stay on good terms with the EU. If we hadn’t it would be much bigger.

  2. The value of for the fishing industry that is relevant to the decision is the value of fish that is caught by foreign vessels in UK waters as if we end the current system this fish could be caught by UK vessels

  3. Amazing how many folks don’t understand (or won’t understand) that the issue is not fish, it is sovereignty.

  4. Does anyone still read the FT? Since this Chris Giles came along, it is hardly fit for use in the shit house. And Martin Wolf appears to have lost his marbles. The eye opener for me were Giles’s deliberately midleading/dishonest graphs in the early days of COVID: the tendentioud use of logarithmic scales to make the UK seem really bad

  5. As far as I can remember, there’s always been a list of foods that you can’t take across the Channel at Dover Port, I must have read it a hundred times, sitting bored in the queue, waiting to drive on. Not saying I can remember what was on it, though. Another thing to be ignored. I’d get it in the neck if I didn’t turn up in France with the 5kg of smoked bacon.

  6. @diogenes

    He had, and probably still does not, have any conception of what a log graph is for. He also managed to plot a graph where both axes had a strong dependence on a 3rd factor, i.e. population. He also spent ages arguing as to why he shouldn’t be using per capita figures, at about the same time he produced that graph that showed that big countries had big numbers (well duh.) And he defended the use of stats on face value which were gathered in completely different ways and actually measured different things.

    The whole thing was rather unedifying, frankly…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *