Five questions answered on the collapse of Jessops

Thousands of jobs at risk.

Another high street store admits defeat and announces it is to go into administration putting thousands of jobs at risk. We answer five questions on Jessops’ decision to close.

What reason has Jessops given for its planned closure?

The high street camera store says it is being forced into closure after leading camera makers, such as Canon and Nikon, have tightened the terms on which they sell products to the company following a downturn in the market.

Unless Jessops can whip up a deal with suppliers the company said closure by the end of the week would be inevitable.

Companies that supply Jessop are said to be concerned about the state of the electrical sector after the collapse of Comet last year, plus Jessops failed to increase its 2012 sales from the previous year.

How many jobs will be sacrificed in Jessops closure? 

In its 192 stores Jessops employs about 2,000 staff who will all lose their jobs if stores close.

However, those who are members of the Jessops’ pension scheme are said to be protected because it was adopted by the Government’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) in 2009.

Who else will be a loser?

HSBC who co-own the company because the bank stands to lose £30 that Jessops owes HSBC. In total Jessops is estimated to have debts of £60m, including £30m of trade debt and the HSBC debt.

HSBC tried to strike a deal with suppliers to ease Jessops’ financial burden but to no avail.

What has Jessops’ spokespeople said about the company’s closure?

Rob Hunt, joint administrator and partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers who have been appointed as administrator of Jessops, told the BBC: "Our most pressing task is to review the company's financial position and hold discussions with its principal stakeholders to see if the business can be preserved.

"Trading in the stores is hoped to continue today but is critically dependent on these ongoing discussions. However, in the current economic climate it is inevitable that there will be store closures."

It’s not a good start to 2013, who could be next?

It’s hard to say, but online entertainment retailer Play.com succumbed on Wednesday; the second biggest casualty of 2013. The retailer will make more than 200 redundancies.

Although there is no suggestion of closure, Marks and Spencers reported a 1.8 per cent drop in like for like trading figures in the 13 weeks to 29 December on the same period a year earlier.

Last year casualties included Comet, Clinton Cards, JJB Sports and Game Group.

Another high street store admits defeat. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496