How evil is this?

1 - It's deliberately misleading, but of course now we know they are doing this anyone who wants to boycott these stores can probably find out where they are. So balance restored.
 
Participant said:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, did it really fail? As far as I recall, the mint said they'd stop using animal products in fivers.
Click to expand...

Nope, they said they'd look into alternatives when the story first came out but have since said there are no plans to change the £5, or the new £10 when it comes out.
 
Not a zero but definitely not more than one.

I would guess a lot of people would rather go to their local coffee shop than Starbucks just because it's not Starbucks. They are trying to get in on that market - 'supporting the underdog'. If the shops were on streets that had all 'independant' looking shops I can understand why they did it. Deception is on the far outskirts of evil, I suppose :p
 
Nitefly said:
Not a zero but definitely not more than one.

I would guess a lot of people would rather go to their local coffee shop than Starbucks just because it's not Starbucks. They are trying to get in on that market - 'supporting the underdog'. If the shops were on streets that had all 'independant' looking shops I can understand why they did it. Deception is on the far outskirts of evil, I suppose :p
Click to expand...
This is a valid point. I'm sure people would be more up in arms about it if it was Starbucks operating an 'independent' coffee shop and fooling people.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Well he didn't give his score and wrote it in a way that he could vote either way.
Click to expand...

Sliver said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Whilst there's little point debating the OP's opinion when he can just tell us, the reason I thought the OP was siding with Waterstones was because of his comment:

Mr Badger said:
You know, the sort of outlet that many people think Waterstones helped wipe out?
Click to expand...

^ That sounded like he was saying people were wrong to think Waterstones were killing independents, because in many cases they're actually buying them and running them as if independents. Could be wrong :).
 
About 1/11, I see evil as companies covering up leaking poison into water supplies and going out their way to scam the vulnerable. Not waterstones having a different sign.
 
A big fat zero from me.

I think it's good that they are making the shops look more 'independent' and fit in better with the other shops on the street.

At the end of the day, we need more book stores. I don't care who owns them as long as they stick around!
 
Fantastic idea.

If it fills what would otherwise be an empty shop on a town high street and encourages growth in small towns then I don't see why this would be a bad thing.
 
Yeah I quite like this, I'll rate it as a big ol' 0 on the evil scale.


Also, are Bannon/Pence really a 10? People like Pol Pot are objectively worse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom