Topshop cancelled a promotional event on campus this week following protests from student campaign group People and Planet, claiming concern for the safety of their staff.
Topshop cancelled a promotional event on campus this week following protests from student campaign group People and Planet, claiming concern for the safety of their staff.
The cancellation follows a People and Planet protest at the opening of Topshop’s new Princes Street branch last week in which they accused Topshop of employing sweatshop labour in the production of their garments/clothes.
Amy Elderton, a spokesperson for the Arcadia group who own Topshop, told Student: “Due to the reaction against the Topman activity that was at Edinburgh University the week before Topshop activity was scheduled, we took advice from the university and through our university contacts and decided we didn't want to put our staff in any danger by continuing with the T-shirt printing part of the activity.
"We have however continued giving out bags and water which has had a great reaction with the Edinburgh University".
"Students will continue to ask questions of retailers who can't provide a serious plan to improve conditions and wages for exploited garment workers"
Fiona Ranford, Student campaigner
People and Planet have reacted angrily to the claim, with member Fiona Ranford saying: “We have been nothing but peaceful in our approach to challenging Topshop's supply chain practices. Their withdrawal reflects their fear of being asked difficult questions and having an unfavourable light shed on their brand, not some ungrounded fear of staff abuse.
“Students will continue to ask questions of retailers who can't provide a serious plan to improve conditions and wages for exploited garment workers, soon Topshop will have to stop running and start answering. Students won't be fooled or satisfied by token gestures.”
Topshop however have denied any wrong-doing in the production of their garments, saying: “We make it clear at the beginning of our relationship with a supplier that we will not work with any factory that employs child labour. We believe every worker has the right to join a trade union, we support the principle of a living wage and with regards to the environment we have made significant progress on a number of fronts”.
Can suck on my chubby. They should rename themselves the "Let us who represent less than one per cent of the student body stop everyone else's fun while we attempt to impose our skewed perspective of ethics on everyone else by shouting as loud as we can and stamping our feet society."
But life is serious, isn't it? I imagine workers in sweatshops think that it's serious that they work 70 hours weeks for sod all. But you're right, anon, taking yourself too seriously is a far greater crime. When are they going to criminalise it though?
With regard to imposing a 'skewed perspective on ethics', I doubt another perspective which is disinterested the impact of our actions on others deserves the title 'ethics'. I'm glad some people are concerned with these things, you'd have thought 'educated' uni students would have learned an interest the effects of their consumerism.
true because taking yourself this seriously has achieved alot.. as a result of these protests the workers in these sweatshops have indeed had their hours cut.. and a wage increase.. and you's all looked like tools.. good work!!
Wow, what great people write in to this. So if this particular protest didn't succeed in raising wages and preventing human rights abuses immediately, maybe all protests should cease forthwith. Perish the thought that some students don't look cool for five minutes while they actually try and make things better in the world. When did pathetic and lazy apathy become cool?
"So if this particular protest didn't
succeed in raising wages and preventing human rights abuses immediately, maybe
all protests should cease forthwith."
The most blatant example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy I've ever seen.
If this protest did not succeed in its goals, it failed, and was therefore pointless. Do not attempt to defend a masturbatory exercise by cloaking it in universals.
Also, apathy would be the equivalent of indifference. Put simply, if people didn't care, they would ignore People and Planet and get on with their cool/hip/swinging lifestyle. They certainly wouldn't be commenting on this website.
What you have here is a fundamental disagreement in methods and motivation. Groups such as People and Planet effectively claiming, as you are, that they have a monopoly on morality is what makes them so objectionable.
If people and planet don't have a 'monopoly on morality' then why does it appear that they do? Why do other student groups not rise up heroically and snub out their opinions with successful arguments?
Because the only legitimate moralities are those that involve thought. People and planet are thinking and trying to get others thinking. And no-one else is providing a considered alternative moral stance on the problem of lack of accountability in transnational supply chains. Other than being satisfied by ignorance.
"The most blatant example of a reductio ad absurdum fallacy I've
ever seen.
If this protest did not succeed in its goals, it failed, and was
therefore pointless"
I'm not sure how much you know about politics, Mr "reductio ad absurdum" first year philosophy student/tory-boy, but no protests achieve their overall campaign aims immediately. Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech was not followed the next day by the expansion of civil rights.
However, as mentioned above campaigns may have subsidiary goals like causing brand damage for companies until they improve conditions (like Nike and Gap have somewhat), or encouraging customers to pursuade Topshop to improve sweatshop conditions, or encouraging a boycot, and succeed in these.
And how are People & Planet 'effectively' claiming they have a monopoly on morality? By saying anything at all?
They claim this monopoly by removing the free will and choice of anyone else. In this example, why not protest at the topshop thing on campus rather than removing it altogether. That way anyone who wants to attend can do so, but can also be made aware of the issues.
The same thing happened at Stirling Uni a couple of years ago. A promotional Bacardi and Coke night with all sorts of things going on had been organised and it looked like being a big success. Clearly there are issues with both companies - but instead of, for example, handing out leaflets detailing the heinous activities of both global corporations and informing the students of the problem, they jumped up and down so much and made so many threats that the event had to be cancelled, disappointing hundreds of students who were very much looking forward to it. I see that as lose-lose. People just get pissed off with P&P, rather than seeing the issues.
'They claim this monopoly by removing the free will and choice of anyone else'
It was Topshop's choice to cancel based on no evidence of a potential 'threat'. Previous protests have only aimed to encourage shoppers to realise the little consumer power they have to ask topshop to improve their ethical credentials, if the shopper is interested in such issues. Thus P&P's campaigning aims to empower consumers by giving them a choice to act. Topshop however removed themselves from the event thus removing the choice of both Topshop enthusiasts who wanted to attend and those who want to ask questions. There was no 'free will' smothering on P&P's part.
Partly Cloudy 15 oC
I would just like to state that we ar...
PROBABLY YOU STUPID OR SOMETHING THAT...
I'm impressed that someone has had th...
What a cake! I love the fact that Con...
I enjoyed this article and compliment...