"coffee" with someone yesterday. You know the sort of thing I mean. You sit in a place which serves coffee and food and talk to each other.
In this case she talked to me. I knew this was going to happen when she asked. I knew this person had invited me for the express purpose of having someone to talk to. She needs to talk.
I could have said no, especially as it was time I did not really have. I actually got up even earlier than usual so I would have time to listen.
I pedalled off and I did listen. I said yes and no in, hopefully, the right places. I asked, hopefully, the right questions. Hopefully, I looked interested.
It's not what I wanted to do at all but I needed to do it.
And I am glad I did it because, as she finished her coffee the real reason for her invitation became clear. She had a cancerous lump removed from her skin last week. It is the second time this has happened and she is frightened.
This woman comes from overseas. She is divorced from the man she married here - although she assures me they are "still friends". He lives in a remote area. She was very lonely there.
She has one child but does not seem to see much of him. She is, I think, still intensely lonely despite her volunteer work.
And she needed someone to talk to, someone to share her fear.
I hope I did and said the right things because I am trying to work out how I would feel in her place. I think I would be frightened too because loneliness is frightening.
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
I think there may be something wrong
with us. There has been a rather more than slight contretemps in England recently because a mother was breastfeeding her infant in a certain up-market hotel. Other mothers, quite rightly, protested outside by breastfeeding their infants.
As I remarked elsewhere, I would much prefer a contented infant than one who is screaming from hunger. Of the two, the former is much less intrusive.
Breastfeeding is natural.
And then there have been demands that children no longer, even under the supervision of a parent, be allowed to sit on Santa's lap - because it "sends the wrong message". I gave up believing in Santa before I went to school...if I ever really believed in him. I also know that, for many children of my generation, a visit to "the Magic Cave" where you could "visit Santa" and get a cardboard and net stocking filled with rubbishy "toys", was the highlight of the pre-Christmas holiday period. I was never interested in telling anyone what I wanted for Christmas. I knew I was never going to get it and I certainly wasn't going to get it from a stranger dressed in a rather-too-warm red costume.
Other children still like it. It's a bit of harmless fun for many children, their parents and grandparents. But the protection police are out on this one too. Santa is potentially dangerous and so is the message even if an adult you know is there.
The problem, as I see it, is that putting a halt to these things does not teach children to discriminate. If they get told that it is not all right for Mummy to breastfeed their baby brother or sister in public then they are never going to learn what is appropriate with respect to natural functions.
Similarly if they are not permitted to sit on Santa's lap but are allowed to stand next to him - all while Mummy or Daddy is watching - isn't the message about "strangers" confusing?
Oh and then there are the messages they get about things like paying tax (only something the rich should have to do) and getting benefits (it's our right because we pay taxes) and all politicians are corrupt (unless they happen to be on the team you voted for) but you still have to respect them (unless they are not on team you voted for) because this is the way we are governed.
Children are getting mixed messages all the time.
Isn't it time we told children that breastfeeding is natural and the way in which babies have been fed ever since there were babies? Isn't it time we told them that, yes you need to be aware of "stranger danger" but when Mummy and Daddy are standing and watching in a public place it is appropriate to talk to a stranger and perhaps sit on his/her lap if you want to do it? Just ask Mummy and Daddy first?
Isn't it time to tell them we all need to contribute and take some responsibility for ourselves and that politicians are people the "adults" voted in to take the decisions which affect everyone?
I see the Mr Miliband wants to give 16 and 17 year old children the right to vote in the UK. My personal view is that they are not nearly old enough.
I would actually delay the right to vote until people are about 25 or 30. By then they might have managed to learn to read the mixed messages.
As I remarked elsewhere, I would much prefer a contented infant than one who is screaming from hunger. Of the two, the former is much less intrusive.
Breastfeeding is natural.
And then there have been demands that children no longer, even under the supervision of a parent, be allowed to sit on Santa's lap - because it "sends the wrong message". I gave up believing in Santa before I went to school...if I ever really believed in him. I also know that, for many children of my generation, a visit to "the Magic Cave" where you could "visit Santa" and get a cardboard and net stocking filled with rubbishy "toys", was the highlight of the pre-Christmas holiday period. I was never interested in telling anyone what I wanted for Christmas. I knew I was never going to get it and I certainly wasn't going to get it from a stranger dressed in a rather-too-warm red costume.
Other children still like it. It's a bit of harmless fun for many children, their parents and grandparents. But the protection police are out on this one too. Santa is potentially dangerous and so is the message even if an adult you know is there.
The problem, as I see it, is that putting a halt to these things does not teach children to discriminate. If they get told that it is not all right for Mummy to breastfeed their baby brother or sister in public then they are never going to learn what is appropriate with respect to natural functions.
Similarly if they are not permitted to sit on Santa's lap but are allowed to stand next to him - all while Mummy or Daddy is watching - isn't the message about "strangers" confusing?
Oh and then there are the messages they get about things like paying tax (only something the rich should have to do) and getting benefits (it's our right because we pay taxes) and all politicians are corrupt (unless they happen to be on the team you voted for) but you still have to respect them (unless they are not on team you voted for) because this is the way we are governed.
Children are getting mixed messages all the time.
Isn't it time we told children that breastfeeding is natural and the way in which babies have been fed ever since there were babies? Isn't it time we told them that, yes you need to be aware of "stranger danger" but when Mummy and Daddy are standing and watching in a public place it is appropriate to talk to a stranger and perhaps sit on his/her lap if you want to do it? Just ask Mummy and Daddy first?
Isn't it time to tell them we all need to contribute and take some responsibility for ourselves and that politicians are people the "adults" voted in to take the decisions which affect everyone?
I see the Mr Miliband wants to give 16 and 17 year old children the right to vote in the UK. My personal view is that they are not nearly old enough.
I would actually delay the right to vote until people are about 25 or 30. By then they might have managed to learn to read the mixed messages.
Monday, 8 December 2014
So you want to know about
food banks and the need for food banks here?
Yesterday someone tweeted a request for people to share his blog post about food banks in England - and the need to donate to them if you could.
It was not a political post at all. It was just a request to share the information and consider donating.
We have food banks here Downunder too. They have been around for a long time. Some of the people who use them would surprise others - and some would not surprise you at all.
Let me start years back. My mother was the principal of a "difficult" school in a "socially depressed" area. Well over half the children came from households where the father was absent. If the father was present then it was unlikely he was working. People lived, and still live, on social welfare benefits. There were problems with drugs and alcohol but there were also problems with ill-health, mental illness and other social issues such as gambling.
A good many of the children came to school without breakfast or sometimes even lunch. (There are no "school dinners" here.)
On coming into the school for the first time my mother was alerted to this, and many other problems, by the woman who was the school secretary. She had brought up four boys on her own - and done it extremely well. She knew that most of the parents she met did not have her skills, her ability or even her determination to do the best for their children.
It took a while but they, and other similar schools, started Breakfast Clubs. The kids got cereal and bread with something on it and milk to drink. Behaviour improved and so did learning. That was thirty years ago.
The need for Breakfast Clubs has grown since then. At least most of the youngest children are getting something to eat in the mornings. The problem is that many of the older children are not.
They are expected to fend for themselves.
A friend of ours works at a food bank here. It's a volunteer position which has become almost full-time. Recently they had a child of about ten turn up. He was looking for milk for himself and his three siblings. His mother had been there once before and he had found his way back.
His father is in hospital - and not going to come out. His mother had a migraine headache and had been too ill to lift her head from the pillow for two days. There is money, although very little. The problem was that it was in the form of a credit card - and the child could not use it. He had nothing with which to buy milk for the cereal so they had eaten it dry and drunk water for breakfast. He didn't know what to feed the others on during the day but thought he could find something but please could he have some milk?
They needed a little short term help from the food bank - and yes, he was given some milk and someone checked on them and provided an emergency pack of food that did not need to be cooked so the child could manage. The mother was well enough to come and thank them a couple of days later.
People can need to use a food bank for all sorts of reasons. Of course there will be those who spend their money on drugs and alcohol and cigarettes and gambling and then expect others to feed them. But there will also be families like the one of the child who wanted some milk who also need help - because of happenings over which they have no control.
Our friend assures me that someone will keep a watch out for this family. They will make sure the children, who are about to lose their father, will get a Christmas present.
So yes, as the writer of the English blog post said, someone needs you.
Yesterday someone tweeted a request for people to share his blog post about food banks in England - and the need to donate to them if you could.
It was not a political post at all. It was just a request to share the information and consider donating.
We have food banks here Downunder too. They have been around for a long time. Some of the people who use them would surprise others - and some would not surprise you at all.
Let me start years back. My mother was the principal of a "difficult" school in a "socially depressed" area. Well over half the children came from households where the father was absent. If the father was present then it was unlikely he was working. People lived, and still live, on social welfare benefits. There were problems with drugs and alcohol but there were also problems with ill-health, mental illness and other social issues such as gambling.
A good many of the children came to school without breakfast or sometimes even lunch. (There are no "school dinners" here.)
On coming into the school for the first time my mother was alerted to this, and many other problems, by the woman who was the school secretary. She had brought up four boys on her own - and done it extremely well. She knew that most of the parents she met did not have her skills, her ability or even her determination to do the best for their children.
It took a while but they, and other similar schools, started Breakfast Clubs. The kids got cereal and bread with something on it and milk to drink. Behaviour improved and so did learning. That was thirty years ago.
The need for Breakfast Clubs has grown since then. At least most of the youngest children are getting something to eat in the mornings. The problem is that many of the older children are not.
They are expected to fend for themselves.
A friend of ours works at a food bank here. It's a volunteer position which has become almost full-time. Recently they had a child of about ten turn up. He was looking for milk for himself and his three siblings. His mother had been there once before and he had found his way back.
His father is in hospital - and not going to come out. His mother had a migraine headache and had been too ill to lift her head from the pillow for two days. There is money, although very little. The problem was that it was in the form of a credit card - and the child could not use it. He had nothing with which to buy milk for the cereal so they had eaten it dry and drunk water for breakfast. He didn't know what to feed the others on during the day but thought he could find something but please could he have some milk?
They needed a little short term help from the food bank - and yes, he was given some milk and someone checked on them and provided an emergency pack of food that did not need to be cooked so the child could manage. The mother was well enough to come and thank them a couple of days later.
People can need to use a food bank for all sorts of reasons. Of course there will be those who spend their money on drugs and alcohol and cigarettes and gambling and then expect others to feed them. But there will also be families like the one of the child who wanted some milk who also need help - because of happenings over which they have no control.
Our friend assures me that someone will keep a watch out for this family. They will make sure the children, who are about to lose their father, will get a Christmas present.
So yes, as the writer of the English blog post said, someone needs you.
Sunday, 7 December 2014
Do we expect too much
from other people?
I went to see an elderly friend yesterday. It was her birthday. She now lives in a nursing home.
When I arrived her cousin, with whom she used to live, was there. Two other people had been in during the morning. Nobody else was expected and nobody else came.
This woman once did much to help other people. She didn't, as the saying goes, "suffer fools gladly" but she was always ready to help someone in need. Her car was always available to take someone to an appointment.
She was one of those women who always wore trousers, changed the light bulbs, replaced the washers, cleaned the gutters and so on herself. No she was not a lesbian, just intensely practical. She could fly a plane and knew a great deal about the engine. In her working life she was an architect.
Conversation with her was always interesting. A stroke has made that much more difficult - but not impossible.
And so, nobody really goes to visit any more. I know part of it is embarrassment at the difficulty of having a conversation but people will not even "pop in" for a moment - even when visiting other people in the same nursing home. Even just stopping at the door and saying, "Hello R..... I'm on my way to see Mum" would help. But people won't do it. It seems they are too embarrassed or can't be bothered - although they were quick enough to once ask her for help.
So yesterday was her birthday. There was a card from her cousin and a card from the two people who had called in briefly during the morning and a card from me and another from my sister who sent a message to say she was at the hospital with her father-in-law and will call in today instead. And that was it. I took some of her favourite chocolate as well.
She is not well enough to go out so people need to go to her.
While I was there her cousin left the room to speak to one of the staff. While she was gone R.... managed, with difficulty, to tell me, "Don't want another birthday."
No, perhaps she doesn't. Why bother with life if nobody visits?
I went to see an elderly friend yesterday. It was her birthday. She now lives in a nursing home.
When I arrived her cousin, with whom she used to live, was there. Two other people had been in during the morning. Nobody else was expected and nobody else came.
This woman once did much to help other people. She didn't, as the saying goes, "suffer fools gladly" but she was always ready to help someone in need. Her car was always available to take someone to an appointment.
She was one of those women who always wore trousers, changed the light bulbs, replaced the washers, cleaned the gutters and so on herself. No she was not a lesbian, just intensely practical. She could fly a plane and knew a great deal about the engine. In her working life she was an architect.
Conversation with her was always interesting. A stroke has made that much more difficult - but not impossible.
And so, nobody really goes to visit any more. I know part of it is embarrassment at the difficulty of having a conversation but people will not even "pop in" for a moment - even when visiting other people in the same nursing home. Even just stopping at the door and saying, "Hello R..... I'm on my way to see Mum" would help. But people won't do it. It seems they are too embarrassed or can't be bothered - although they were quick enough to once ask her for help.
So yesterday was her birthday. There was a card from her cousin and a card from the two people who had called in briefly during the morning and a card from me and another from my sister who sent a message to say she was at the hospital with her father-in-law and will call in today instead. And that was it. I took some of her favourite chocolate as well.
She is not well enough to go out so people need to go to her.
While I was there her cousin left the room to speak to one of the staff. While she was gone R.... managed, with difficulty, to tell me, "Don't want another birthday."
No, perhaps she doesn't. Why bother with life if nobody visits?
Saturday, 6 December 2014
"What sort of education
do you want for your child?"
Okay, old question - very old. Apart from the obvious answer ("good" or "excellent") most people would say things like "the basics" (meaning reading and mathematical skills) and perhaps something like "the sort that is going to get them a job when the time comes".
Our Prime Minister, whom I believe to be genuinely interested in the affairs of indigenous Australians, was criticised yesterday for saying that he thought one of the priorities for indigenous Australians should be education. His comments were made in the context of the number of indigenous Australians in jail - compared with the number of other Australians. The media, ever ready to criticise any politician, found other people who were all too ready to say that was not the answer to the present problems.
I disagree. The literacy levels of people in jail tend to be much, much lower than literacy levels in the community. They are lowest of all among indigenous inmates.
Indigenous literacy rates overall are much lower than they are in the wider community. I don't have figures to hand - and would doubt their accuracy. I do remember the many people who came to my indigenous friend Rosie for help with filling out forms. They go to her son now. Nothing much has changed in the past twenty years.
"They are wasting so much money!" Rosie would cry in despair at the "indigenous education" programmes.
I talked to many indigenous Australians when Rosie was alive. All of them wanted their children to have a "good" education. Almost all of them wanted their children to have an education "like white kids get".
I talked to them about retaining their own culture but the reality was that they did not speak an indigenous language fluently, if they spoke one at all - and most of them did not. They knew there are vast English language resources that are not available in indigenous languages. They wanted their children to have computer skills, good number skills, good language skills. They wanted their children to be able to read well - something they almost always could not do themselves. The people I talked to were intelligent, inquiring, caring human beings who had not had a good education.
Their children are not getting it either.
The "politically correct" thinking which demands that indigenous Australians are educated within their own cultures and languages may (although this is doubtful) be ensuring that these traditions are kept alive but they are not providing the education or skills young indigenous Australians need to successfully integrate, get and retain employment.
I do not, as someone I was discussing this with said, want to see their cultures and languages lost. If we lose those things we will lose a vast, rich and wonderfully varied history and way of thinking. It is important we try to keep it alive. What we can't do is keep it alive at the expense of the right of all children to the best possible education, an education which stretches their abilities and their imagination and prepares them for adulthood and employment.
I have heard all sorts of arguments about how it is "better" for young indigenous Australians to be taught in their "first" (indigenous) language. I tried some of these arguments out on a newly qualified teacher who is going back to teach in her indigenous community. She disagreed - and she speaks the language of her community. Her view was that children need an English language based education and that, without that, their own culture and language will not survive. It's not the politically correct view or the fierce defence of her language and culture that I expected.
But I think she may be right. I think that our Prime Minister may also be right. But it is not a popular way of thinking about things. It is not politically correct. There are too many people with vested interests.
What worries me is that we might actually lose cultures and languages to inflexible beliefs about what is "right" and how children should be educated.
Rant over.
Okay, old question - very old. Apart from the obvious answer ("good" or "excellent") most people would say things like "the basics" (meaning reading and mathematical skills) and perhaps something like "the sort that is going to get them a job when the time comes".
Our Prime Minister, whom I believe to be genuinely interested in the affairs of indigenous Australians, was criticised yesterday for saying that he thought one of the priorities for indigenous Australians should be education. His comments were made in the context of the number of indigenous Australians in jail - compared with the number of other Australians. The media, ever ready to criticise any politician, found other people who were all too ready to say that was not the answer to the present problems.
I disagree. The literacy levels of people in jail tend to be much, much lower than literacy levels in the community. They are lowest of all among indigenous inmates.
Indigenous literacy rates overall are much lower than they are in the wider community. I don't have figures to hand - and would doubt their accuracy. I do remember the many people who came to my indigenous friend Rosie for help with filling out forms. They go to her son now. Nothing much has changed in the past twenty years.
"They are wasting so much money!" Rosie would cry in despair at the "indigenous education" programmes.
I talked to many indigenous Australians when Rosie was alive. All of them wanted their children to have a "good" education. Almost all of them wanted their children to have an education "like white kids get".
I talked to them about retaining their own culture but the reality was that they did not speak an indigenous language fluently, if they spoke one at all - and most of them did not. They knew there are vast English language resources that are not available in indigenous languages. They wanted their children to have computer skills, good number skills, good language skills. They wanted their children to be able to read well - something they almost always could not do themselves. The people I talked to were intelligent, inquiring, caring human beings who had not had a good education.
Their children are not getting it either.
The "politically correct" thinking which demands that indigenous Australians are educated within their own cultures and languages may (although this is doubtful) be ensuring that these traditions are kept alive but they are not providing the education or skills young indigenous Australians need to successfully integrate, get and retain employment.
I do not, as someone I was discussing this with said, want to see their cultures and languages lost. If we lose those things we will lose a vast, rich and wonderfully varied history and way of thinking. It is important we try to keep it alive. What we can't do is keep it alive at the expense of the right of all children to the best possible education, an education which stretches their abilities and their imagination and prepares them for adulthood and employment.
I have heard all sorts of arguments about how it is "better" for young indigenous Australians to be taught in their "first" (indigenous) language. I tried some of these arguments out on a newly qualified teacher who is going back to teach in her indigenous community. She disagreed - and she speaks the language of her community. Her view was that children need an English language based education and that, without that, their own culture and language will not survive. It's not the politically correct view or the fierce defence of her language and culture that I expected.
But I think she may be right. I think that our Prime Minister may also be right. But it is not a popular way of thinking about things. It is not politically correct. There are too many people with vested interests.
What worries me is that we might actually lose cultures and languages to inflexible beliefs about what is "right" and how children should be educated.
Rant over.
Friday, 5 December 2014
Could someone please explain
why internet service providers, computer programmers, technicians, boffins, geeks and sundry other individuals believe you need to "upgrade" an operating system which works well and is not bringing in any new device or adaptation? Please? Please?
I could not get the e-mail function to work yesterday. (I am on Office 2010 in case anyone is interested.)
Now e-mail is important to me. My work comes in through e-mail and I work from home. I download the mail first thing and then work my way through it during the day. A few more items might come in during the day but the bulk of it is there first thing and I can start work when I am ready - often at about 5:30am. I can usually deal with the most urgent things then. I fit the household tasks in around dealing with the rest of the list during the day.
It is a system which works fairly well - provided that the computer is working and the e-mail is functioning as it should.
Yesterday my ISP people decided that something needed to be changed. I don't understand the technicalities. The old system was working very well but this was an "upgrade". The e-mail went down. Nothing I could do - even a couple of "tweets" for help to the ISP people - worked. The web-mail (that is the mail through the ISP site) was working so I tried reloading the programme again thinking that had to be the problem. It wasn't.
I downloaded another e-mail programme which is not my preferred way of doing things as there might be security issues I am unaware of - important in my line of work. That worked.
I thought it had to be a major problem with Office. Sigh... it had taken me a couple of precious hours to try and sort the situation out. (Yes, I know other people would do this without any problem but I am NOT a computer geek.)
I eventually gave up trying to do anything except finish my work for the day in a rather more awkward way.
This morning, not very hopefully, I clicked on Office - and it came up. It seems to be working perfectly well. (And yes, I had earlier tried turning the computer off and on again - more than once.) So, what happened?
There is only one explanation for all this - somewhere at the other end of the system one of those ISP technicians found the plea I sent and realised that the problem really was at their end after all. They have fixed it but they will never admit that they failed to catch the ball and had to run to the outfield, pick it up from a ditch filled with mud and wipe it clean before throwing it back.
I hope the ball stays clean!
I could not get the e-mail function to work yesterday. (I am on Office 2010 in case anyone is interested.)
Now e-mail is important to me. My work comes in through e-mail and I work from home. I download the mail first thing and then work my way through it during the day. A few more items might come in during the day but the bulk of it is there first thing and I can start work when I am ready - often at about 5:30am. I can usually deal with the most urgent things then. I fit the household tasks in around dealing with the rest of the list during the day.
It is a system which works fairly well - provided that the computer is working and the e-mail is functioning as it should.
Yesterday my ISP people decided that something needed to be changed. I don't understand the technicalities. The old system was working very well but this was an "upgrade". The e-mail went down. Nothing I could do - even a couple of "tweets" for help to the ISP people - worked. The web-mail (that is the mail through the ISP site) was working so I tried reloading the programme again thinking that had to be the problem. It wasn't.
I downloaded another e-mail programme which is not my preferred way of doing things as there might be security issues I am unaware of - important in my line of work. That worked.
I thought it had to be a major problem with Office. Sigh... it had taken me a couple of precious hours to try and sort the situation out. (Yes, I know other people would do this without any problem but I am NOT a computer geek.)
I eventually gave up trying to do anything except finish my work for the day in a rather more awkward way.
This morning, not very hopefully, I clicked on Office - and it came up. It seems to be working perfectly well. (And yes, I had earlier tried turning the computer off and on again - more than once.) So, what happened?
There is only one explanation for all this - somewhere at the other end of the system one of those ISP technicians found the plea I sent and realised that the problem really was at their end after all. They have fixed it but they will never admit that they failed to catch the ball and had to run to the outfield, pick it up from a ditch filled with mud and wipe it clean before throwing it back.
I hope the ball stays clean!
Thursday, 4 December 2014
Oh "caveat emptor"!
We went out to lunch yesterday. It is a traditional December outing with friends. They come and pick us up as we don't own a car and take us somewhere quiet, simple and cheap. This year J.... chose a place they had eaten at a number of times.
It is a tiny place - just eighteen seats at the side of a gift shop. The shop has a Parisian theme from an early part of last century. It is on the corner of a very busy road and a quiet side street.
The new owners have had the shop for only two months. The old owners had it for some years.
It is the sort of shop that J.... feels quite at home in. It is filled with all the sorts of fussy, frilly knick-knackery that some people love and others loathe. There are cushions and candles, boxes and bears, tablecloths and towels. There are clocks, beads and bangles, crockery and more. Soap, hand cream and pot-pourri give the place a pleasant, clean smell.
It is a good place to walk into - even the Senior Cat agreed with that. You do not have to like the sort of thing sold there to appreciate that, for some people, it is filled with "lovely" things.
But there is a problem in this small paradise.
Put simply, the new owners were conned. They bought it believing that the business was booming. The figures they were shown suggested that it was. They were shown stock and told there was more like that, along with furniture, in storage.
"You'll need a shed to store the stock," the old owners told them and indicated, all too quickly, a shed on their own property apparently filled with stock.
There were lists and all the paperwork seemed to be detailed. They signed the contract.
They signed the contract and discovered that yes, the stock existed but the description of it did not match the items. This was stock they had not chosen well, that they had not been able to shift. It was, quite simply, rubbish. The books had been "cooked" in other ways too. There was nothing major but it was just enough to make the business look much better than it really was. It was all very, very cleverly done and yes it would have taken a very alert accountant to pick it all up. Nobody did.
And so, two people have bought a business that they now know will be very hard to keep. They have been advised they have a case against the previous owners but the previous owners have the money to fight it and, in the end, the new owners are likely to lose not the case but the value of any compensation they might receive. It will do more damage to them than it will to the previous owners. J...ran a small business for many years. It was a hobby for her. They needed to break even (and occasionally made a small profit) but did not need to make a living from it. J's... husband is a former accountant. He knows about cash flows and other things. He has talked with the new owners at length.
If the business can be saved the new owners will do it through excessively hard work and long hours and with free advice from a man who has pulled more than one business back from the brink of bankruptcy.
Meanwhile the old owners are "retired" and apparently enjoying life. They have apparently just shrugged and smiled and said "You knew what you were buying."
Oh yes, "Caveat emptor" - and how do you say, "And how do you sleep at night?"
It is a tiny place - just eighteen seats at the side of a gift shop. The shop has a Parisian theme from an early part of last century. It is on the corner of a very busy road and a quiet side street.
The new owners have had the shop for only two months. The old owners had it for some years.
It is the sort of shop that J.... feels quite at home in. It is filled with all the sorts of fussy, frilly knick-knackery that some people love and others loathe. There are cushions and candles, boxes and bears, tablecloths and towels. There are clocks, beads and bangles, crockery and more. Soap, hand cream and pot-pourri give the place a pleasant, clean smell.
It is a good place to walk into - even the Senior Cat agreed with that. You do not have to like the sort of thing sold there to appreciate that, for some people, it is filled with "lovely" things.
But there is a problem in this small paradise.
Put simply, the new owners were conned. They bought it believing that the business was booming. The figures they were shown suggested that it was. They were shown stock and told there was more like that, along with furniture, in storage.
"You'll need a shed to store the stock," the old owners told them and indicated, all too quickly, a shed on their own property apparently filled with stock.
There were lists and all the paperwork seemed to be detailed. They signed the contract.
They signed the contract and discovered that yes, the stock existed but the description of it did not match the items. This was stock they had not chosen well, that they had not been able to shift. It was, quite simply, rubbish. The books had been "cooked" in other ways too. There was nothing major but it was just enough to make the business look much better than it really was. It was all very, very cleverly done and yes it would have taken a very alert accountant to pick it all up. Nobody did.
And so, two people have bought a business that they now know will be very hard to keep. They have been advised they have a case against the previous owners but the previous owners have the money to fight it and, in the end, the new owners are likely to lose not the case but the value of any compensation they might receive. It will do more damage to them than it will to the previous owners. J...ran a small business for many years. It was a hobby for her. They needed to break even (and occasionally made a small profit) but did not need to make a living from it. J's... husband is a former accountant. He knows about cash flows and other things. He has talked with the new owners at length.
If the business can be saved the new owners will do it through excessively hard work and long hours and with free advice from a man who has pulled more than one business back from the brink of bankruptcy.
Meanwhile the old owners are "retired" and apparently enjoying life. They have apparently just shrugged and smiled and said "You knew what you were buying."
Oh yes, "Caveat emptor" - and how do you say, "And how do you sleep at night?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
