Beestonia Breaks Bad News: Wilkinsons Will NOT Return.

Title sez it all, ok? I don’t want the Soubz stuff to drop out of view, and something tells me it won’t. I await her response.

However. I have some very bad news, and best relate it. Remember the Wilkos stuff? I have an update, and it’s a a grim read.

To recap: Wilkos was told 9 years ago that they were likely to have to relocate should the tram be given the green-light Political to and froing bought a lot of uncertainty to this, the Conservatives opposing and blocking even when it became an inevitabilaty, the other parties complicit in using this as a battleground. The development was delayed, and it wasn’t until late December that Wilkos anounced it’s closure.

I was asked, by the BBC, why the campaign I subsequently launched was in support of a chain store. I explained that in no way was I a supporter of the chain, but the shop in question, and the 54 staff who worked there. Read Beestonian passim for more context.

Rumours came through of late that Wilkos, despite a ‘dedicated urge to return’ to Beeston, as well as an utter massive mountain of compensation payments, have decided to forget Beeston.

I contacted their Head Office, to either confirm or squash these rumours. I’m afraid they confirmed:

Dear Matt


Thank you very much for your email and for the opportunity to provide a response to the points you have raised concerning the closure of the Wilkinson store in Beeston.


Wilkinsons has stated on a number of occasions that the decision to close the Beeston store was only necessary as a direct result of the compulsory purchase order imposed upon the company to make way for the new tram system in the town.  The company said publicly at the time: “We loved being in Beeston and serving our many loyal customers there. Indeed, we were touched by the strength of feeling shown by the local community once it became clear we had no choice other than to close our well-established and highly successful Beeston store”.


As soon as it was confirmed that Wilkinsons would have to make way for the tram, its expert property team began a rigorous search for an alternative site. However, the criteria required for a successful modern retail operation are many and complex. They include finding a site with the optimum size, location, access for deliveries, visibility and so on. To date, regrettably, the company has not been successful in finding such a replacement site in Beeston but local discussions continue.


In spite of the difficulty in finding a new Beeston site, Wilkinsons has forged ahead with new store openings in 2012 with nine new stores opening during the year at Bolton, Bromley, Bicester, Devizes, Washington, Falmouth, Crawley , Pwllheli – and the latest just yesterday (15 November) at Edmonton Green.  As is usual, the locations of any store openings planned for 2013 are currently subject to planning and regulatory issues and announcements will be made when appropriate.


I do hope the above information clarifies our position regarding this issue Matt and thank you again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards


Joanne Lane
Senior Consumer Advisor


Beestonia: Shit Gets Real: An Apology to Soubz, and a Few Questions.

Hello Beestonians, and welcome to the 200th post on the blog. I have an utter glut of stuff to tell you, but it all has to go on hold for a second.

Why? Well, as is the parlance amongst the yoof of today, ‘Shit Just Got Real’. I’ve been running the NHS Week on Beestonia for over a week now: knowing this inconguity would annoy my more OCD readers I decided to wrap it up. I still have a piece apparently incoming from Beeston LibDem Steve Carr, which, as always, I shall print in full. Beestonia is, after all, a sounding board.

Unfortunately, I published something recently regarding the NHS that, a day or so after hosting it, I discovered to be factually fuzzy in some aspects. It was by Dr Eoin Clarke, a health blogger of some note. I was alerted to the original article by a fellow blogger, gave it a read through, thought it was relevant so asked for permission to reblog it. This was given, so I stuck it up.

I was then alerted that there were several factual inaccuracies in the article, and decided to remove it. I dropped the piece from the site and made it unavailable. I then hosted an article by Nick Palmer, and got on with stuff.

Today, I recieved this. Not as an email, not as a letter, not as a phone call; but as a comment on the last piece Dr Nick Palmer guested on:

You have removed an inaccurate and defamatory article about Anna Soubry from your web site which was written by a Dr. Eoin Clarke. He has removed the article from his web site and posted a full and unreserved apology accepting he had published wholly inaccurate figures and had made false allegations against Anna Soubry.

You are aware that Dr. Clarke agreed the apology with Anna’s solicitor but you have not posted Dr. Clarke’s apology on your web site nor apologised for publishing an article which you did not check, which was factually inaccurate and which made false allegations against Anna. Dr Clarke has also agreed to pay the costs of Anna’s solicitors.

Anna Soubry has no desire to engage in legal action against you given that you would have to bear those costs. Recent events have shown, though on a far more serious and damaging level , the need for anyone who publishes allegations against another person to verify them and stay within the law. In the circumstances please would you publish Dr Clarke’s apology which he has agreed with Anna Soubry’s solicitors.

I’d had the frighteners put on me before,  but this, when read through, came with extra pepper. Legal costs. Comparisons with those who accuse others of paedophilia. As I said before, shit got real. I was really busy today, having a set of meetings to try and get myself on my feet after my unexpected loss of job of late. Hardly the sort of stuff you need to put on the back-burner as you attempt to work out a way to avoid slipping into poverty as we approach the third stage of a triple-dip recession.

However, this blog has always had the ethos of honesty, and openess. If something is incorrect, I will correct it. If someone sends something in, I will publish it, apart from three notable examples, two racist, one by a right-wing activist accusing me of having a sexual relationship with a Labour politician (not my type, ducky). Thus, sorry Anna, for hosting an unchecked piece that I removed the moment I saw it might be factually fuzzy.

I’m glad that  I’m on your radar though. So much of my readership doesn’t seem to be. Since you will definately read this piece, may I bend your ear? Cheers. Simple answers, or retractions are all that will be required.

  1. Why did you base your 2010 Electoral Campaign on a strong ‘Local Candidate’ basis, attacking the incumbent for being disengaged with the Broxtowe scene as he lived in Mapperly, and promising stridently that you would move to Broxtowe if elected, then not doing so? I do realise that your partner, Neil, did send me a threatening email telling me to retract this line of questioning as this was due to ‘personal reasons’; but as Nick Palmer moved to, err, opposite your place in Mapperley, as he got married (a fairly personal action, no?) then it was disingenuous and hypocritical to tout for votes on this? Are you here now? If not, when are you likely to be here?
  2. I willingly retract the third-party allegations about your expenses/ income. Will you, in kind, retract the allegation that I am ‘sexist’ as you previously -and rather baffingly-accused me of (see Beestonia passim).
  3. I have, on numerous occasions, solicited your comment on Beeeston issues. While I am far from the ‘voice of Beeston’, I do have an increasing amount of readers from all ages, political stripes and other demographuc angles. You have NEVER responded to them, aside from the odd warning that I should take stuff down. As the most read blog in your constituency, why not interact? I know you’re busy, but obviously not enough to send out threateners.
  4. Will you be staying in Broxtowe come 2015?
  5. Will you reply openly to the article Nick Palmer wrote in the previous post?
  6. Will you promise to be representative to your constituents if they oppose 1) Royal Mail Privatisation 2) NHS ‘reform’? I understand the concept of electoral mandate, but you did, if I remember, promise to be ‘Broxtowe’s voice in Westminster, not Westminster’s voice in Broxtowe” ?

I await your response.