Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Smith
Craig,
i am not saying he is responsible in any way, shape or form (the thought couldnt be further from my mind), and I have no intention of being rude to him, and kind of hope my letter wasnt. But, he has allowed what was NTL to use the Virgin brand. And surely as the ultimate arbiter of what that brand is worth and what it can be used for he must realise the potential damage to the brand value of allowing this to continue.
I only address the letter to Sir Richard as he holds a 14% stake in this combined group (figures from a Google search. so if wrong please correct). I remember him talking about the unfair competition of BA (shades of Mr Laker, I feel), and would hope that the value of the Vigin brand is such that he would perhaps use his influence to affect the future course of the company.
Regards
WinstonS
|
Yes Winston I totally agree with your position.
I did not actually mean to suggest that you personally were responsible for the things I mentioned. The simple fact is I am new to the posting process here but have been reading for some considerable time and had meant to bring this issue up since reading some attacks on Sir Richard early in the thread and your thread simply reminded, and prompted me to comment.
Also please don't think that as I have a small and insignificant connection with him that I in any way would condone him should he remain silent or worse, speak in favour of the Phorm company and the harm to the Virgin brand. Hopefully I can only help bring it to his attention in the same manner as you.
As I said, it's very easy for the company we have issues with to be confused with the Virgin group not least because of the name and I just thought it was time again to be sure that it was brought up.
No disrespect was meant regarding your post. I'm not that obtuse.
I have a habit of being very concise and accusatory when I feel the need
Craig.