In what way doesn't it make sense?

I don't want to defend Philip Green. I've only vaguely followed the travails of BHS but to blame its downfall entirely I find a bit simplistic.

A significant factor was that people stopped wanting to shop there.

Retail is a tough old business even if you're good at it, which BHS clearly wasn't. Management was poor. Green and Chappell stitched the company up. They put money in their own pockets instead of investing it. But even if they had invested millions, there's no guarantee these people would still have jobs.

Like Woolworth's or HMV, everyone was shocked at the loss of a "national institution", and there was a lot of humbug too, but nobody misses Woolworth's, do they? It had its time.

The pensions thing is very unedifying. But there's a difference between say, Robert Maxwell, which was outright fraud and theft, and stripping a company whose earnings pay for a pension fund which, while morally highly dubious, is nevertheless legal.

Philip Green is partly responsible. He's a ruthless money-grabber and I believe his behaviour has been morally highly questionable.

But to turn him into a bogeyman is a bit much. Especially when it's POLITICIANS who are doing it! You can't go round knighting people for being ruthless money-grabbers when it suits you and then bashing them for being exactly the same when it turns out ruthless money-grabbing has its darker side!

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

If you ever get to see the footage of PG, probably soon after acquiring BHS and holding up a blouse type garment and presenting positive PR to the tv interviewer, his body language shows his true feelings towards the merchandise, brand etc.

COYP

I'd forgotten how young some people are on this site

Exactly. I could very easily borrow large sums of money (claiming it's) for my business, pay it to myself and then piss the whole lot of it and simply fold the company. HMRC wouldn't care a jot so long as I paid them their dues on the money coming to me.

Optimistic as ever

Bankers would be unlikely to lend "you" the money unless it was secured and even if it were your company that borrowed the money it would likely be secured too.

Whilst it all remains a filthy sordid abuse of the law, I don't think anything he did was illegal (some of it probably should be and its a good example of why capitalism requires serious regulation and restraints - same as any system).

Of course the real problem of BHS, is that of most department stores, the internet and competition that can deal in better prices and wider ranges. John Lewis, Debenhams and M+S have avoided this to some degree, by understanding status and brand marketing in the consumer age, and effectively creating a more 'empowering status brand' approach (at least the illusion of status and quality to their goods)

Where as Woolworths and BHS et al effectively couldn't compete with competition from the likes of Poundland, Primark, Footlocker etc either in price, variety or status - Which have become ubiquitous.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]