Pearson

Nicely put DJKQ @ Brum/Supporters - For sure this is only a minor part of the dispute, but: It make me laugh when part of this argument is about fast response times in the middle of the night/closures etc. But they want us to support them being able to have a good sleep during these hours? Can you see the contradiction...

Keef, it's not too bad http://www.viclee.co.uk/Lordshiplane.html

Haha, well why didn't you just say Birmingham. Would have made it far scarier waiting for them :)-D

Kbabe01 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If my house is on fire in dulwich at 2am in the > morning and me and my family are trapped, id > rather not wait for a fire crew to drive from > chelsea thanks. Not when theres a perfectly good > station at peckham or forest hill. Thats what > will happen tho. ______________________________________________ So it is FACT that they will close down Peckham and Forest Hill stations? Can you show me where this list is that show all the proposed closures. As regards having to wait for a crew from 'Chelsea' you seem to be forgetting about the 10 other fire stations that are closer And at 2 in the morning, lets face it traffic won't be an issue so i would estimate that the furthest station on my list would take 15min tops Or are you saying they also propose to close these as well? 1. Old Kent Road 2. New Cross 3. Brixton 4. Battersea 5. Clapham 6. Deptford 7. East Greenwich 8. Greenwich 9. Lambeth 10. Lewisham ^ That's an awful lot of fire stations. How many hospitals do we have by way of a comparison, with reference to life saving in the middle of the night?

@sean - I know :)

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Man I wish I could be sure the "not right for the > area" type posts were windups or not - because if > they genuinely believe that I would soooo go to > town ^ I'm with you on that! > pearson is correct - the building itself = fugly > but apart from that who cares. - And it's no > uglier than the police station or the co-op > pharmacy across the road > > But there is a difference between wanting to tart > a place up and being and out and out snob Just for the record, i'm not being a snob :)

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > This is cognitive dissonance again right > > katie1997? > > > > I still maintain that if your observations are > so > > blessed witty that they're indisnguishable from > > restrained idiocy then you'll fail to meet your > > objectives. Even Swift had to resort to eating > > babies to convey his concerns. > > > > I appreciate that you don't give a flying f > about > > my opinions, but hey, if you're posting on a > > public forum then you must give one about > > somebody's opinions right? > > So utterly wrong (again) in your assumption and > breathtakingly rude with it . Good for you for > using two big words, two shorter ones spring to > my mind after reading that. > > You certainly don't make the forum seem a pleasant > place to be, that's for sure. Whoever that > Axeman was, they summed you up accurately. > > Thanks to admin for the super new function. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX It does all seem to be getting very emotional for some people ;-) This whole debate is quite clear to me. She knew the risks involved with working in these conditions. The risks were/are very high. (As are the risks that the US & UK military deal with on a continual basis) She was unlucky, simple as that! Why try and point the finger from our arm chairs... Jeez.

^ nope, sorry... You've lost me again. I know, i'm being thick. And don't give the threat of sacking because that a result of this stalemate. I still don't get the shift change reason and don't understand the 'other' reasons. But seriously in a nutshell what is the singular most important reason/justification for this action?

^Oooops, come on kids...bed time for the both of you! tsk tsk :P

peterstorm1985 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Customer experience and brand perception have a > direct influence on profits My point exactly! so I'm absolutely > certain that they will have considered how the > ugliness of the building is seen by their > customers. I doubt it. As others have alluded to, it's a 'cash cow' They have a large store portfolio. I would simply assume ED is not very high on their refurb priority list. Furthermore, they are owned by Bauger/Glitner/Landsbanki consortium who as we all know have very little cash left. I suspect, as with a number of other > budget stores, their branding requires the fronts > to be a little down market. Rubbish. That's no excuse for a high street retail to have a shoddy un-kept shopfront. Londis doesn't even have as bad a shopfront. An upgrade could put > off some of their customer base. Absolute rubbish.... Would you really not go into your favorite store if they upgraded their shopfront. Upgrades do not have to be expensive or even look expensive for that matter. It is no more than a fresh lick of paint. It looks cheap so > the natural reaction is to anticipate that what it > sells will be cheaper than elsewhere. That's actually true. But there is a big difference between 'looking cheap', which can also look clean and smart btw. And just looking dirty, old and dated.... which is exactly what Iceland is. I buy some > things there. I wouldn't buy any more just because > it looked prettier. You might not, but i refer you to my earlier post/analogy to the Actress/Upland. A refurb does generate renewed interest and results in increased business, fact.

I think some people are getting a bit over emotional and not reading the posts correctly. I do not think there is anyone on here who is saying they do not respect firefighters In fact if anything, i think it is the one thing we all agree on! can we move on from this wrong assumption and discuss the real reasons for this impending action. As so far, i still don't feel like there has been a good enough argument for such action... To date, the only 'real' reason i am lead to believe is shift patterns. Fire fighters... please, in a couple of bullet points or like one short paragraph/nutshell. What to you, justifies this proposed action?

haha, +1 Steve ;-) It pisses me off having so many estate agent along the high st. It's just boring passing their windows of greed. *dreams* wouldn't it be nice if on every high st they were limited to say just 2 estate agent firms

Haha, yeah well done Dulwichfox. But as Narnia has already questioned, what has that got to do with anything on this thread?

^Primark trade in a similar market. They manage to have good looking shopfronts which don't put customers off.

Of course every business is interested in profit. The more successful retailers also invest in their businesses too. Which also means they care a little more for their customers and the overall shopping experience. As an analogy that appears current: The uplands pub was a business but as it hadn't invested in it general upkeep started to look run-down. The now famous Actress turns up and tarts the place up you have successful business again. For sure though, some people just want i pint and that is i guess what you're saying you were happy to have a pint in the old Upland... maybe?

I think the fact is more that they (Iceland) are more interested in PROFIT than customer experience or brand perception. As such they are not prepared to pay for a refurb.

"Looking back some sixty six years.... but never did we base our purchase on what the exterior of the shop looked like." ------------------------------- Sadly these days are no more. Shopfronts are one of the most important considerations for any (decent) retailer.

I have no issues with Iceland as a business, although i don't shop there personally. But for sure, the architecture and shopfront ain't going to be up for any awards. Both in my opinion are UGLY

,........

@KalamityKel Haha, you've completely miss read that post. I was being slightly sarcastic. I agree with Atticus. *sighs*

"Apologies that moving the discussion about an ED business to the ED business section caused offence." And quite rightly too, you've missed the threads about : JP Wetherspoons, several about Sainsbury and one about Sky

bizarre analogy.

Easy tiger. The one and only reason for my asking, was that you were questioning bish bash bosh about his background! That's all. I have no connection to the FB at all. I simply have a dislike for unions and strikes.

Can't argue with that, fair enough. But surely with regards to the point about numerous dog/theft etc threads this should apply here. And besides, i'm sure the owner would mind/complain at having many threads dedicated their establishment.

^So what's your background Kbabe01?