LondonMix

I like it-the food is fine for what it is. It's hardly some massive chain. It's only in London and I think there are 10 of them. It seems small business is fine until it becomes too successful for some (which is what 5 shops?).

Spring is the busiest period unfortunately. The holidays are fairly quiet as you can imagine.

Yeah, but a lot of places don't even get on to Rightmove.

Try to make friends with some of the agents. They are slime but it makes a big difference. A lot of properties don't even make it to market as agents preview them to select favoured clients on their books. It happens a lot. We have both recently sold and bought this way in ED.

Exactly. The couple preferred ED as a location just not the flat they could afford there. It was shoe box!

I didn't say better, I said a place they "like better" which is self-evident and could be for any reason. Its sad, for whatever reason, when people can't live where they would like to (because its been destroyed by bombs or because its become too expensive). Its also sad when a once thriving area dies because its population abandons it for better opportunities. Its also unfortunate when people are hostile to "new people" moving into an area. Movement and change are part of life and there is good and bad that goes along with that. Saying these kids should stay where they come from or saying they are naive is just silly though.

The Mayfair example doesn't match up because these buyers can afford to move some place they like better than where they are now. People using their money to live where they like isn't surprising or unreasonable (or even a new phenomena as its been happening for centuries). What you suggest is being tied to the area you were born in like in feudal times.

That makes no sense, but you already know that. You say they are naive to buy where they want to live because other people want to live there too (who you deem more deserving)?

Where exactly do you suggest they live for one of these above average London properties for "reasonable prices" in an average area? They are hardly naive just because London is expensive... Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm watching. Jesus Christ. Anyone got a towel to > wipe the damp patches away from behind those > foolish young ears? How can anyone seriously look > at a below average property you have to pay a > ridiculous price for in an average area. Oh well, > takes all sorts of people to keep the world > spinning. > > Louisa.

Do you have room to potentially stack your washer and dryer on top of each other? The problem with the combined ones is that it takes much longer dry a standard load for some reason. Good luck!

The savings are over 5 years so circa 5m a year in operational savings. Cash is expensive to handle / process / transfer and deposit for businesses.

Rangemaster do Smeg style coloured ones but they are ???

This is probably the saddest statement I've read about the British public. I refuse to believe that there is anyone who is incapable of thinking ahead enough to keep a few quid on their Oyster card if they had to. This isn't any harder than keeping a few quid in your pocket really. Occasionally people are forgetful and / or lazy but that in and of itself isn't a justification for keeping in place a costly cash infrastructure that only enables people to waste their own money. The whole visitor to London argument doesn't hold water. The fact that more than 99% of journeys are non-cash suggests that tourists and occasional visitors on the whole do use Oysters etc already. Central London is already cashless so its clear even people unfamiliar with the city can figure it out (even if the occasional bus driver makes an exception). PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Some of you are making the > assumption everyone thinks ahead like we do, and > also that they are able to know about everything. > What about occasional visitors to London? I think > the few who use cash should be allowed to use it. >

Well said The truth is, if you know you'll need to travel top it up at a news agent. If you don't live near a station and are concerned about emergency travel when the news agent is closed, just always keep a few quid on your oyster in the same way you keep a few quid in your wallet in case of emergency given your circumstances. As SJ mentions this can be done automatically online without you ever having to remember to do it once you've set it up if remembering to keep an emergency balance seems too much effort.

This thread is hilarious. The fact is, once you need to have your Oyster topped up, you will more likely remember to top it up. Central London has been cashless for YEARS. I don't think extending this is going to lead to the rape and pillage feared by those against the policy being brought to the suburbs. First, if a child loses their Oyster it is certainly cheaper to get them a pay as you go Oyster than pay cash. As has previously been mentioned, any unused credit and the initial cost of the Oyster are REFUNDED when you turn the card in. You can top up your Oyster Card online in addition to being able to do so at News Agents and stations. If you forget, then you'll be late for what you are doing. Just like if you forget your keys or your phone and need to turn back. Sometimes, forgetfulness has consequences. That's life. If you lose your Oyster, have cash but no way to acquire a new Oyster because its the middle of the night and you need to get home and you are unsafe then I can see how this could be problematic, particularly in the suburbs. In central London there are more New Agents open late so it might not have posed the same issue it could pose in Greater London. Bus drivers on the night bus should be allowed to use their discretion (and in my experience already do) in these circumstances to let those they perceive to be vulnerable ride for free if they get picked up outside of Central London.

I hear you but that's no different to having your wallet knicked with you cash in general. You have to rely on someone to give you money to get an Oyster in the same way you would need to rely on someone to give you cash to pay the fare.

Also to add to my previous point, TFL are proposing to allow one free journey for those in a pinch that would allow for a negative balance on the Oyster card that could be paid off later. JohnL-- heard where? I can't see TFL getting rid of the ability to top up an oyster with cash. If they let you carry a balance on your phone through an app, that's great though as its less likely to be forgotten.

This argument is silly. First, paying cash is already banned in central London and has been for years. So all the arguments about how this will impact tourists and people arriving into London from out of town is entirely specious. The tourists etc have figured it out and to their benefit as otherwise they would have paid over the odds. The argument here isn't about travel only being for people with debit cards. You can buy an Oyster for cash. I am one of the people who occasionally pay cash when I forget to top up my Oyster and am late for work and can't be bothered to get off the bus. While I like having the option not to be late to work despite my own carelessness I dare say its not a right I expect to have. That kids are more absent minded is probably why they pay cash more often that the rest of us in general. When only 1% of journeys are cash, keeping all the infrastructure associated with cash payments (having to count down registers, safes, bank transfers etc) for very little revenue becomes less cost effective.

Yes though I think earlier in the post others were referring to U...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Just because I believe that > certain people buy certain things and consume > certain things to look down on those that don't? > Surely that's a fact of life. > That you think this general statement applies to smoked salmon though is hilarious. The idea that the only reason someone would eat smoked salmon and poached eggs is to look down on people is patently absurd. Smoked salmon isn't a luxury item, it tastes good, and is extremely good for you because of the fish oil. While you go around thinking everyone is looking down on others based on what the eat, clearly its you with the massive hang-up about this.

Yes must try harder cyclemonkey! I have no idea what you are on about Louisa. Eggs and salmon aren't particularly expensive and again, I can't see what's wrong per se with someone wanting to eat them. Are you suggesting that people are eating poached eggs and salmon just to prove they are posh and don't actually like the way they taste? That would be an exceedingly odd assertion. Again, people make choices based on what they like and sometimes they just want to try something new, and othertimes people buy things because of marketing. That's true regardless of class. It??s human nature and all good businesses play on all 3 elements. Even McDonald??s offers new versions of its burgers etc to keep the punters interested. Your campaign against poached eggs though seems a bit deranged?Xand I say this as someone who eats porridge if I have breakfast at all. Does that make me salt of the earth or desperate brain-washed middle class ??? Cyclemonkey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't see what is wrong with smoked salmon and > scambled eggs for beakfast - lovely. however i > would imagine your average middle class person > probably doesn't dine on this every day for > breakfast. In a small survey of the middle class > people of my household reveals that breakfast this > morning for me was Sainsburys own brand branflakes > and a blackcurrent yoghurt - Mr Cyclemonkey had > some bread that i made the night before with a cup > of tea. Not sure whether this meets with middle > class breakfast approval - must try harder > tomorrow.

Agree with that Cycle Monkey. There is an element of marketing to many stores success. Marketing which plays into a lifestyle idea above and beyond the product being sold. However, that is not to say there are at times differences in quality that justify paying more for things. Its absurd that anyone who doesn't eat the cheapest thing must be a snob. Price is only one element of value. Anyhow, Louisa is clearly looking to wind people up! The poached eggs and salmon comment was classic :)

They have had their rent hiked. What if people don't want a burger with a cheap slice of cheese? The idea that its somehow morally wrong to like something other than McDonald's and fun-fair burgers is insane. Its food. People buy what they like and businesses offer what is demanded. Trying to turn it into a moral issue is a nonsense.

One thing you don't have to guess at is that many people prefer supermarkets for very obvious reasons. They are cheaper and more convenient. The supermarkets offer something that many people not just want but need. Small niche retailers have to offer something better to compete and those who do have survived. Buying your shopping isn't an act of charity. We are talking about businesses.

No, its not fair to blame the supermarket. Most people prefer and only have the time to shop at a major supermarket. There is a reason why people choose them. I like to shop in small shops but I realise its somewhat of an indulgence.