Huguenot

That's a ridiculous argument silverfox, on those grounds why end slavery, why give women the vote, why close the workhouses. 1/10 will need to try much harder. Thus gay marriage 'open the floodgates' argument of yours is vacuous and holds no basis in reality.

Check the books - there's a lot in there: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/about-the-nspcc/annual-report/annual-report-2011/annual-review-2010_wdf84903.pdf Childlike is about a quarter of their spend at ?25m. Then there's a mix of direct services and educational services which split the remnant about 50:50. They run drop in centres and so on. Wales seems a particular focus!

What you're trying to do is move the argument from one you will lose against homosexual marriage, to one you think you have a better chance of winning. As with alternative voting, you believe you stand a greater chance of winning if you can create confusion amongst the public - make them think that allowing homosexual marriage is also allowing more arcane marriage arrangements. It is not, and to attempt to deliberately bamboozle the public is sly and underhand. I look forward to debating other marriage arrangements when they are an issue. At the moment they are not.

I think many people would disagree with Peckham being ED's town centre, including me when I lived in ED. Lordship Lane meets that role admirably. You are right that what takes place in Peckham has an impact on EDFers, as do things that take place in Camberwell, Nunhead, Forest Hill, Sydenham, Dulwich, Herne Hill etc. etc. etc. For that reason, all of those subjects are covered in the EDF in the appropriate section. I'm sure you'll respect that a section called 'ED Issues' is, however, about East Dulwich. If Peckham was East Dulwich, then it wouldn't be called Peckham now, would it? Your programme would be called the East Dulwich Plan. But it's not. ED issues for ED issues keeps the place tidy and manageable, and everyone knows where they stand. If we were to make an exception for Peckham, we'd have to make an exception for everywhere else. That way madness lies. I suspect that your motivation is by the conviction that ED issues is the 'main section'. As you have been told many times, it is not, and anyway it attracts less activity than the lounge. I know you have a great deal of respect for the forum Eileen, but you do have a habit of suggesting that rules should always be broken just for you ;-) You really aren't the only person who believes that their thread is more important than everyone else's!

Upselling only works if the shopper is prepared to buy more, which the OP was clear she had no intention of doing. Word of mouth only works if the service is available for others to take advantage of, which is clearly impractical given the inefficiency of personal shopping in low margin stores. This is a service for 10 people not 5,000 Branding is only effective if the brand accurately reflects the essence of the product or service itself, or it will be perceived as a deception. In the case of low margin personal shopping, this is only likely to go the same way as ?5 plane tickets when applicants realise only one is on sale and the whole thing is a con - it brings the industry into disrepute. PR is only good if it raises profile and positive perception - since no-one actually knows of a low margin store that provides this service it's failed at the first hurdle. I do work in marketing Quids - that's why this one escapes me. I look forward to finding out what it is that I missed. Giggirl you are of course welcome to 'move on', but it is disappointing to see that you've joined the ranks of those who think they can tell others what to do. I'm sure you wouldn't like it if I did it to you. In the meantime, Bon Voyage!

Have you read the thread RosieH? Oddly enough, not only have I heard of personal shoppers, but I think it makes perfect sense for high ticket items at Selfridges, Harvey Nicholls and other shops of their ilk. It also makes sense if there's a minimum purchase. What I called into question was the value of personal shoppers at low margin high street stores for no minimum expenditure for an OP who said that her entire intention was to do it on the cheap. At face value it doesn't seem to be logical. Not only that, but I also pointed out that there must be more to this than meets my eye. I was clear that I looked forward to discovering what I had missed. So that all rather pisses on your self righteous declaration that I 'arrogantly' thought that I knew more about retailing than this list of high street stores. So what perceived crime have I committed that is really bugging you RosieH, because you're having to make up stuff to have a go at me about?

Dear *Bob*. It would depend on your definiton of fashion, I was interpreting it to mean the changing styles of personal apparel. I buy my wardrobe from Muji because it's cheap, and all my t-shirts cost 5 quid. On the basis that I have one of every colour they sell, and that the design hasn't changed in the 42 years I've been alive, I think most people would observe that I wasn't showing any symptoms of being concerned with the zeitgeist. Including RosieH. However, you may nitpick - to do so you'll probably need to use an alternative definition of what I mean by 'fashion', but I hope you'll accept that this was the meaning I intended.

"also clearly provide a return on investment or they wouldn't do it. I would suggest at the very least: customer loyalty, increased spend and great PR." For 10 people - not the other 5,000. Clothes is a low margin business. If you only buy a pair of trousers and shirt, that's the 15 quid margin gone that you paid to the assistant. Regarding loyalty, the OP made it clear that she would go to whatever store was providng the service - even (shock) Debenhams. That's not loyalty, that's promiscuity, Also the OP made it clear that she did not intend to spend large sums of money, and would not shop at a store that required her to spend more money. You said you wanted a pair of black trousers or a trouser suit. That's not increased spend, it's what everybody else is buying. Finally great PR? Whoosh - did I miss it? What PR? So bloody great PR that nobody knows who provides the service. You think I'm being preposterous? What on earth is arrogant about saying I can't see the commercial sense in this? You've called me sarcastic when I wasn't, you've said I'm making fashion judgements when I didn't, now you've called me arrogant because I can't see the sense in this. I think you've got a bee in your bonnet about something else - I'm not attacking women you know, just I can't see the benfit if personal shoppers to a high street store and average punters. I don't begrudge them to you. Go for your life, enjoy.

I should clarify that I don't give a flying fuck about fashion. I'm not asking about fashion, I'm asking about commercial rationale. You can be buying teapots for all I care.

I didn't make any sarcastic comments until the woman had hissed off in a tizz. I'm interested in why this service exists from the shop's perspective, not from your perspective. It is completely fucking obvious that anyone would want to sit on their arse drinking coffee whilst someone else does the shopping. I get that. All of your reasons I get. I'm not thick. However, for some reason people think that shops provide this service because you really really want it. This is completely illogical. The question I ask is that since the shop can't do it for everyone, why would they do it for you? There's 5,000 people going through these stores every day. What makes the store decide which particular group of 10 people, who are looking for cheap clothes and offer no guarantee of purchase, are going to get this service? It's commercially insane. All this bollocks about coming back over the long term and customer for life stuff is valid, but nonsensical. They need to get the other 5,000 people coming back for more, not just 10. If you are a special customer, then fine - but nobody here has claimed to be a 'premier' customer of these stores at all - quite the opposite. Giving these 10 a special, but underserved, benefit is actually more likely to piss of the other 4,990. Not only that, but because this benefit is underserved, it actually seems to have created a rather snotty self righteous sense of entitlement amongst the recipients. That can ONLY go wrong. So there must be something else, something that nobody has mentioned, that would explain this apparently stupid activity.

Eh? The name England has nothing to do with Europe - either its success or its demise. England became part of the United Kingdom because of the Act of Union with Scotland, driven by the English In order to have England as a state once more it would require a reduction in the country, not growth. This is why democracy doesn't work. Not everyone should have a vote.

"With difficulty I'd imagine, given he is Welsh. Hahahahaha *weeps*

There isn't a 'main section' of the EDF, there is a section for East Dulwich issues which by legacy is listed first. The subject you propose is about Peckham, not about ED. If you want to keep it in the East Dulwich issues section you'll need to work pretty hard to make it an ED issue!

People have met him in the real world, and observed that if he was a fictitious character he carried it into every dimension of his life.

Here's a fun toy: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc14/index.html Only works for the last 2 years, but it does show how inflation is diffferent for all of us depending on what our spending patterns are. I don't think it's possible to look a inflation on things like leisure parks when the nature of the product is changing - you'd expect to pay more for a theme park than a walk in a muddy field, and you'd expect to pay more if they've invested millions in new rides. That's not inflation.

Was that a deliberate troll then DF?

Deactivating yourself is the equivalent to walking off, then walking back, staring at everyone before walking off and this time slamming the door. Traditionally that would require a few more door slams before he'll be satisfied, and then sheepishly asking if he can have a biscuit.

Well there you go - should'a been a student in the 1980s instead. Music's somewhat deflated since then too. Used to take itself terribly seriously.

I remember being shocked when Kronenbourg went from ?1.15 to ?1.25. Had to win more on the pub quiz machine to pay for my Friday night drinks.

Well, you might as well quit if you haven't got it.

We'll all be living in teepees, wracked with indecision because we can't get a unanimous agreement. ...and then Quids will swipe the float...

"The Swiss market understood it but the UK one is focussed as you say on a few weeks here and there." I think that's a misunderstanding of the market. It is not usual for UK citizens to be sufficiently wealthy to hire additional properties for 6 months of a year. Hence the market promotes deals for what the consumer can afford. If you contact the property owners I have absolutely no doubt they'd consider letting to you for long periods. As a note of caution though, winter weekends in the UK are not a snow filled wonderland. A weekend in the Cotswolds is fun to cosy up for a couple of days, but generally UK winters are dull, grey and drizzly with empty restaurants and early closing. The thrill of a country retreat may rapidly fade.

This looks like a bot.

I do believe that UDT, after years of telling other people how much better he is than them, of relentlessly criticising them and calling them morons, is complaining that it's actually him that is hard done by. He has been so rude on the other forums he visits he has been banned by them, and yet considers himself bullied on the only forum that is tolerant enough to allow him to continue. That demonstrates such a spectacular lack of self awareness it borders on mental health issues.

I'm not sure that accounts for the Southern Electric branding that ended in 1948. It could be an overhang - but by 5 years? Not sure.