Jump to content

The White Stuff (Lounged)

karter

By karter
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

annaj

annaj

Posted
Posted

I don't entirely understand why it matters if the clothes are boring, safe or bland.

I like casual, comfortable clothes. My only style requirements are nice colours and a shape that suits and fits me. It doesn't matter to me if they're bland, because I don't expect my clothes to define who I am, speak for me or express my individuality. I tend to think that's what my personality is for.


Is that just me?

SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

to be fair I did pick up on that line in the report as well - but then just got caught up in the far less taxing debate on shades of a shadow


I don't know if the question is "is the fact that WS are seeking extra cash a sign that they are in trouble?" or is the question "is this the moment when WS jump the shark?" (see also GBK and further back in time Hogshead pubs. I remember when there were one or maybe two Hogsead bars in existance - lovely they were - then the concept was rolled-out and bastardised into a hussy version of it's former self)


In any case I don't think they are in trouble but they MIGHT be about to jump the shark. Having defended them a few times on here I have to say that recent lines aren't a patch on what they were a couple of years ago. Chasing the larger market does seem to have meant a more predictable selection.

annaj

annaj

Posted
Posted

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Macroban, but it appears that people are

> more happy discussing the pros and cons of clothes

> rather than the imminent (or not) demise of the

> retail sector.

>

> Head in the sand and all that jazz.


In my defence, since this thread started as a general discussion about the shop and what people think about it, chatting about clothes was hardly going off topic.


You could even go so far as to say it was macroban who took it off topic, and into all too familiar territory for him, by steering towards a discussion about the demise of the retail sector. Again.


But I'll play along. The company was founded in 1985 and in the 20 years since then has grown to 49 stores and a mailorder business. According to the Telegraph link they aim to open a further 26 stores (bringing the total to 75) in the next three years. It doesn't take a business genuis to work out that, if they acheive their aims, their rate of growth will have increased considerably. So, I would agree with Sean, if you take their statements at face value it looks like they're about to stop being a cool, sucessful, small chain we're allowed to like and become a dirty, big chain that we're obliged to hate ;-)


Moos, much more interested in what you said that was so offensive....

bignumber5

bignumber5

Posted
Posted

I like WS. I go for a wander in there every once in a while, like amnesiac unaware of identical previous visits - see window display, walk in enthusiastically, look at the clothes, smile, look at price tags, sigh, walk out again.


If we're on about staying on topic, shouldn't we be discussing the forthcoming opening of white stuff ;-)

  • 1 month later...
RosieH

RosieH

Posted
Posted

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Macroban, but it appears that people are

> more happy discussing the pros and cons of clothes

> rather than the imminent (or not) demise of the

> retail sector.

>

> Head in the sand and all that jazz.


David, spending my Sunday working on a client budget in preparation for a Price Waterhouse audit, I look to the forum for a little light relief.


Because the imminent demise of the retail sector is of interest to you doesn't mean that other people want to chat about it. "Head in the sand" could be considered a rather self-important way of looking at the fact that other people prefer to talk about skinny jeans

SeanMacGabhann

SeanMacGabhann

Posted
Posted

RosieH


Have you REALLY resurrected a month+ old thread just to point out that a post by david_carnell, which had several replies (and thus negating your whole point), is a post that no-one is interested in? (and thus negating your whole point)


if you are looking for light-relief there must be more obvious threads than this...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By malumbu · Posted

      Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • Forest Hill Climber
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Forest Hill Climber · Posted

      In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • DulwichParker
      Local plumber and gas engineer - Jafar - Portrait Plumbing

      By DulwichParker · Posted

      Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • Sue Klein
      Are we now under a flight path?

      By Sue Klein · Posted

      I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...