Jump to content

M&S

sela

By sela
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

lavender27

lavender27

Posted
Posted
At least M & S staff are trained well in friendliness and customer services, to a high standard. As for the co-op - staff are not friendly no interaction with customers, its just pay and get out. I was at the till having waited an age to be served in a very long queue and only two till open, wasn't offered a bag, had to ask, after cashier had scanned half my items and wasn't bothered whether I had my own bag or not, paid for my items and then she threw the till receipt at me with a grunt. Whilst I was in the shop was told by someone packing shelves that I was in the way. rude rude rude. F them I've never been back to that shop, they can rot in somewhere not very nice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elphinstone's Army

Elphinstone's Army

Posted
Posted

Dog duck Wrote:

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

> Look at you all?!!.... this thread is

> unbelievable! M&S is opening a shop on Lordship

> Lane...so @#?!ing what?



Because M&S opening on the Lane alters it's structure, dynamic, complexion, and is self explanatory when you consider an Iceland has now morphed into an M&S food store.


M&S reasoning is that ED is an area on the up and they are intent on capitalising on this phenomenon, being opportunist and profit driven.


The other side to this coin (see what I did there) is M&S seemingly arbitrary closing of small stores in cash strapped towns, and the slide of said towns into charity/pound/betting shops, minimal footfall and tumbleweed, a good example being Grantham.


I hope this answers your question politely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elphinstone's Army

Elphinstone's Army

Posted
Posted

lavender27 Wrote:

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

> At least M & S staff are trained well in

> friendliness and customer services, to a high

> standard. As for the co-op - staff are not

> friendly no interaction with customers, its just

> pay and get out. I was at the till having waited

> an age to be served in a very long queue and only

> two till open, wasn't offered a bag, had to ask,

> after cashier had scanned half my items and wasn't

> bothered whether I had my own bag or not, paid for

> my items and then she threw the till receipt at me

> with a grunt. Whilst I was in the shop was told

> by someone packing shelves that I was in the way.

> rude rude rude. F them I've never been back to

> that shop, they can rot in somewhere not very

> nice.



lavender, you are not alone in your despair over the coop, it is horrible and the queues are famous. How they survive is baffling. There is no management, it is a dismal understocked shop, with often a shortage of semi skimmed milk, weeks without regular humous. Everything is ludicrously expensive. The only way anything will change is if we all stop shopping there.

The staff are surly and sullen, except for John from Leeds who is efficient and helpful.


For a shelf stacker to say that you are in the way, denotes the lack of staff training and contempt for customers which

keeps us away in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cedges

Cedges

Posted
Posted

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Bic Basher Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Iceland were around for years (previously as

> > Bejam) who sold convenience ready meals which

> were

> > heavily processed. M&S don't sell that type of

> > ready meal product.

>

>

> How do you know that.. ?

>

> Have you compared all of them .. ?

>

> Are M&S ready meals not processed then.. ?

>

> Do M&S Ready meals not cointain .. salt.. sugar..

> polyols.. artificial colourings.. e-numbers..

> preservatives . ?

>

> Do they contain less saturated fats.. ?

>

> Are they any of more nutritonal value .. ?

>

> Are they Healthier.. ?

>

> What do you base your statement above on .. ?

>

> DulwichFox



By reading the ingredients list foxy - M&S meals contain very few 'nasties' and generally aren't excessively high in their salt content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nxjen

nxjen

Posted
Posted

Dog duck Wrote:

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

> Look at you all?!!.... this thread is

> unbelievable! M&S is opening a shop on Lordship

> Lane...so @#?!ing what?


Yep, I agree, but I still couldn't resist pressing my nose against an uncovered window this morning to have a peer in. Looks larger than I thought it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

sela Wrote:

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

> BigED who will have Iceland? M&S? I think they

> closed as not enough customers. it's all business

> minded those decisions.



Iceland were forced out due to rent rise, they were more than making enough money and didn't want to leave. The landlord just wanted a more prestigious retailer and to redevelop the site.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
first mate

first mate

Posted
Posted

EDH, TBH I've no idea. There have been so many applications with bits authorised here and there that I think it would be diffcult to know. It certainly seems large enough to be a proper supermarket and that might fit with the much later request for an alcohol licence.


Once I realised that objecting to planning was akin to objecting to the winds that blow I rather gave up trying to keep track. The alliance of developers and supermarkets is all conquering, councils and councillors bow to their might and we residents are as flies to wanton boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonMix

LondonMix

Posted
Posted

Louisa Wrote:

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

> sela Wrote:

Not being able to pay market rent (that another retailer will pay) means you don't have enough customers. Rent is part of your business costs.


> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > BigED who will have Iceland? M&S? I think they

> > closed as not enough customers. it's all

> business

> > minded those decisions.

>

>

> Iceland were forced out due to rent rise, they

> were more than making enough money and didn't want

> to leave. The landlord just wanted a more

> prestigious retailer and to redevelop the site.

>

> Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

Either way, I think the removal of Iceland was a disgraceful act of high street vandalism, removing a successful retailer to reinforce neighborhood retail change and squeeze a residential development in to boot. It all adds to the sacrifices ED has made to accommodate less retail diversity. The only good news to come in the last week has been the arrival of 'Really Maria', an indepedent which specialises in something we don't currently have locally.


Louisa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sela

sela

Posted
  • Author
Posted
what's Really Maria? I don't agree on the removal of Iceland. It's market force. Same if I can't afford to rent I would look for another place and as I said before. You can walk easily from Lordship lane to Peckham High Street with all those brands that you're after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
edhistory

edhistory

Posted
Posted

first mate Wrote:

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

> EDH, TBH I've no idea. There have been so many

> applications with bits authorised here and there

> that I think it would be diffcult to know.


We have the Valuation Office measurements for the ground floor before refurbishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • Earl Aelfheah
      Latest One Dulwich update

      By Earl Aelfheah · Posted

      LTNs were pushed by the Conservative government (as was ULEZ which you also disapprove of). They were one of several active travel measures which were a condition of the TFL funding settlement post Covid.  £69m of direct borough funding (per year) was also provided to support more localised investment in walking and cycling schemes across the city…but we all know schnapps is a secret commie 🤣 I’ve no idea. I do know that people are covering their plates and driving through, and that’s probably an accident waiting to happen (although clearly down to signage 🤣). The emergency services have agreed the changes, so I would assume that on balance they think it’s the right move. Whilst ‘One’ are suggesting the emergency services have agreed the changes under pressure, they wont say what sort of pressure, or from who 🤔. Perhaps it’s the commies again 🤣😂
    • snowy
      Latest One Dulwich update

      By snowy · Posted

      A bit like this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/tory-staff-running-network-of-anti-ulez-facebook-groups-riddled-with-racism-and-abuse
    • Rockets
      Latest One Dulwich update

      By Rockets · Posted

      Because the council responsible for it is far-left....   And you haven't answered whether it is worth diverting emergency vehicles because a few cars drive through the LTN and why some lobby groups have been so desperate to close it to emergency vehicles.    Emergency services hate non-permeable junctions as they lengthen response times....f you remember it's why the council had to redesign the DV junction because emergency services kept telling them they needed to be able to drive through it...but the council resisted and resisted until they finally relented because the emergency services said their LTN had increased response times....sorry if the truth gets in the way of a good story but those are facts. The council was putting lives at risk because they refused to open the junction to emergency services. Why? What could have been the motivation for that? So, in fact, it was the emergency services who forced the council (kicking and screaming) to remove the permanent barriers and allow emergency services access. So the council finally opened the junction to emergency services and is now coming back to re-close part of the junction.  Why?  Perhaps you should be asking who is lobbying the council to close the junction or parts of it or why the council is happy to waste so much of our money on it - who are they representing as even their own consultation demonstrated they did not have support from the local community for the measures? The results showed the majority of local residents were against the measure...but they are going ahead with them anyway.   In time, I am sure the truth will come to light and those rewponsbile will be held accountable but you have to admit there is something very unusual going on with that junction - its the very definition of a (very expensive) white elephant.    
    • alice
      Latest One Dulwich update

      By alice · Posted

      A Roadblock that a civilised society wouldn’t allow. 

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...