Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mick Mac. So what if they are systematically travelling between clothes banks raiding them for the best quality clothing then selling them on Ebay? Is that a form of charity?

The clothes that actually reach the charities are sorted by quality, with the best items being sold in charity shops and the rest being sold on at up to ?1000 per tonne, hardly peanuts.

Womanofdulwich. How do you know they need things that badly? Were they in rags with bare feet? Perhaps we should let crack addicted burglars and muggers get on with it because they badly need their next fix?

These parasites are the lowest form of thieving scum, more than likely earning a good living at the expense of charities. I always challenge anyone I see stealing from clothes banks. I'd be too ashamed not to!

They probably were not wearing their rags, but charity shop clothes are much more expensive than jumble sale prices- they are sometimes more expensive than primark. I feel sorry for genuinely poor people. You are right of course they could have been raiding the bins and selling the stuff on e bay- but I think it is extremely unlikely. It is incomparable to drugs. Of course it is wrong but in the overall scheme of things it is minor. I think the good stuff goes direct to the shop- the clothes bank stuff is usually not so good. But that is just my experience. Maybe other residents of SE22 put their armami jackets in the clothes banks? If I cant be bothered to sell something on e bay- should I mind if someone else does- I think at least they are trying to get along and you need the money- have more time- than me. But thats just my slightly liberal opinion compared to nununoolio.

Womanofdulwich. I can see from my last post that I may have come across as a Daily Mail reading, line 'em up against the wall and shoot 'em type. I am anything but that.

Theft from clothing banks and scamming doorstep collections are rife, depriving charities of millions over the course of a year. I have seen people turning up with estate cars and vans to load the clothing from the banks outside my workplace. I have chased many of them away. None have tried to defend their actions by saying how poor or desperate they are.

I'm up to my eyeballs in debt, going through a costly divorce and can't afford to run a car, yet wouldn't dream of stealing from something like a charity clothes bank to 'get along', no matter how much I needed the money.

I became frustrated at the couldn't care less attitude towards what is organised crime, not something minor. It would be good to see people dealing with the situation as I have. I called the charity, told them what was happening and suggested they increase their collections to two a week as the bank was overflowing, which they have done. Now very little clothing is left beside the bank so the thieves are left with little or nothing to take.

  • 2 weeks later...
I once went out with someone who nicked a kids pedal cart from outside a charity shop. She took it for her own already over-privileged child. She just looked at me blankly when I reacted with disbelief . Still doesn't get the point,to this very day.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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