Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If the premises were rent-free, guess what I bet sweet prices would be cheaper !

Bought some confection today, standard stuff, hard to get wrong.

If you can get sweets 49p cheaper (or whatever) got to the other place instead if you prefer.

Great shop for LL IMO.

The shoppe frontte is terriblye naffe, however as mentioned above it's a franchise so that's what it has to be.


Behind the signage is someone who's put in a load of work and wants to make a success of it - which is more important. Anyway there's no shortage of other proper eyesores in the area so not really worth getting in too much of a lather about this.


As long as they have my personal sugar tipple I will be in for that. And if they don't.. I'm gonna go nuclear.

Good luck to anyone starting a new business in a challenging climate. Regardless of my thoughts on the shop, I commend anyone taking a risk and wish them well. I?d rather have any well put together shop than an empty one. Also, the shop owner has shown keenness and smarts attempting to communicate with his new community, not everyone does that. I say welcome, good luck and fingers crossed for you.

It's funny that Sue's comment before was called trolling as I read her comment as such myself. VelvetBlueberry explained that she was not connected to the store, so your question was either an unnescessary (poor) joke, or it was a troll remark...


Does anyone have evidence linking VelvetBlueberry to the shop...?


It's like some people won't accept differing opinions. Surely they are old enough.


I look forward to visiting the shop myself. I am not much of a sweet eater, however, it might be nice to treat myself...

The previous thread was deleted and as I recall, she was asked what her connection to the shop was...


If your question was a joke Sue then I just thought it was silly given the thread history, however, if serious then I had to wonder if you were trying to derail this thread. You did write previously that you weren't going to give the shop your custom...


Trolling can vary in severity, and I thought yours was tame, however, VelvetBlueberry expressed that she disliked the previous accusation, so why try to wind her up? That's what I wondered.

I did not see all the previous thread before it was deleted.


My reasons on the other thread for not giving the shop my custom, if I said that which I can't remember, were because of posts by the owner early in the thread, which he subsequently deleted and which I have no intention of repeating here.


I am not a troll and was not trying to wind anybody up.


ETA: I have said above why I asked the question. It is one thing to effusively praise a new shop. It is another thing to write derogative comments about a shop next door to it selling similar products.

Sue Wrote:

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

> ETA: I have said above why I asked the question.

> It is one thing to effusively praise a new shop.

> It is another thing to write derogative comments

> about a shop next door to it selling similar

> products.



So you're allowed to call this new sweet shop a "hideous eyesore" but I'm not allowed to share my opinion on M&S'

hideously inedible spray-painted chocolate? Lol... Okay.


I don't know why you're so incapable of putting two & two together & realising I was making a personal preference as to where I'd want to go for an "overpriced" edible gift. Don't worry, M&S isn't going out of business. They recieve my custom every day & despite my oh so terrible opinion on their chocolate gifts, they do have nice cheap chocolates in there too.


Phew! At least someone here has some common sense... Thank you, Maybaby.


Apparently enthusiasm is a crime these days.

VelvetBlueberry Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ETA: I have said above why I asked the

> question.

> > It is one thing to effusively praise a new

> shop.

> > It is another thing to write derogative

> comments

> > about a shop next door to it selling similar

> > products.

>

>

> So you're allowed to call this new sweet shop a

> "hideous eyesore" but I'm not allowed to share my

> opinion on M&S'

> hideously inedible spray-painted chocolate? Lol...

> Okay.

>



Eh?


Where have I called this shop a "hideous eyesore"?


ETA: oh yes, I did. I used the words "hideous" and "eyesore," In separate sentences in a totally unrelated thread in the lounge. But not as you have quoted me.


ETA: And I specifically said that I was saying it on that thread where hardly anybody would be likely to see it. But hey ho. I stand by my view. I just didn't want it made so public as you have just done, for obvious reasons. Thanks for that.


ETA: Let's just stop this now. I shall be more careful in future about posting my opinions on a local forum I've been using for nearly thirteen years.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Yet more sanctimonious crap from Sue. She's been

> getting into infantile rows with people for

> thirteen years apparently.



Well well. The fragrant Blah Blah returns, right on cue :))


Funnily enough I was just thinking about you this morning :))


You really can't resist giving yourself away, can you? I'm collecting screenshots :)) :)) :))


ETA: If anybody new to the forum doesn't realise, you can click on people's name and see their past posts (at least, back to when the forum was reorganised by admin a while ago).


So you can click on my name and see how much sanctimonious crap I've posted.


Depending on your definitions of sanctimonious and crap, of course.


I'd reckon probably about 0.001% :))

The moderation of these forums is very sketchy. It's almost as if they favour this provocative behaviour (& I don't mean the type that has people so politically correct they can't handle an opinion that clashes with their own).



ANYHOO. Feel free to discontinue reading from this point if you're likely to get your knickers in a twist over a positive/enthusiastic comment :)



- I had my eye on the strawberries & cream gourmet popcorn, closest & most visible from the window, days before the shops official opening - it was totally worth the wait!


I'm also obsessed with violet anything so I was happy to see they had dark chocolate French Violet creams along with other flavours like English Rose (which I also love), lemon (tempted to get for my mum), mint (also tempting) & others that I can't remember off the top of my head.


...& Kola Kubes! They really take me back to my 90s childhood.

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

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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