Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh no not again - I did some shopping in Waitrose in Beckenham a a couple of weeks ago as we had been given some vouchers. Got 3 bags of shopping for ?80 odd pounds, If you take ?12 off for a coupe of towels we purchased ?68 and we had not got half of what we normally buy. The deatest thing was around ?11 which was a bag of IAMS cat food on special offer. Considering we spend average of ?90 pw which includes cat food for 3 cats and end up usually with 6 - 8 bags, Waitrose is a 'luxury shop' like M & S for a family.

Food did look nice I must admitt but way beyond of what we could spend in a week.

There's no "cheapest" supermarket. You have to be choosy about what you buy in each one (if you have the time and inclination to trek around them all).


The cheapest way is to shop on Peckham Rye.


I do like Waitrose though, would save me the monthly 20 minute drive to Beckenham...

Ok. I'm a sucker for getting sucked into this. But ....seriously ...what is the wahala about Waitrose? I've seen nothing there that's special.

Am I missing something ...if so , what exactly? Feels a bit like people are desperate to have something to make them feel good about moving to SE London.

Agree with Lowlander. It's more about ambience I suspect. Not having done a taste test, or price comparison, I can't comment on those aspects.


But a couple of years ago I was visiting my Dad and we went to Cirencester to pick up some groceries. We started off in Waitrose. This was serene and peaceful, with wide aisles, large window (lots of natural light), the decor and displays were harmonious and easy to navigate around. But they didn't have something we wanted, so we also went to Tesco's. This was huge, loud, colourful/garish, busy and the shelves were much higher (giving an oppressive feeling), with very bright lighting. It was a bit like going from a lovely spa to a 1970's disco, and was rather a shock to the system.

Jacqui5254 Wrote:

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

> If you want serene and peaceful, wide aisles,

> large windows you have to pay for it through high

> Waitrose prices.

>

> They have a price match with 1000 Tesco items.

> That means that the remaining 8760000 items cost

> MORE than Tesco.


I don't think I could fit 8760000 items in my basket. I'll stick to the 1000 at low prices but with Waitrose's service and peaceful shopping experience.

  • 3 weeks later...

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

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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