Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The reason Give and Take is more expensive than other charity shops is because they are more selective with their donated stock.

it hurts me when I see people being negative about this particular shop.

I chose to donate my used designer clothes there as they are specifically aimed at donating to breast cancer charities.

As someone who has been directly affected by the disease I really value any contribution to helping find a cure for a disease that effects so many women-and men.

James Wrote:

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

> A charity shop is opening and someone on this

> forum suggests petitioning them not to.

>

> I never cease to be amazed at how twisted and

> deranged some contributors to this forum are.



Perhaps you should attempt to improve your level of ability to comprehend and read the reasons why.

edcam Wrote:

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

> nxjen Wrote:

> > I'm shocked at such an uncharitable attitude.

> > Thankfully any petition would have little

> chance

> > of success. Who would it be addressed to?

>

> I'm shocked that people think it's a good idea to

> dilute the stock of the charity shops that are

> already there, whose trade would suffer as a

> result of yet another shop arriving. But that

> clearly doesn't bother you.


I'm shocked that no-one has mentioned that, traditionally, similar shops often concentrate together (think South Molton St for fashion, Hatton Garden for diamonds, Rye Lane for chicken bits and phone unlocking...). Bringing people into such an area increases footfall for all. I know that charity shop fans have similar 'hotspots'.

NewWave Wrote:

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

> Agree with the above post. And amazed that someone

> would be so small minded as to suggest petitioning

> against the opening of a new charity shop-The same

> poster probably wants a Jack Wills and a Starbucks

> opening on LL.


No, I don't, so there's that theory out the window.

edcam Wrote:

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

> James Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The "reasons why" are as bonkers and

> nonsensical

> > as the entire notion of petitioning a charity

> shop

> > not to open.

>

> Well I don't think they are. Just wait and see.


xxxxxx


Wait and see - what?


You seem to be hoping that the new charity shop is a dismal failure, just so that you can be proved right.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> ED doesn't need another charity shop. I give to

> charity and by from charity shops, but we cannot

> have our high street dominated by one type of

> business - whoever they may be. We are in

> desperate need of a whole host of shops around

> here.

>


xxxxxx


Another charity shop hardly counts as "dominating", surely?


Indian restaurants and estate agents - yes, they appear to dominate Lordship Lane.


Charity shops? No.


And I know which I'd rather have another of, and it isn't Indian restaurants (or indeed restaurants at all) - or estate agents .....


Which "whole host of shops" did you have in mind, Louisa, that you'd rather see than a charity shop? Waitrose? M&S? Some other chain to make Lordship Lane a clone of every other bloody high street in the land?

Sue Wrote:

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

> Louisa Wrote:

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

> -----

> > We are in

> > desperate need of a whole host of shops around

> > here.

> >

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Another charity shop hardly counts as

> "dominating", surely?

>

> Indian restaurants and estate agents - yes, they

> appear to dominate Lordship Lane.

>

> Charity shops? No.

>

> And I know which I'd rather have another of, and

> it isn't Indian restaurants (or indeed restaurants

> at all) - or estate agents .....

>

> Which "whole host of shops" did you have in mind,

> Louisa, that you'd rather see than a charity shop?

> Waitrose? M&S? Some other chain to make Lordship

> Lane a clone of every other bloody high street in

> the land?


Sue I'd quite like to see ED have more small chain shops yes I would. But it isn't going to happen because we don't have the space for it. And as I've said before, the ship has sailed on that one, chains aren't interested in ED anymore. So the Indy lovers you've won, the battle is over! Even M&S have been scared off! Congrats! But for me personally, the answer is not to allow yet more of the same independents, be that estate agent, curry house or charity shop. How about an electrical shop, a music shop, an affordable women's clothing store?


Louisa.

There's a Mary Portas Living and Giving shop On Westbourne Grove in Notting Hill, sitting side by side with high end designer boutiques.

The stock is fantastic and as well as having items donated by locals there are lots of new and sample items from various of Marys contacts in the Fashion industry.

I often make a trip there to shop.

Its unlike any existing Charity shop on Lordship lane and will be an asset to the area.

Thank god it isn't another estate agent or Hairdressers.

James Wrote:

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

> I've got an idea for all you miserable moaners who

> whinge whenever a shop opens that isn't exactly to

> your taste. Why don't you open the kind of shop

> you want yourself?


xxxxxx


Full of the Christmas spirit, eh, James? :))

Ok- seeing this thread seems to be a poll.


I am voting for!


(and saying a big Thank You to Pam, Manager of the small St Christopher's opposite co-op. I sometime see her in there at 9/10pm at night sorting things out, she, and other charity shop staff and volunteers are an asset to the community).


HooRaah

Sue Wrote:

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

>>

> Wait and see - what?

>

> You seem to be hoping that the new charity shop is

> a dismal failure, just so that you can be proved

> right.



Ah - the old putting words into someone's mouth phenomenon. Of course I don't think that, what an absurd suggestion. I just hope that it doesn't have a negative effect on the other charity shops, that's all.

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...