Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But if they say "we want your ???" then people get stroppy. If they spend ten minutes to print out an A4 bit of paper that says "we're a dolphin-friendly fair trade additive-free organic no child labour green happy sort of place that doesn't even use capital letters" then people seem to forget that _any_ retailer's bottom line is "we want your ???" and are more easily fooled into parting with their money...



: P

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> "You know you don't want to make bread, milk cows,

> grow wheat, build houses, make carpets EVERY

> SINGLE TIME?? Well, let us do it for you and we

> can then let you have them - for a mutually

> convenient fee*"


*we regret that we cannot accept chickens or American Express as payment

Loz Wrote:

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

> Surely Somerfields mission statement should read

> something like

>

> "Our business associates in Canada and India

> appreciate your generous donations"

>

> And if you don't like it, we'll kick the crap out

> of you.


xxxxxx


:)):)):))

I'm less and less comfortable with people posting potentially libellous statements re: some businesses. Unless someone can prove Somerfields are complicit in the cloning activities (as opposed to it possibly happening there) then they would be within their rights to "take action"

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

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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