Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some points about the "charity" christmas trees being sold in the car park at the Plough.


I can't find any organisation called "Help the Hospice" although there is one called "Help the Hospices"


The web address they give www.christmastreeaid.co.uk doesn't seem to work.


Does anyone know which charity they're donating to?


Edited following info from people below - thanks for clarifying. Well done to them - hope they raise lots.

You would lose your bet Otta-

I know the family and also the woman works as a volunteer at the big St Christophers shop in Lordship Lane. They are legit and money goes to the hospice.

I ask the OP to remove the '' from the word charity in her heading



Otta Wrote:

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

> I'd be willing to bet money that the charity

> they're donating to is themselves.

i have known this family for over 25years. The mother of the son who sells the trees every year at the plough has a direct link to the charity. She volunteers her time to work at the St Christopher's hospice on lordship lane. Shame on you who suggesting otherwise.
We got our tree there too and it's a beautiful tree. My dad spent time in a hospice before he died; the staff there do amazing work and it is a massive support to people at a very difficult time in their lives. So I think it's fantastic that they are donating to such a good cause and hats off to them...

Terrific OP ,Loz and grace - there's some dodgy operations so lets just use that as justification for thinking that this is .

Despite the 8 ft high board showing how much money raised so far for St Christopher's with the headed A4 letter notice attached to it and the jacket emblazoned St Christopher's Hospice worn by the lady serving .

siousxiesue Wrote:

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

> You would lose your bet Otta-

> I know the family and also the woman works as a

> volunteer at the big St Christophers shop in

> Lordship Lane. They are legit and money goes to

> the hospice.

> I ask the OP to remove the '' from the word

> charity in her heading

>

>

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'd be willing to bet money that the charity

> > they're donating to is themselves.



Hands up, I'd lose.


But it might be an idea for them to give the correct information at their site, looks pretty dodgy.

Oh be quiet - don't try and shift the reasons for your hasty and incorrect judgement .

Why is the onus on the charity to hone it's on line presentation skills and not on the likes of you to be a bit more alert at the actual point of sale .

Or even just not to be so quick to jump to conclusions .

It's not about the charity's online presentation, it's about the people flogging the trees getting the web address correct and the name of the charity. You can't blame someone for being suspeicious if they note down a web address and it turns out to not work.


And telling someone to "oh be quiet" is just rude.

The web address they actually give is www.christmastreeaid.org.uk , not .co.uk as suggested by the OP - might explain some of the issues the OP is having trying to find out about them. There's not much at the website but it does work if you go to the address that they actually give on their huge banner...
And you know Otta, did the OP think of double checking with the vendor before almost accusing them of dishonesty on a local forum? What is wrong with you people? Give them a break. They are just a small business trying to do something for charity. Let's applaud that and support them instead, ffs.

Sorry, but since the plethora of clothes recycling collection bags which arrive purporting to be for charity but only giving a tiny donation, I have an increased awareness of this.


Given the cost of Christmas trees I didn't want people to think they were supporting a charity when maybe they might not have been. Sorry I misread the web address and I'm glad to be corrected (thanks lonajl) and be wrong about this - I only saw it in passing hence didn't go and talk to them or the pub manager. I did try to phrase my original post to ask the questions rather than make accusations.


Enjoy your Christmas trees, everyone.

Thank you Becca for acknowledging your mistake. To be fair, I think there's a big difference between an anonymous collection bag dropping through your door and a local well established business doing something for charity?


Anyway, I think lesson learned and hopefully if any good can come out of it, more people will go there to buy their tree. Admittedly I didn't know about them until you posted Becca, so that's one extra sale for them thanks to your mistake. All's well that ends well :)

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

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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