Jump to content

Recommended Posts

How much the blushing bride did or didn't spend on a dress is hardly the point here, is it? Whilst I (were I to be a woman, about to get married, etc) wouldn't spend 2k on a dress either, there are plenty of things I have spent big on which others would no doubt consider to be frivolous.

Does it matter how much it cost either?! Clare - If it was a ?20 shirt and it came back in tatters with half of another shirt sewn on the bottom, would you smile meekly and say "oh well.. thanks for trying!".

If CMS has new owners then you have to feel a bit sorry for them, but surely if you buy a business, you check-out if there are any pending actions or judgements against that business before you cough-up?

However, if the company director and secretary are still in their posts (as the article says) then they're still profiting from the business whilst trying to avoid paying-up what they owe. In which case it's hard to feel sorry for CSM at all.

Amelie Wrote:

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

> This is obviously a 'girl thing'.:))


I'm a girl, and I think 2 k for a wedding dress is ludicrous. I think you could justify 1 k for a really good dress that you'd wear a lot (that's called an investment), but 2 k for something you wear once and then stuff in a cupboard? That's money down the pan. I speak as someone who on occasion spends a few hundred on a bag.

I don't think anyone's trying to justify what the cleaners did Bob, but after the first couple of posts I think all that needed to be said had been said about that. I just thought I'd bring the price of the dress in to it for a laugh really. That said, when I read the article, I found it hard to feel overly sorry, because the woman sounds rather materialistic. Still, if she has money to throw away, good for her. Bet she doesn't tip when she eats out though ;-)

I am sorry but I do think that Susie is being unfairly treated here, she obviously put a great deal of time, thought and emotion into her dress and how much that may have cost in terms of ?ss is irrelevant. She wanted a dress that would be memorable for a variety of reasons, one of which was presumably her choice of husband, and all the memories that she had invested in that dress have been ruined. She must have been devastated, I know I would have been. CSM don't appear even to have offered to apologise, and to add insult to injury have tried to evade their legal obligations, (let alone the moral ones).


If this happened to someone that I knew I wouldn't concern myself with how much she might have spent, or why, but with trying to help her achieve some kind of recompense.

Here Here Amelie. Sometimes, some peoples comments can be so one-sided. Why should any of you be concerned with what she paid for her dress. Her perogative, she may have saved for ages for this one special day, or could have used inheritance money, or whatever whatever. Dont be mean about the poor girl, she is the victim here.(6)

Being upset about having expensive possessions trashed isn't a girl thing, just a fairness thing. Whatever it cost and whatever its sentimental value the dress was destroyed and the people who did it tried to lie their way out of it. That's a nasty way to conduct business and if others want to slag 'em for it then fine.


I worked in a DC as a teen and saw how upset people can be over ?20 shirts getting damaged so it's perfectly understandable Susie is upset.


As for her sounding materialistic and her dress costing too much, the fabric of that argument is threadbare.


AP

Boom Boom!!! :))


Look, I think the cleaners were / are well out of order, and it's inexcusable whether it was a t-shirt from Primark, or a 2k dress....


I was just saying that in my opinion, it's a silly amount to spend. And it's not because I'm a bloke... I showed this thread to Mrs Keef, who's response was "who bloody cares?". That doesn't make my fair lady an uncaring, harsh bitch... Infact, she cares more about people / kids / the world than most people I know, but in the great scheme of things, who cares!?!?!?!? :-S


However, I am sorry for you Susie, wherever you are, I imagine I'd be livid in your place!

Indeed, all of you detractors regarding the value of this wedding dress - have any of you spent a fortune on photographic accessories for example? Haven't some of you got some very pricey lenses?


Well boys, they are for taking photos of us girls in our expensive threads, and don't you forget it!


DM

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> I'm sure youre not being totally unkind here Keef.

> But can you imagine taking your beautiful Gibson

> Les Paul ?????? into a repair

> shop.....................................!


I'd kill the mother f****rs!!!!!!!! But at least I play my guitar (well remembered on the make!) quite often though... Sure the photographers use their lenses more than once too ;-)

I know that the cleaners did wrong and tried to wriggle out of it - they are bad puppies and IF it happened to me/My kin, I would ensure that should I not get my money back, then they would pay the damages several times over indirectly.the b@stards.


I was just commenting however that ?2K on a bit of frilly fabric is a bit OTT.She shoudl ahve waited until the sale and got it for ?1K

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

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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