Page 1 of 8
Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:08 pm
by Lizard
There's always more of them where rents are high and income is above average, but is it just me or does anyone else think they are getting more and more expensive, I went into one today looking at some books, then I noticed the price of clothes, ie mens shirts ?5.99 ?6 etc, someones stinking shoes that they had probably died in...?6, it's fucking outrageous, plenty of people in but not many buying, also the interior looked more like a modern retail outlet, yet the odd thing is they still dont pay most of the staff. I like to give stuff to charity, and fair play they do a good job and make money and shit, but the very type of people that the shops were set up for can't afford to buy the stuff in there, so the wealthy people not only give thier clothes away, they buy them back the next day.
Re: Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:15 pm
by laralatex
Yes, the worst one is that romanian one oh, damn whats it called? I've always found Cancer Research good and Help The gGed ....well their stuffs goin' beggin'.
I like charity shops, I have found some great stuff in them. Including my orgininal Bakerlite phone, which has been made digital (or whatever) so its works now, for only 20 QUID, YES 20 QUID!
but
> the very type of people that the shops were set up for can't
> afford to buy the stuff in there,
I thought the idea that the shops weren't for 'charity cases' but for richer people to buy the things and then the money going to charity.
Re: Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:28 pm
by jj
I can't afford to shop in Charity-shops.
Re: Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:30 pm
by jj
God, don't wimmin witter on?
You sound exactly like Mrs JJ- except I guess yer cheaper to keep :- (((((
Re: Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:34 pm
by Pervert
What, even on the ?6 million a year you teachers are now getting?
Re: Charity shops..
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:34 pm
by jj
> So you immediately lose sales to a shop which has less overheads than
> yours.
I'm not sure this is Liz's or Wazza's solecsim here.
This one has me biting the rug, especially when the Beeb or the Times do it.. 'FEWER' in number, 'LESS than 16'. It's not difficult, is it?