Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think the point about the prices at the MIND shop is incredibly valid.


Yes they give money to charity BUT they are also meant to be a place where you can buy SECOND HAND items which are priced as second hand items. I have often seen that items there are priced the same as they would when brand new which is a shame and in the end loses them money rather than makes it because people just won't be prepared to pay.


It's a point well made and trying to pull the charity card is a shame.

Prussia Wrote:

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

>

> Yes they give money to charity BUT they are also

> meant to be a place where you can buy SECOND HAND

> items which are priced as second hand items.


There is a clear view by one section of this forum that charity shops are 'meant to be a place where you can buy SECOND HAND items which are priced as second hand items'. Whilst there are some charity shops that have been set up to provide low cost clothing, the MIND shop is not one of them (it's worth looking at their website, and that of Oxfam and the Red Cross, to see what the purpose of the charity shops is stated to be). There is no law requiring that they set the price below the original cost of the item, and there is nothing in the MIND shops advertising or charity literature to say that they do (The Red Cross does mention 'grab yourself a bargain' which could be construed to suggest it but the rest of the wording indicates that this is just a slogan). The value of an item is what someone is prepared, or able, to pay for it; what it cost previously is irrelevant.

If you don't like the prices in this shop then don't use it. If they have an empty shop for days on end they'll soon change their pricing structure. If they keep turning a healthy profit then they won't.

  • 3 weeks later...

Haven't read it all but looks like an interesting article on how charity shops (based on an Oxfam example) operate and the contribution they can make to their community.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/04/what-happens-to-oxfam-donations

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

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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