Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear friends and neighbours,

in this generous neighbourhood putting 2nd-hand gifts out for people to take is welcome freecycling.


But some freebies aren't working.


Winter's come and piles of books became mush at once, in the rain, dumped by a skip we all trudged past on Underhill Rd. Lovely vintage hardbacks and great reads, should have raised money via charity. What a waste. Sigh.


Nearly opposite, smart garments and gold shoes are collecting dirt spilling out of a paper bag on the street for more than 2 days; maybe someone is unaware of recycling banks nearby. Shoe bin only down on Forest Hill Rd (outside the Post Office) and one for usable clothing in the Dry Cleaner's there, too, if householder does not want to go all the way to a charity shop.

I like this idea and I've picked up a few good freebies (mostly books) in the past around Underhill, Melford and Wood Vale in the past but at this time of year with the horrible weather it is not a good idea. In the summer it's fine but if you're having a bit of a clear out in winter use the charity shops or recycling bins.
In Germany this type of free cycle is done once a month on a specific day and everything is put in one place, on one corner: Sparmull (extra stuff) and if it's not taken by passer-bys it's collected by "the city". Just saying. Is this a better way to do it?

I think that's a great idea, mynamehere, but could the Council expect this custom to "take" in the UK?


In Germany totally unfurnished flats are usual, i.e. apartments are let with no furniture at all, just sink units and basic sockets for kitchen appliances, and often for 5 yrs at a time, so that tenants have to get all their own stuff.


When I saw the roominess and high standard of interior fittings & background decor, & the ecofriendly insulation, etc, for the sort of money wanted hereabouts for pokey 2 room conversions, I was impressed. The downside is, people still find it costly to buy all necessary furnishings, also when you vacate your flat you are expected to empty it completely even if that means hiring a man and van.

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

    • Penguin, I broadly agree, except that the Girobank was a genuinely innovative and successful operation. It’s rather ironic that after all these years we are now back to banking at the Post Office due to all the bank branch closures.  I agree that the roots of the problem go back further than 2012 (?), when the PO and RM were separated so RM could be sold. I’m willing to blame Peter Mandelson, Margaret Thatcher or even Keith Joseph. But none of them will be standing for the local council, hoping to make capital out of the possible closure of Lordship Lane PO, as if they are in no way responsible. The Lib Dems can’t be let off the hook that easily.
    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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