Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Keef, I am not surprised that someone you know, who owns one of the ED shops, has said they are "selling a load of frilly cushions to housewives with far too much time and money". I find that all rather indicative of some parts of the area.

honk Wrote:

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

> Keef Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Possibly a bit sexist, but to be fair, if you

> > counted the customers of these shops over an

> > average week, I'm pretty sure women would be a

> > huge majority, so maybe it's just a cheeky way

> of

> > making a valid point.

> >

>

>

> I mean the proprietors, not the customers.

>

> My dad opened a bridal shop for his wife on a whim

> once, mainly as otherwise she would seemingly have

> sat at home bored. Other popular types of 'my

> wife's bored' shops are

>

> 'The shop that sells some oddments of cookware,

> novelty ice cube trays and ironic birthday cards'

>

>

> and

>

> 'The Upmarket Pet Shop / Dog Groomer'

>

> East Dulwich has a surfeit of such types of shop*

>

>

> *this is not based on any kind of extensive

> research


Well Hope and Greenwood, the chocolate shop of which you speak, appears to me to be a business with a remarkably sound expansion strategy, as they have a place just off Covent Garden and I believe sell in Knightsbridge too ... if 'my wife bored' means 'my wife makes a fortune' then excellent.

Nicholas Wrote:

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

> Enjoy while you can,Credit crunch,who knows in a year or two

> might have pound shops and even a Lidl on the lane!


But there is, thankfully, no premise big enough for a large supermarket. I think

the nature of LL would drastically change, imo not for the better, if there were.

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

    • Yes and I heard the other day that there is a higher conviction rate with trials heard by only a judge, vs juries, which makes sense when you think about it.  Also - call me cynical - I can't help but think that this justice reform story was thrown out to overshadow the Reeves / OBR / Budget story.  But I do agree with scrapping juries for fraud cases. 
    • judges are, by definition, a much narrower strata of society. The temptation to "rattle through" numbers, regardless of right, wrong or justice is fundamentally changed If we trust judges that much, why have we ever bothered with juries in the first place? (that's a rhetorical question btw - there is no sane answer which goes along the lines of "good point, judges only FTW"
    • Ah yes, of course, I'd forgotten that the cases will be heard by judges and not Mags. But how does losing juries mean less work for barristers, though? Surely all the other problems (no courtrooms, loos, witnesses etc etc) that stop cases going to trial, or slow trials down - will still exist? Then they'll still be billing the same? 
    • It's not magistrates that are needed, it's judges and they will rattle through these cases whether the loos are working or not. Barristers get a brief fee and a day rate. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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