now where did i say anything about ethics, eh?

You didn't need to, you'd already made yourself look foolish (yet again), with this

Now it may come as a surprise to you but I have never had a problem with companies or individuals making a profit. Having been self-employed for the last 12 years, it would be hypocritical of me to decry profit making.

I do have a problem with some methods of achieving profits and what then happens to those profits. The example of Norman Walsh footwear being a graphic case of how a British company can compete in sports footwear by manufacturing in Britain, using British labour, presumably paying at least NMW rates, instead of employing sweat-shop labour in a 3rd world country and then shifting money around the globe in order to minimise tax liability.

why would it come as a surprise to me, you love profit, look at the way you voted to have the nhs sold off.

If you are struggling (which you certainly seem to be) to engage in discussion of the subject at hand, may I suggest you read what Mintball had to say on the Abu Qatada thread?



Your trolling on this and various other threads is becoming tedious, it wouldn't be too bad if you were any good at it but compared to some, you are a rank amateur.

Of course over here a clothing firm would never be able to create jobs because some civil servant would come round the building with his clipboard saying can't build it like that it breaks some EU directive on health and safety.

Which is why everybody in the UK is unemployed and the third world is growing fast whilst we are stagnant.

Perhaps we should opt out of all this EU stuff and H&S stuff, then we can build huge factories with massive sleeping areas for the workforce to do 18 hrs before squeezing in with 300 others for a kip. They could also cook their own food on an open fire in the middle of it if we opted out of other H&S measures on food hygiene, quality control etc. Because they would have bed and board, no heating bills to pay for we could justify paying them 50p and hour and blow the opposition out of the water in such places as Indonesia, Philippines etc.

The modern mass consumerism is to blame though. People want cheap clothes that they can wear and wash a couple of times before they discard them which is why the likes of Primark are thriving. The younger (say under 30) generation very rarely buy anything that's built to last, it's all about being 'on trend' and how it looks rather than the build quality. My daughters are 21 & 22 and I make a trip to the charity shop every few weeks with black bags full of clothes that they've worn once and discarded which they justify in their own minds because they only paid £5 for it from Primark or wherever and now it's out of fashion. There'll always be a place for the Norman Walsh companies of this world but the reality is that we live in an age where it's style over substance and thus the 'pile em high sell em cheap' retailers are thriving. But to sell them cheap they need to make them at an almost negligible cost which rules out manufacturing them in any Western Europe country. So I'm not sure it's fair to totally blame the retailers as ultimately they are responding to the consumers habits. Those of us who are fortunate enough to afford to be discerning will continue to be (eg I will pay £1,000 for a suit that will last 15 years rather than £100 for one that will last 12 months) and there'll always be a place for bespoke and niche companies, but the modern world and consumer values mean that cheap and cheerful is the dominant model and will continue to be. As my old granny used to say, the world these days is full of folk who know the price of everything but the value of nowt, and that's the real problem.

As someone who is not a fashion icon by a long way, I buy clothes that do the job. I bought a dark blue suit from Matalan about 5 years ago for £40 and its seen several weddings, a couple of funerals, christenings etc and I also wear it for meeting at work where is suit is required. It's been to the cleaners a few times and still looks fine. I will be using it again for a family wedding in June. On the flip side, I once paid over £100 for a pair of shoes and the sole came away from the shoe after a few months and pi$$ed in water. I suppose luck has a little to do with it also.

Likewise, although 21 and 24 - just last week I placed six large "bin liner" bags at our front gate for collection - gone in literally ten minutes by the clothes fairies, and that was at the least the second clearout of clothing they've had this year, in the meantime the BooHoo wagon rarely misses a day when he doesn't deliver to our house.

Me, I mostly shop in charity shops

You [imight[/i be a discerning customer.

But there's an equal chance that you're a mug who just pays £800 for the feeling of being discerning.

The fact that your daughters have YOU taking their old clothes to the charity shop points to you being a mug. Is their time just so much more valuable than yours? Have you just got nothing better to do with your time than do their menial chores for them?

It would get Britain back to work and would also help tackle our trade deficit.

Please don't tell me that you honestly believe the retailers were simply responding to a demand from consumers that they produce thinly-veiled, knock-off copies of runway couture for a tenner a throw?

All parents are mugs when it comes to their children. However, They don't ask me to do it, I do it voluntarily because I'd rather they were spending their time having fun and enjoying life while they're young.

Yes I do, because that's what retailers do. They have to sell what the consumer wants to buy at a price they are happy to pay. If they don't they go under. Marks & Spencer are a prime example - a few years ago they were in serious difficulty because they hadn't moved with the times and were selling old fashioned items at high prices. They brought in new management who modernised their lines but reduced the quality and price. Sales improved massively. To do that they moved lots of manufacturing contracts abroad, as it was the only way they could be competitive on price. I'm not saying its ideal or preferable, just that its what happens.

Particularly because the section of the market that has disposable income is the 18-30 year olds who are pre-mortgage, pre-everything-that-needs-to-be-paid-before-you-spend-it-on-yourself, they are the ones who can buy clothing in a frivolous manner, clothes that you know you are only going to wear once or twice and then never look at again.

If my 24 year old thought that M&S were now stocking ranges of clothing that she really liked I think she'd die of embarassment, but her, and her sister too spend their wages on clothing and accessories that they like but are ultimately guided by a combination of manufacturer, retailer and particularly magazine publisher into whatever is chosen as that seasons must-have, my youngest actually studied the art of fashion design and retailing, she learned how to promote "a look", how to arrange and dress a display and the college took over an empty unit in Leeds City Centre for several weeks and retailed second hand clothing using the promotion techniques, and they worked - and yet she still falls for all the tricks herself.

Its a female thing.