On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:47:40 +0100, Grunff wrote:

There are big problems with relocating an operation of this size,
recruiting and training a new workforce is a particularly big one.

As they have found out...

As for quality of staff the pickers need to be at least literate, have
common sense and some knowledge of the products stocked. So when the
picking form says "XY346501 Washer, Flat" from bin 2Z56 and 2Z56 only
contains 13A plugs labeled XY346501 they raise a query...

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

I wish it was that simple but it seldom, if ever, is as anyone who has
experience of the planning system knows. If South Somerset District
Council
tried that the application would simple be called in by central
government.

..and it would be looked at and the government would say yes. Loose
jobs?No
government likes that, except Thatcher, who revelled at loosing them.

That staement shows just how little you know about the way appeals are dealt
with. In any case Screwfix withdrew the application so it was never decided
by the local authority.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"IMM" writes:

Yeovil is not exactly in the boonies. The amount of business they
generate
would make little difference in location as order volumes would be going
to
all areas of the UK.

What?
The spending power of 520 people in one area being cut
will likely be the end of many other local businesses.
I would also imagine Screwfix are likely to have sourced
many products/services locally, and those businesses will
lose out too. The local economy has probably just lost many
millions per year of revenue directly and indirectly from
the loss of Screwfix.


Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant closure will
have a massive negative effect on the local economy so I cannot believe the
Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what the local council thought it was
playing at by not allowing an expansion. Successful businesses need to
expand and if an area gets known for not allowing this, new businesses won't
move there in the first place.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The primary purpose of a business is to

a) make money for its shareholders,

b) fulfill customer's requirements because that usually leads to (a)

Providing employment is a distant (c).

Not even distant. Directors of a UK (or US) public company have a legal
obligation to (a) and (b) but (c) isn't a requirement at all. Of course
German and French law is quite the opposite which is why so many of their
companies lose so much money and have to be bailed out by taxpayer's money.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
As for quality of staff the pickers need to be at least literate, have
common sense and some knowledge of the products stocked. So when the
picking form says "XY346501 Washer, Flat" from bin 2Z56 and 2Z56 only
contains 13A plugs labeled XY346501 they raise a query...

CPC seem to have occasional difficulties with this concept!

Regards
Capitol

IMM wrote:

Loose jobs?No
government likes that, except Thatcher, who revelled at loosing them.

Gordon is doing quite well, the impact of rocketing minimum wage
increases, more holidays, more taxes and more regulations, is exporting
low wage jobs at a rate that would have petrified the Conservatives. It
is now cheaper for Ford to build Jaguars in the US than in Coventry and
call centres providing local employment are becoming an endangered
species in Scotland and Wales! There are no new employers coming
forward to reverse the process. What are the true unemployment figures
today, 4M? ( counting recognised unemployed, job seekers, training
courses, over 50's etc)

What is also currently being overlooked is that the IR have managed to
pull forward taxation which would normally be received in Jan 05 by
about 6 months IIEC, so the current PSBR figures do not compare with
previous years on a month by month basis. I expect the borrowing
requirements to rocket in Feb/Mar 05.

IMO Screwfix have messed it up, British management is infamous for it's
ability to underestimate real problems and then fail to solve them, so
why should Kingfisher be any different. Mothercare did it with a new
warehouse, a couple of years ago. B & Q are IME significantly increasing
their selling prices for a lot of items, presumably to increase profits
where there is little competition. If you look at their share price and
P/E ratio, there is IMO more chance of it falling than rising unless HD
takes it over. The yield is poor with 3% inflation around the corner.
IMO HD would do better to buy Wickes/Focus on a value for money basis,
with good growth prospects.

Regards
Capitol

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:17:37 UTC, Capitol
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
As for quality of staff the pickers need to be at least literate, have
common sense and some knowledge of the products stocked. So when the
picking form says "XY346501 Washer, Flat" from bin 2Z56 and 2Z56 only
contains 13A plugs labeled XY346501 they raise a query...

CPC seem to have occasional difficulties with this concept!

Indeed - but they are quite good at fixing it!

I finally asked for a catalogue this week.

One arrived on Thursday.
One arrived on Friday.

Oh well.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 20:49:35 +0100, Capitol
wrote:


IMO HD would do better to buy Wickes/Focus on a value for money basis,
with good growth prospects.

Regards
Capitol


Yes but they'd have to change the signs. At least B&Q is a
borg-ready company.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:38:09 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Screwfix and B&Q have become the leading suppliers in their fields in
the UK and B&Q is no. 3 in the world. That isn't achieved or
maintained by not running a business reasonably properly.

Hmmm, McDonalds, Microsoft and Walmart are properly run businesses
that are leaders in their fields, that doesn't say a lot for their
products.

Competition on price alone is good up to a point, but there must come
a point where the effect becomes negative.

cheers,
Pete.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:46:31 +0100, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:38:09 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

Screwfix and B&Q have become the leading suppliers in their fields in
the UK and B&Q is no. 3 in the world. That isn't achieved or
maintained by not running a business reasonably properly.

Hmmm, McDonalds, Microsoft and Walmart are properly run businesses
that are leaders in their fields, that doesn't say a lot for their
products.

Note that I didn't mention anything about quality.

In the (financial) context that I was using, the normal definition of
leading is by sales revenue, or perhaps on closer look, profitability.

On this definition, all of the companies that you mention are leaders
or close to being so in their fields.

If you apply the quality definition to the same companies, they would
all come quite low on the scale. I certainly wouldn't go into any
store run by Walmart or its subsidiaries, and have as little to do
with the others as possible.



Competition on price alone is good up to a point, but there must come
a point where the effect becomes negative.

I couldn't agree more. You're preaching to the choir.

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....

In article , G&M wrote:
Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant
closure will have a massive negative effect on the local economy
so I cannot believe the Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what
the local council thought it was playing at by not allowing an
expansion. Successful businesses need to expand and if an area
gets known for not allowing this, new businesses won't move there
in the first place.

You forget, perhaps, that business rates don't go to the local
council but into a central pot which is then distributed out using
some arcane formula. So SSDC get 1/723 (or whatever) of what Screwfix
pay in rates regardless of where they are located. Of course there is
the issue of votes as well, but that could work more than one way.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....



Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
"Bob Eager" writes:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:17:37 UTC, Capitol
wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:
As for quality of staff the pickers need to be at least literate, have
common sense and some knowledge of the products stocked. So when the
picking form says "XY346501 Washer, Flat" from bin 2Z56 and 2Z56 only
contains 13A plugs labeled XY346501 they raise a query...

CPC seem to have occasional difficulties with this concept!

Indeed - but they are quite good at fixing it!

In my experience, they aren't very good at fixing it.
I've had the same wrong goods delivered again as replacements,
and it's sometimes something they don't even stock, so I think
their good-inwards inspections leave a little to be desired.
Very frequently, I only get credited for one returned product
when several were returned. Their notion of my account status
drifts away from reality over a year or so, and they are unable
to explain why. They have just told me this should be fixed by
a new accounting system they're introducing. If there is some
problem with your account, no one tells you when you order or
phones you back -- they just don't process the order and it's up
to you to track down why when it doesn't turn up. The goods are
often not well enough wrapped -- I think we got 4 orders in a
row a couple of months back, every one with the box burst open
and missing some parts. One of the best ones we had was someone
ordered a bulk pack of D cells and some of the 30W tubular
filament lamps. The box arrived with the powdered glass leaking
out of all the corners -- yes they were all just loose inside
That last one was a few years ago admittedly, but it's become
legendary in the department -- if someone wants something fragile
from CPC, someone else in the department will chirp up with
"get them to chuck in half a dozen SLA batteries too" ;-)

Having said all that, I do like CPC's products, and I particularly
like their weekly leaflets, which do cause me to buy quite a lot
of things I otherwise wouldn't. In spite of the comments above,
a lot of the orders go through without any problem and the staff
are always very pleasent and seem to try hard to fix problems.

I also use Farnell and RS, both of whom seem very good, but I
don't place enough orders with either to have a meaningful
sample size for comparison.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant closure
will
have a massive negative effect on the local economy so I cannot believe
the
Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what the local council thought it was
playing at by not allowing an expansion.

See other posts but Screwfix withdrew the application. The stumbling block
was that they wanted to build in open countryside well outside the
development limits. Those limits were not set by the local council but
effectively by central government. It is a common misconception that local
planning authorities have carte blanche when in fact their powers are
constrained by all sorts of Whitehall imposed red tape. The council did want
Screwfix to expand in Yeovil but not into that particular place. However,
my own theory is that Screwfix wanted to have a distribution centre much
closer to the centre of the country and with good motorway access rather
than be far from both. The application in Yeovil was probably a PR exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:08:44 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
wrote:

Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant closure
will
have a massive negative effect on the local economy so I cannot believe
the
Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what the local council thought it was
playing at by not allowing an expansion.

See other posts but Screwfix withdrew the application. The stumbling block
was that they wanted to build in open countryside well outside the
development limits.

It appears that there were two applications and one was next to an
existing industrial estate according to the map.


Those limits were not set by the local council but
effectively by central government. It is a common misconception that local
planning authorities have carte blanche when in fact their powers are
constrained by all sorts of Whitehall imposed red tape. The council did want
Screwfix to expand in Yeovil but not into that particular place. However,
my own theory is that Screwfix wanted to have a distribution centre much
closer to the centre of the country and with good motorway access rather
than be far from both. The application in Yeovil was probably a PR exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

A pretty expensive PR exercise. Two sets of plans and applications?
Drawing attention to what is going on?

Why bother?

If the game plan was to move to a central location, it would have been
much easier to just plan and do it. The announcement of the closure
of the Yeovil facility would have made the local paper for one week,
perhaps two, and probably not much more coverage than that and they'd
still have to pay the redundancy money


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant closure
will
have a massive negative effect on the local economy so I cannot believe
the
Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what the local council thought it
was
playing at by not allowing an expansion.

See other posts but Screwfix withdrew the application. The stumbling block
was that they wanted to build in open countryside well outside the
development limits. Those limits were not set by the local council but
effectively by central government. It is a common misconception that local
planning authorities have carte blanche when in fact their powers are
constrained by all sorts of Whitehall imposed red tape. The council did
want
Screwfix to expand in Yeovil but not into that particular place. However,
my own theory is that Screwfix wanted to have a distribution centre much
closer to the centre of the country and with good motorway access rather
than be far from both. The application in Yeovil was probably a PR
exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

That could be the case. I was reading that Liverpool FC have applied to
build a stadium on a listed Victorian park next to their existing old
ground. Apparently the local council gave them permission, but the project
has to go to Whitehall for approval being sensitive. Some journos think they
may know they haven't a chance of getting it as every tree hugger for 200
miles around would descend on the park. Also the Anfield area is densely
populated so taking valuable park space is also sensitive. But the club have
to appease their fans and try and blame the government if and when it fails.
Sports fans are sensitive to history and tradition, hence the Millennium
stadium being built on an existing, modern 25 year old stadium that could
have been kept and build the Millennium elsewhere, having two for the price
of one.

Peter Crosland wrote:

The application in Yeovil was probably a PR exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

ROFL... I love it when planners come up with this kind of thing. Superb!

--
Grunff

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....



Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


But buying the cheapest solution / product, is not what the good man
advises...

How many people must have bought, say, cheap paint only to find that it
either doesn't cover as well (so you need more) or that it doesn't stand up
to the riggers of everyday living (in a vain attempt to stay on-topic !) ?

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Peter Crosland wrote:

The application in Yeovil was probably a PR exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

ROFL... I love it when planners come up with this kind of thing. Superb!


Look, it was just placing two planning applications (quite possibly just
outline plans), the cost would have been off set by the savings made if by
some miracle the application had been accepted, the cost if it failed was a
drop in the ocean of moving up country.

So, yes, it could have been used as a local PR exercise especially as SF
probably always wanted to keep the Yeovil site for a HQ.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:13:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little. When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....



Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


But buying the cheapest solution / product, is not what the good man
advises...

Of course - which was my point....


How many people must have bought, say, cheap paint only to find that it
either doesn't cover as well (so you need more) or that it doesn't stand up
to the riggers of everyday living (in a vain attempt to stay on-topic !) ?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:13:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on
this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little.
When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting
a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....



Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


But buying the cheapest solution / product, is not what the good man
advises...

Of course - which was my point....

That was written in the last 1800s. We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today. It is at times
cheaper to buy lower to mid range mass produced products, that are
expendable. Domestic fridges come to mind. If a compressor goes it is not
worth replacing the compressor, as it would cost more than a new fridge. A
new fridge can come with a 2 or 3 years guarantee too. You can pay silly
money for a fridge and have the compressor replaced when duff, but is it
worth it? Is it cost effective? Usually not.

The same applies to washing machines. Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying top range white goods.

In other goods it is worth going for the highest quality, but it not always
the case that paying more means better or it being cost effective.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:13:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on
this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little.
When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting
a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....



Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


But buying the cheapest solution / product, is not what the good man
advises...

Of course - which was my point....


So why do you think MT had read the good advise ?!...

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:13:27 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 22:40:55 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:
"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
snip

John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on
this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make
a
little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys
on
price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

'It is unwise to pay too much, but it is worse to pay too little.
When
you pay too much, you lose a little money ... that is all. When
you
pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing
you
bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The
common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and
getting
a
lot... it cannot be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it
is
well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that,
you
will have enough to pay for the something better!"


I wonder if M Thatcher ever read his wise words ?....


Probably. I think everybody should when buying something.


But buying the cheapest solution / product, is not what the good man
advises...

Of course - which was my point....

That was written in the last 1800s. We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today. snip

What total bo**ocks, but what else do we expect from IMM... :~(

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




That was written in the last 1800s.

It doesn't matter - the principles still apply and always will do.

We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today.

No he isn't. You could have made the same argument with respect to
the changes in cloth production brought about by the industrial
revolution.


It is at times
cheaper to buy lower to mid range mass produced products, that are
expendable. Domestic fridges come to mind. If a compressor goes it is not
worth replacing the compressor, as it would cost more than a new fridge. A
new fridge can come with a 2 or 3 years guarantee too. You can pay silly
money for a fridge and have the compressor replaced when duff, but is it
worth it? Is it cost effective? Usually not.

In effect, one of the quotations describes the total cost of ownership
in that one has to reserve money to deal with problems that could have
been put to buying a better product in the first place.

By buying a better quality and more expensive product, you are in a
better position in consumer law. The guarantees offered are merely a
convenience and do not replace it.



The same applies to washing machines. Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying top range white goods.

I can understand that you wouldn't see the reason for buying top of
the range white goods.

I've bought top of the range products such as Miele and Liebherr for
the last 20 years and it certainly pays off. The quality,
usability and performance is better to begin with and absence of
having to screw around with repairs and replacements is worth a great
deal.


In other goods it is worth going for the highest quality, but it not always
the case that paying more means better or it being cost effective.

It usually does, and if there is a problem, one has a great deal of
leverage to get a resolution


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




That was written in the last 1800s.

It doesn't matter - the principles still apply and always will do.

We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today.

No he isn't.

He is. As these product were not there in the 1800s.

It is at times
cheaper to buy lower to mid range mass
produced products, that are
expendable. Domestic fridges come to mind.
If a compressor goes it is not
worth replacing the compressor, as it would
cost more than a new fridge. A
new fridge can come with a 2 or 3 years
guarantee too. You can pay silly
money for a fridge and have the compressor
replaced when duff, but is it
worth it? Is it cost effective? Usually not.

In effect, one of the quotations describes
the total cost of ownership
in that one has to reserve money to deal
with problems that could have
been put to buying a better product in
the first place.

He is on about 1800s products, not 21st century products. Meile's do brake
down, not as often as other products, but they do it costs to have them
repaired.

snip tripe about the law

The same applies to washing machines.
Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent
moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying
top range white goods.

I can understand that you wouldn't see the
reason for buying top of
the range white goods.

Because I have brains and have figured it out.

I've bought top of the range
products such as Miele and Liebherr for
the last 20 years and it certainly pays off.

Figures please. Comparison to a mid range product over the same period.

The quality,

Decent quality of course, biut you can usually buy two mid-range products
for the price of a Meile.

usability

? eh?

and performance is better to begin with

All washing machines, etc perform pretty much the same these days.

and absence of having to screw around with
repairs and replacements is worth a great
deal.

Repairs? In most cases you reepace the whole unit.

In other goods it is worth going for
the highest quality, but it not always
the case that paying more means better
or it being cost effective.

It usually does,

No. You should re-read the above again.

and if there is a problem, one has a great deal of
leverage to get a resolution

? eh?

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:55:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




That was written in the last 1800s.

It doesn't matter - the principles still apply and always will do.

We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today.

No he isn't.

He is. As these product were not there in the 1800s.

It doesn't matter what the product is or when - the principle is
timeless.




He is on about 1800s products, not 21st century products. Meile's do brake
down, not as often as other products, but they do it costs to have them
repaired.

Many have a 10 year warranty.

I've had two service calls in over 25 machine years, both warranty
covered.



snip tripe about the law

The most relevant piece.



The same applies to washing machines.
Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent
moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying
top range white goods.

I can understand that you wouldn't see the
reason for buying top of
the range white goods.

Because I have brains and have figured it out.

Mmmm.


I've bought top of the range
products such as Miele and Liebherr for
the last 20 years and it certainly pays off.

Figures please. Comparison to a mid range product over the same period.

4:1 IME



The quality,

Decent quality of course, biut you can usually buy two mid-range products
for the price of a Meile.

usability

? eh?

and performance is better to begin with

All washing machines, etc perform pretty much the same these days.

Not IME.



and absence of having to screw around with
repairs and replacements is worth a great
deal.

Repairs? In most cases you reepace the whole unit.

You might. I prefer to buy something that's good quality and with
a proper service backup.



..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
John Ruskin, the philosopher (1819-1900) had words of wisdom on
this.

"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make
a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who
buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. "

"on price alone" are the key words. When he was writing spending on
marketing was almost nil so there was probably a much better
correlation between price and quality. Lots of supermarket own-brand
products (not the white box ones) are identical to the branded ones;
with latter you are paying for the name and nothing else. If you
want something to do the job IME you are invariably better off by
buying something mid-market: e.g. in terms of quality and
reliability v. cost I am convinced that my Honda Jazz beats (for
example) a similarly size Hyundai or Audi A2.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:55:21 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "IMM" wrote:




That was written in the last 1800s.

It doesn't matter - the principles still apply and always will do.

We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today.

No he isn't.

He is. As these product were not there in the 1800s.

It doesn't matter what the product is or when - the principle is
timeless.




He is on about 1800s products, not 21st century products. Meile's do
brake
down, not as often as other products, but they do it costs to have them
repaired.

Many have a 10 year warranty.

I've had two service calls in over 25 machine years, both warranty
covered.



snip tripe about the law

The most relevant piece.



The same applies to washing machines.
Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent
moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying
top range white goods.

I can understand that you wouldn't see the
reason for buying top of
the range white goods.

Because I have brains and have figured it out.

Mmmm.


I've bought top of the range
products such as Miele and Liebherr for
the last 20 years and it certainly pays off.

Figures please. Comparison to a mid range product over the same period.

4:1 IME



The quality,

Decent quality of course, biut you can usually buy two mid-range products
for the price of a Meile.

usability

? eh?

and performance is better to begin with

All washing machines, etc perform pretty much the same these days.

Not IME.



and absence of having to screw around with
repairs and replacements is worth a great
deal.

Repairs? In most cases you reepace the whole unit.

You might. I prefer to buy something that's good quality and with
a proper service backup.

In short, you haven't figured it out yet.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:57:28 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



Repairs? In most cases you reepace the whole unit.

You might. I prefer to buy something that's good quality and with
a proper service backup.

In short, you haven't figured it out yet.

In short, I certainly have.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Because I have brains and have figured it out.


Talk about ROFLOWPMS !....

On 26 Sep 2004 22:08:02 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

One of the best ones we had was someone ordered a bulk pack of D
cells and some of the 30W tubular filament lamps. The box arrived
with the powdered glass leaking out of all the corners -- yes they
were all just loose inside.

Aye, in my case it was 30A cartridge fuses and a 4" drill press vice.
Screwfix have done similar, 25 x 450mm SDS drill loose in single
walled cardboard box, nice hole in box and another, smaller, SDS drill
missing.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In message , Andy Hall
wrote



How many people must have bought, say, cheap paint only to find that it
either doesn't cover as well (so you need more) or that it doesn't stand up
to the riggers of everyday living (in a vain attempt to stay on-topic !) ?


How many people have bought paint expensively and found that it does the
same. Price is often not a good guide to quality.

--
Alan

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
wrote


[ note: I made the remarks bellow ]



How many people must have bought, say, cheap paint only to find that it
either doesn't cover as well (so you need more) or that it doesn't stand
up
to the riggers of everyday living (in a vain attempt to stay on-topic !)
?


How many people have bought paint expensively and found that it does the
same. Price is often not a good guide to quality.


Very few I expect. Oh, and please learn how to post, or more to the point
get your attributions correct...

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
wrote


[ note: I made the remarks bellow ]

DID YOU!



How many people must have bought, say, cheap paint only to find that it
either doesn't cover as well (so you need more) or that it doesn't stand
up
to the riggers of everyday living (in a vain attempt to stay on-topic !)
?
Were they aerial riggers or some other sort?



How many people have bought paint expensively and found that it does the
same. Price is often not a good guide to quality.


Very few I expect. Oh, and please learn how to post, or more to the point
get your attributions correct...


--
Chris Green

wrote in message ...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
wrote


[ note: I made the remarks bellow ]

DID YOU!

Yes !!! Read Andy's message again and you will see the tail end of some
quoted text at the bottom, that is what has been replied to.

snip trolling

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , G&M wrote:
Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant
closure will have a massive negative effect on the local economy
so I cannot believe the Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what
the local council thought it was playing at by not allowing an
expansion. Successful businesses need to expand and if an area
gets known for not allowing this, new businesses won't move there
in the first place.

You forget, perhaps, that business rates don't go to the local
council but into a central pot which is then distributed out using
some arcane formula. So SSDC get 1/723 (or whatever) of what Screwfix
pay in rates regardless of where they are located. Of course there is
the issue of votes as well, but that could work more than one way.

Business rates are small and should be abolished anyway. The real gain to
the council is more local people being employed and so not hogging up their
social services department.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
Agreed. Although twice the number of people, the Jaguar plant closure
will
have a massive negative effect on the local economy so I cannot
believe
the
Screwfix closure won't. One wonders what the local council thought it
was
playing at by not allowing an expansion.

See other posts but Screwfix withdrew the application. The stumbling
block
was that they wanted to build in open countryside well outside the
development limits. Those limits were not set by the local council but
effectively by central government. It is a common misconception that
local
planning authorities have carte blanche when in fact their powers are
constrained by all sorts of Whitehall imposed red tape. The council did
want
Screwfix to expand in Yeovil but not into that particular place.
However,
my own theory is that Screwfix wanted to have a distribution centre much
closer to the centre of the country and with good motorway access
rather
than be far from both. The application in Yeovil was probably a PR
exercise
to allow them to blame the council for the redundancies.

That could be the case. I was reading that Liverpool FC have applied to
build a stadium on a listed Victorian park next to their existing old
ground. Apparently the local council gave them permission, but the project
has to go to Whitehall for approval being sensitive. Some journos think
they
may know they haven't a chance of getting it as every tree hugger for 200
miles around would descend on the park.

It was approved today so the tree huggers are probably on their way. At
least it's cold and wet for them !!

:::Jerry:::: wrote:

wrote in message ...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Andy Hall
wrote


[ note: I made the remarks bellow ]

DID YOU!

Yes !!! Read Andy's message again and you will see the tail end of some
quoted text at the bottom, that is what has been replied to.

Maybe I should have added a smiley, Andy meant 'below' not 'bellow'.

--
Chris Green

In message , IMM writes


That was written in the last 1800s. We now have computerised mass
production, so he is way off mark to many products of today. It is at times
cheaper to buy lower to mid range mass produced products, that are
expendable. Domestic fridges come to mind. If a compressor goes it is not
worth replacing the compressor, as it would cost more than a new fridge. A
new fridge can come with a 2 or 3 years guarantee too. You can pay silly
money for a fridge and have the compressor replaced when duff, but is it
worth it? Is it cost effective? Usually not.

The same applies to washing machines. Condensing tumble dryers have to be
decent quality as the seals have to prevent moisture from entering the room.
About the only case I can see of buying top range white goods.

In other goods it is worth going for the highest quality, but it not always
the case that paying more means better or it being cost effective.


What about the planet .......
--
mark