• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Yeezy does it.

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Yeezy does it."

Collapse

  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by Snooky View Post

    I know all about that thanks, I was wondering what it had to do with the specific subject being discussed.

    Disclosure: I volunteer for Oxfam and they do a huge amount of good in the world, despite those scandals. Following that, they had a massive overhaul of how they operate to minimise the chance of anything like that happening again.
    That's nice, not "stamp out" but "minimise" - still, I guess lessons were learned and all that...

    Leave a comment:


  • Snooky
    replied
    Originally posted by Zigenare View Post
    I know all about that thanks, I was wondering what it had to do with the specific subject being discussed.

    Disclosure: I volunteer for Oxfam and they do a huge amount of good in the world, despite those scandals. Following that, they had a massive overhaul of how they operate to minimise the chance of anything like that happening again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by Snooky View Post

    Care to elaborate?
    <Cough>Learn to Google...</Cough>
    https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/voice...t-scandal.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Snooky
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Of course not. <cough>Oxfam<cough>
    Care to elaborate?

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by DoctorStrangelove View Post

    In my tatterdemalion case, it's almost nothing, though the ancient, much repaired, pair of M&S cords have finally reached the stage of meeting the rag bag when the recent repair to the repair required a further repair.
    You strike me as the kind of person who would own a darning mushroom.

    Leave a comment:


  • DoctorStrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    THe amount of clothing a person typically discards in a year is very low and that's after getting use out of it.
    In my tatterdemalion case, it's almost nothing, though the ancient, much repaired, pair of M&S cords have finally reached the stage of meeting the rag bag when the recent repair to the repair required a further repair.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Zigenare View Post

    As do consumers.
    Most consumers don't burn huge piles of brand new clothes. THe amount of clothing a person typically discards in a year is very low and that's after getting use out of it.

    This is a very "all lives matter" kind of response IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by Zigenare View Post

    As do consumers.
    well the clothing bins at supermarkets and bags put out for charity always seem to be full.

    Now if you funded such initiatives by say a tax on shop & internet sales it would make sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zigenare
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    That's the problem with large corporate attitudes to recycling. There's materials there which *could* be repurposed but they would rather douse the lot in petrol because their shareholders will consider the cost of recycling to be more impactful than the reputational damage of not considering a more eco friendly solution.

    Manufacturers need to be accountable for the disposal of their products.
    As do consumers.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Cost to do it will far outweigh the benefit. Who's going to pay? Every option is unattractive so sounds simple but it's proper millstone they've got there. No good answer to their quandary.
    That's the problem with large corporate attitudes to recycling. There's materials there which *could* be repurposed but they would rather douse the lot in petrol because their shareholders will consider the cost of recycling to be more impactful than the reputational damage of not considering a more eco friendly solution.

    Manufacturers need to be accountable for the disposal of their products.

    Leave a comment:


  • pr1
    replied
    Originally posted by Zigenare View Post

    To be written off against any tax bills - after the trademark fees have been paid to the mothership of course.
    Indeed, at cost price £1.1bn is a hell of a lot of product, at "yeezy" RRP it's probably about six pairs of trainers

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
    Or they could recycle the materials? It's the more socially responsible thing to do even if burning them is cheaper.
    Cost to do it will far outweigh the benefit. Who's going to pay? Every option is unattractive so sounds simple but it's proper millstone they've got there. No good answer to their quandary.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Or they could recycle the materials? It's the more socially responsible thing to do even if burning them is cheaper.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post

    don't shame the charities!
    Of course not. <cough>Oxfam<cough>

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post

    Because the poor people are likely to rely on a supply chain of highly corrupt organisations who will intercept them and they'll appear for sale just lining some criminals pocket rather than being used for what is intended which causes more harm than good.
    don't shame the charities!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X