Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:52 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

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.

I thought this was a wind-up until I saw your further response lower down.
So, are you are saying (because it certainly sounds like it) that when we see people being killed in unsafe buildings abroad to provide us with disposable clothing, the appropriate response is to do the same here in order to compete on price?
Please tell me you were being ironic.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:21 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

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.

trolling? the fact you don't like people pointing out you're posting nonsense or just plain hypocritical poop is you're problem, not mine. if it bugs you that much run off and tell the teacher.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:28 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Unsurprisingly, you didn't.
Also unsurprisingly, you seem to have missed the point that the ethics and morality of cheap manufacture is what the thread is about.

you should read what i actually wrote in response to what was posted as opposed to just making up stuff.

it's not a question of morals or ethics, people want/have to work. before there was these sweatshops people weren't driving to the fields in rolls royces.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:47 pm  

samwire wrote:

it's not a question of morals or ethics,

Of course it is that is the whole basis of the first post.

samwire wrote:

people want/have to work. before there was these sweatshops people weren't driving to the fields in rolls royces.

And that means we in the West should exploit them to feed our cheap retail society?
I have no doubt that even with this work they are driving to work, nevermind in a Roller.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:35 pm  

samwire wrote:

trolling? the fact you don't like people pointing out you're posting nonsense or just plain hypocritical poop is you're problem, not mine. if it bugs you that much run off and tell the teacher.

He very kindly reposted a comment that I had made, in general, on another thread.

You have a choice.

Learn from it. Or you're history.

It's entirely up to you.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:30 am  

Big Graeme wrote: Of course it is that is the whole basis of the first post. no, the first post is the usual 5 minute reaction to something poop that happened. next week it'll be something else. lets not pretend we give a toss, otherwise we wouldn't fill our cars with fuel from those lovely places in the middle east or use mobile phones with that ethically mined coltan. and then there's apple, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply, "demonising" children to build pretty computers, but hey, it's their "industry standard" and everyone uses 'em. And that means we in the West should exploit them to feed our cheap retail society? absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve.

Big Graeme wrote: Of course it is that is the whole basis of the first post. no, the first post is the usual 5 minute reaction to something poop that happened. next week it'll be something else. lets not pretend we give a toss, otherwise we wouldn't fill our cars with fuel from those lovely places in the middle east or use mobile phones with that ethically mined coltan. and then there's apple, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply, "demonising" children to build pretty computers, but hey, it's their "industry standard" and everyone uses 'em. And that means we in the West should exploit them to feed our cheap retail society? absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:43 am  

Mintball wrote:

Learn from it. Or you're history.

It's entirely up to you.

oh bless. you think i should just roll over and have my belly tickled because i don't agree with you? below seems to be all you're capable of when people don't just do that.

Mintball wrote:Christ samwire, you're a thick and unpleasant little f*ck, aren't you? Is that what your mummy taught you?
Was she as nasty a piece as you patently are? And as thick?
Obviously the two do often come together – and in you, we see them in perfect harmony. So it seems fair to ask if that's genetic

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:13 pm  

samwire wrote:

absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve.

Without pressure things will never improve, it is naive in the extreme to think the retailers and manufacturers would seek to improve pay & conditions (and as a direct consequence, costs), without pressure from consumers.

It's not that long ago that virtually every egg and chicken sold in the UK came from battery farms, if you wanted free range, you had to buy from farm gates. Now the vast majority of eggs sold are free range and sales of free-range poultry are growing. This was a direct result of consumer pressure, following high-profile campaigning from groups with an interest in animal welfare. I can't recall the last time I heard anyone moaning about the price of eggs or chicken.

Wearing fur is now a great taboo, sweat-shop produced rags could easily go the same way. All that is required is a will and consumer pressure

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:23 pm  

samwire wrote:

oh bless. you think i should just roll over and have my belly tickled because i don't agree with you? below seems to be all you're capable of when people don't just do that.

Bye.

Re: The Price of Cheap Clothes : Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:29 pm  

samwire wrote: no, the first post is the usual 5 minute reaction to something poop that happened. next week it'll be something else. lets not pretend we give a toss, otherwise we wouldn't fill our cars with fuel from those lovely places in the middle east or use mobile phones with that ethically mined coltan. and then there's apple, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply, "demonising" children to build pretty computers, but hey, it's their "industry standard" and everyone uses 'em. absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve. Fantastic. Because it's "better then what they were doing before" let's use people working in conditions that we have gradually outlawed in our own country since Victorian times. You seem to think that because you can present other examples of unethical trading that one more doesn't make any difference ... it does. Are morals just an irrelevant nuisance to you?

samwire wrote: no, the first post is the usual 5 minute reaction to something poop that happened. next week it'll be something else. lets not pretend we give a toss, otherwise we wouldn't fill our cars with fuel from those lovely places in the middle east or use mobile phones with that ethically mined coltan. and then there's apple, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-child-labour-supply, "demonising" children to build pretty computers, but hey, it's their "industry standard" and everyone uses 'em. absolutely. because no matter how crap the conditions seem to us they're better than what they were doing before, which was mainly starving. in time, things will improve. Fantastic. Because it's "better then what they were doing before" let's use people working in conditions that we have gradually outlawed in our own country since Victorian times. You seem to think that because you can present other examples of unethical trading that one more doesn't make any difference ... it does. Are morals just an irrelevant nuisance to you?