?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

scandals of sunday

I asked timscience what he thought should be done about the scandalous cost of big bras (having noticed the Boobs 4 Justice teacupstorm wimbling across my friendslist) and he suggested making them cheaper by using less material, so that they become more diaphanous and flimsier. Methinks I hear the voice of self interest there.

Speaking of bras, the photographer from the midsummer ball just got round to uploading his also rans (I didn't make it into his top 100, which will teach me to wear a high neck dress). Check out special midsummer masquerade Jeremy! With pint of ale, mobile phone, and oh, a photograph I didn't notice being taken. Deluxe version comes with horsedrawn carriage, Baileys over ice and says "Let us in we're disabled!" to night porters when startled by Salisbury squaddies.

Oh, and to the 1.5 people who might be interested, here's a house. It'll certainly go before we can get out purchase requirement ducks into even a vague row, but it's nice, isn't it? You're looking at the slice o' brie shaped corner plot. We also saw a small place with a heavily overlooked garden, a broken boiler, and a cenobite in the corner of the kitchen which was, well, less enticing.

The estate agent recognised me from last time. For a moment she didn't know what to say. Fortunately, the house we were looking round contained a small and adorable rescue parrot called Alex, who broke the ice with a cheeky whistle.

Comments

( 22 worms — Feed the birds )
emperor
13th Jul, 2008 21:03 (UTC)
That's a lovely outfit!
brixtonbrood
13th Jul, 2008 22:13 (UTC)
Love the frock (and you looked great in it).

Also liking the garden attached to the house, but the main thing I noticed from that picture is that every other house really does have a trampoline in the back garden. When did that happen? I kind of knew that it was happening because we started automatically excluding them from the liability element of household insurance policies, but that was in America. Sorry, I appear to have digressed. Good luck with the house though.
smallbeasts
14th Jul, 2008 06:39 (UTC)
The next two houses along our street have trampolines. I think child benefit was paid in trampoline vouchers one week, but we were away and missed it.
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 10:17 (UTC)
aren't some of them giant paddling pools?
Since the great Argos vs. B&Q price wars have brought the price of trampolines down to less than taking the whole family out to the cinema, I think.

I can safely say it's a family area, though, hm?
zengineer
14th Jul, 2008 14:18 (UTC)
Re: aren't some of them giant paddling pools?
Also children are no longer allowed to play outside the fence in case they are eaten by bad people so this is the only way to get them exercised.
benchilada
14th Jul, 2008 03:33 (UTC)
The High Street retailer said that the added cost - typically £2 - was "standard industry practice".

"We were only doing our jobs."

...

Okay, I feel a little dirty now.

But just a little.
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 10:00 (UTC)
You win a prize! It's Jeremy Clarkson!


hitler cat wants leibensraum
hitler cat wants leibensraum
Moah leibensraum!



Oh wait -- no. It's a cat that looks like Hitler.
benchilada
14th Jul, 2008 13:17 (UTC)
I can always trust you to inform me about the strangest celebrity British...
phlebas
14th Jul, 2008 08:25 (UTC)
Diaphanous is a lovely word.
jinty
14th Jul, 2008 09:19 (UTC)
I particularly like the photo you didn't notice being taken
and pooh to people if they think low-cut gowns are the best criterion for photogenicness. (Is that a word? photogenicity maybe?)

Edited at 2008-07-14 09:20 (UTC)
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 09:42 (UTC)
Oh, I was up against some champion posers!
secretrebel
14th Jul, 2008 09:28 (UTC)
Slice of Brie house! Huzzah!

(What happened with the estate agent last time?)
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 09:40 (UTC)
it's nice, but I don't think we'll get it
The last time I saw Jenna Jones, estate agent! I was also buying a house -- but that time with damiancugley.
jinty
14th Jul, 2008 10:15 (UTC)
Heh!
She thinks you've had a sudden breakup and are moving in with someone else on the rebound?
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 10:25 (UTC)
Re: Heh!
No, inbetween teasing the parrot, I explained the situation.
zengineer
14th Jul, 2008 14:28 (UTC)
Their half hearted excuse for the extra £2 was the hand finishing required. Now we all know that M&S hand finishing is carried out by Chinese near slaves who get paid about £2/month so that won't wash. They also said this is standard practice which translates as 'there is a cartel and we have decided to join it'.
Campaign I say - or don't and allow larger women to subsidise my underpants.
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 15:36 (UTC)
I'd probably best go look again
-- but the last time I looked, the DD+ bra was actually a completely different bra, cut, style, everything. It's a more complicated technical problem, and I'm prepared to pay to have it solved right.

It's not usually a question of just scaling up -- although if they have some new budget range where this is what they're doing then a) the bras will be shit at any price and b) they certainly shouldn't be charging more for them.

The only out-and-out fair trade bras I've ever seen were aimed at people too ethical to need anything as mundane as actual support (look! a picture!).

Although M&S's Fair Trade clothes range doesn't include bras AFAIK as early sign-ups to the Clothes Code campaign way back last century sometime they have been doing their bit.
zengineer
14th Jul, 2008 16:23 (UTC)
Re: I'd probably best go look again
It does seem I was a bit hasty. Being a different cut and style doesn't automatically make things more expensive. I do cost estimation of manufacturable items and once you are in the 100000s or more cost is reduced in roughly equal parts to material (which for polymers and presumable cloth is around a fiver per kilo), number of operations which affects cycle time and hence labour cost and machine amortisation. The last two are roughly equal because you automate until you are spending as much on machine amortisation as you do on labour and it's not worth while after that. I reckon a complex bra should cost about £3 to make - the rest is marketing, sales, product diversity and profit.
cleanskies
14th Jul, 2008 16:40 (UTC)
Re: I'd probably best go look again
I think you can get it down a bit below that if you're prepared to get nasty. Primark sell bigger bras for £3 (I think -- I've not checked them out myself).



brixtonbrood
14th Jul, 2008 22:37 (UTC)
I'm somewhat baffled by the bra thing, because a) clothes for kids often cost a little bit more for each few increments in size (and they're exactly the same design) and b) how many bras would the woman protesting have to buy per year for it to be remotely worth her person hours setting up a protest website? Is there really nothing more cost-effective for her to complain about? I am reminded, as so often, of Chris Morris and the jam making lady.
cleanskies
15th Jul, 2008 10:12 (UTC)
hmm, yes
-- that was my immediate thought, too -- but then I'm old enough to remember when I could only afford one bra because in my size, they cost £35, only come in one style, and (incidentally) wouldn't look out of place in the surgical supports section.

That clearly isn't the case any more, but possibly the bra companies are still trading on the imagined gratefulness of a deprived population -- which the 19 year olds, who can't remember a time before multicoloured £5 bras from Primark, are inevitably taking issue with.

P.S. A Facebook group? Ten minutes, tops.
cleanskies
15th Jul, 2008 10:13 (UTC)
Although I get your point about Chris Morris and the jam
( 22 worms — Feed the birds )