editor
hiraethified
How does that work, then? They're both businesses that can afford to pay premium rents.At least it quashes the idea that traders are being kicked out in favour of 'the right kind' of business.
How does that work, then? They're both businesses that can afford to pay premium rents.At least it quashes the idea that traders are being kicked out in favour of 'the right kind' of business.
Surely it's the opposite? the council want businesses that can afford to pay NR's hiked rents and these businesses have different contracts that allowed them to stay.At least it quashes the idea that traders are being kicked out in favour of 'the right kind' of business.
Curse you and your obvious logic!Surely it's the opposite? the council want businesses that can afford to pay NR's hiked rents and these businesses have different contracts that allowed them to stay.
Ha! You believed their lies!Because 'the right kind' of businesses were the kind that catered to the 'nu-Brixton clientèle'. Guess I got that wrong. Although I doubt they are simply interested in payment of the high rents - not sure a string of well funded sex shops for example would be considered acceptable; even if they paid very promptly.
Yep. At that 'meeting' in the Rec ages ago I asked one the NR people about this and he said 'we really would like to get them out but we can't', because different contracts.I think it's that pawnbrokers/bookies etc have long employed savvy legal teams to insert 'no eviction' clauses in their leases. It's probably because they consider themselves vulnerable to changes in the law that might seek to evict them, based on campaigns/clampdowns on unscrupulous businesses etc.
Seems odd doesn't it - maybe those arches weren't in need of refurb? Seems unlikely. Maybe they had some unbreakable contract and have the resources to take NR to court if they turfed them out?
At least it quashes the idea that traders are being kicked out in favour of 'the right kind' of business.
Because 'the right kind' of businesses were the kind that catered to the 'nu-Brixton clientèle'. Guess I got that wrong. Although I doubt they are simply interested in payment of the high rents - not sure a string of well funded sex shops for example would be considered acceptable; even if they paid very promptly.
Ann Summers are struggling too: Ann Summers falls into the red with £3.6m full-year lossYou really need to keep up with how business operates. Sex shops - most of that is now online. They are dying out even in places like Soho.
Unless one counts a more tasteful run business like Ann Summers....
a more tasteful run business like Ann Summers
Coco de mer went bust ages ago and were bought by an online giant called lovehoney .
Ye but the big company (largest online retailer in its field in the uk) bought the name and the debts, its like Tescos buying a small independent retailer & keeping the high end signage for kudos.Still have a shop in Covent Garden in Monmouth street opposite the hotel.
The sex shops referred to are clothing and toy retailers rather than pornographers - but people prefer to shop online these days for obvious reasons.How come everyone knows so much about sex shops?
Yep. It would probably be a mistake wrt the arches to ignore the impact of the massive move to online shopping for pretty much everything.The sex shops referred to are clothing and toy retailers rather than pornographers - but people prefer to shop online these days for obvious reasons.
Can someone please explain to me why the parasitic pawnbrokers and the betting some get to stay?
Looks like they've started, at last.Same thing has happened in Herne Hill. Idiots.
ask carpet man he's happy (wrong word I know) to talk about itAnyone know what the legal basis of the court action is?