Topic ID 3842
Just heard on the radio that the Sun got hold of the Starbucks use of continuous waterflow story from a customer visiting the Hertford store (presuming they don't mean one of the other countless Hertfords around the world!!).
Reply ID 55595
Shame they didn't bring up the planning issues as well!
Reply ID 55602
why would they? Not as if it made any difference to Starbucks.
Reply ID 55608
quote:Yup. It was Cuffley.
Originally posted by nuts
Just heard on the radio that the Sun got hold of the Starbucks use of continuous waterflow story from a customer visiting the Hertford store (presuming they don't mean one of the other countless Hertfords around the world!!).
Reply ID 55611
Oh, the Sun reporter on Radio 2 yesterday specifically said Hertford (not Hertfordshire)....but then why should he know his away around this county!! (Didn't know Cuffley had one, that is proliferation!!!)
Reply ID 55619
Please can you advise: what is the continuous water flow issue? Don't get the Sun so have no clue!
Reply ID 55620
quote:It's the effect that drinking copious amounts of Starbuck's "coffee" has upon those with weak bladders [:D]
Originally posted by Mr P
Please can you advise: what is the continuous water flow issue? Don't get the Sun so have no clue!
Reply ID 55621
If The Sun is correct Starbucks all over the world had a rule that a tap had to be left running at all times in order to wash spoons. They said it was to stop germs forming in the tap...............
Reply ID 55622
quote:The report was covered by all the major news orgaisations - TV, newspapers, radio... Try this aggregate... http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/?JavaScript=1&search=starbucks ... or see the BBC's coverage ... Starbucks denies it wastes water http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/?JavaScript=1&search=starbucks
Originally posted by Mr P
Please can you advise: what is the continuous water flow issue? Don't get the Sun so have no clue!
Reply ID 55623
quote:Which was widely rubbished by water companies, health and safety organisations etc etc.
Originally posted by Marilyn
They said it was to stop germs forming in the tap...............
Reply ID 55626
quote:Yes should have added that, always thought that is why water is treated before it comes out of the tap [:D]
Originally posted by Stevequote:Which was widely rubbished by water companies, health and safety organisations etc etc.
Originally posted by Marilyn
They said it was to stop germs forming in the tap...............
Reply ID 55627
Yet another case of Starbucks presuming that they can do what they like and sod everyone else. I for one would never go into the place
Reply ID 55630
quote:Yippee! For once we agree! [:D]
Originally posted by buzz
Yet another case of Starbucks presuming that they can do what they like and sod everyone else. I for one would never go into the place
Reply ID 55646
I watched the Starbucks running tap set-up in a London branch this morning whilst waiting for a coffee. Strange set-up - they have what looks a bit like a cutlery drainer (metal container with holes punched in it) set into work-top, with a small tap continuously running into it. It isn't powerful, but is proabbly the flow of water you'd get if you turned on a standard kitchen tap just far enough to get a running stream of water. The odd result is that the spoons are sitting in dirty water all the time, it's just that it's being topped up continuously with clean water.
Reply ID 55649
I never go ina Starbucks and if friends or colleagues suggest going to a Starbucks I will point out exactly why I will not. The more people who understand this company and their practices the better.
Reply ID 55651
quote:That doesn't make any sense at all.
Originally posted by Kate
The odd result is that the spoons are sitting in dirty water all the time, it's just that it's being topped up continuously with clean water.
Reply ID 55662
Why can't the spoons just go in a dishwasher like the cups presumeably do?
Reply ID 55669
quote:They seem to use the running water 'sink' for very large spoons used to scoop out the frothy milk. I guess if they put them in the dish-washer they'd need a huge number of large spoons in order to have a new spoon for pretty much every drink made.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
Why can't the spoons just go in a dishwasher like the cups presumeably do?
Reply ID 55675
quote:Thanks for clarifying Kate. As its my previous experience that the product is overpriced and mediocre I don't frequent the places.
Originally posted by Katequote:They seem to use the running water 'sink' for very large spoons used to scoop out the frothy milk. I guess if they put them in the dish-washer they'd need a huge number of large spoons in order to have a new spoon for pretty much every drink made.
Originally posted by Leo Densian
Why can't the spoons just go in a dishwasher like the cups presumeably do?
Reply ID 55678
simple solution just put them on water meters.....watch those taps be turned off
Reply ID 55976
Forget the running water, I reckon these coffee shops will be the second type of retail business to go down the drain (after estate agents) when the recession hits us after Christmas.
Reply ID 55977
I'm sure they do have a water meter.....but the staff don't pay the bill!
Reply ID 58509
I've just seen that there is a new planning application and it's a retrospective one, registered on 5th December 2008. Publicity starts on New Year's Eve. [url="http://e-services.eastherts.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=3/08/2069/FP&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=130145%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=277125%26StartIndex=81%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=WPHAPPSEARCHRES%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display?paSearchKey=130145%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E/"]Starbucks Planning Application[/url]
Reply ID 58516
Hmm, a retrospective application for Retention of Use (as opposed to Change of Use). Is this some sort of chicanery? Unfortunately, the precedent has already been set... [url="http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=7756"]Council Outrage At Appeal Decision[/url] "East Herts Council has expressed outrage at the flagrant disregard for local democracy shown by the Planning Inspectorate in relation to Caffe Nero in Bishop's Stortford" "Cllr Malcolm Alexander, executive member for community safety and protection said: "East Herts Council has done everything in its power to prevent Caffe Nero's manipulating the system to benefit its own aggressive expansion. "By undermining the council's decision, the Planning Inspectorate has now paved the way for more multi-national chains to ignore local plans and monopolise more retail space in our towns. East Herts Council is very concerned at the detrimental effect this can have on smaller local businesses." "A similar situation exists in respect to Starbucks in Hertford. That appeal is likely to be heard in January 2009."
Reply ID 58518
Always pleased to hear about outrage at East Herts but I would have been more impressed if they had adopted the same attitude towards the Caffe Nero application in Hertford. That was when the precedent was set. Even as work begun and despite local traders drawing Council's attention to blatant ignorance of planning, the Enforcement team let it go ahead. This was a prime A1 site redesignated A3 on the grounds of percentage of take away items. And there is still the outstanding item of the £15000 for new furniture in Salisbury Square. All one can say in defence of Starbucks is that they did go through the proper planning procedure and were in constant negotiation with East Herts. Unfortunately it didn't quite pan out as they expected.
Reply ID 58519
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value. God knows we have enough empty shells of shops and soon to have another huge one when Woolworths go. Like it or not people like well known shops as well as independents.
Reply ID 58520
quote:That as may be, but you are ignoring the fact that Starbucks just steam-rollered their way ahead paying no attention to the refusal of the initial planning application. Serendipity, on the other hand, played by the rules and lost out. What sort of message does that send out to any business in Hertford?
Originally posted by aubend
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value. God knows we have enough empty shells of shops and soon to have another huge one when Woolworths go. Like it or not people like well known shops as well as independents.
Reply ID 58521
quote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58522
quote:I think that's not even far enough. The fact is, we are going to lose a lot of independents before April (as many as ten) when suppliers foreclose on their debt. Unlike the multinational, they won't be able to get credit elsewhere because the banks won't give it them and they'll become insolvent. A town full of independents is likely to be the ghost town this time next year, not one like Newmarket which has a strong choice of shops. And sorry, the but they're in every other town argument just doesn't hold. They're in every other town for a reason – because that's what people want.
Originally posted by aubend
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value. God knows we have enough empty shells of shops and soon to have another huge one when Woolworths go. Like it or not people like well known shops as well as independents.
Reply ID 58524
quote:Sad but true. My own study actually agreed with that of Chase & Ptrs brought in by East Herts to do a retail survey. Out of 21 nationally agreed key attractors Hertford had only 7. Now its 6 with the demise of Woolworths. Macdonalds doesn't appear but the Rush Green outlet and the M&S drop in centre gives visitors another good reason to stay on the A10. I know that quite a few independents are just 'hanging in there'. Could be a few more famous Hertford names disappear over the next few months. But as there isn't a Local Hertford Plan such as exists in Stortford I have really no idea how the powers that be are going to attract the retail/independent/multiple/commercial mix that this town needs. As this is under a Starbucks thread what do you all think will happen if their application is refused. Because it won't go back on the market and it won't be an open door either. The premises might be blocked up and they'll move upstairs. The reason Caffe Nero went through is because it was already functioning and a local councillor said how pleasant it was to be washing his muffin down with a latte - before the application was approved I believe. Look in Starbucks. Stretching the point a bit but the area next door to Serendipity looks almost like a retail unit. Don't actually have to sell anything but I wonder who gave them that idea![}:)] No it wasn't me. And a Merry Christmas to all my readers.
And sorry, the but they're in every other town argument just doesn't hold. They're in every other town for a reason – because that's what people want
Reply ID 58560
quote:Don't be a plonker Spooky. Why do you think no one shops in Hertford and everyone shops in places like Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Brookfield, Harlow, Stevenage, Cambridge (Even Bishop's Stortford)? Because they all have CHAIN SHOPS. Get in the real world will you ?
Originally posted by spookyquote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58562
quote:Not everyone .........went to Bluewater once never again......only been to Lakeside twice but not through choice just happened to be where the coach trip was planned for much prefer to get as much as I can in Hertford and support the local retailers.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Don't be a plonker Spooky. Why do you think no one shops in Hertford and everyone shops in places like Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Brookfield, Harlow, Stevenage, Cambridge (Even Bishop's Stortford)? Because they all have CHAIN SHOPS. Get in the real world will you ?
Originally posted by spookyquote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58566
quote:I assume the reason why you don't ever want to go Bluewater again was because of the crowds?
Originally posted by Marilynquote:Not everyone .........went to Bluewater once never again......only been to Lakeside twice but not through choice just happened to be where the coach trip was planned for much prefer to get as much as I can in Hertford and support the local retailers.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Don't be a plonker Spooky. Why do you think no one shops in Hertford and everyone shops in places like Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Brookfield, Harlow, Stevenage, Cambridge (Even Bishop's Stortford)? Because they all have CHAIN SHOPS. Get in the real world will you ?
Originally posted by spookyquote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58568
quote:My mistake. Everyone except Marilyn. [:)]
Originally posted by Marilynquote:Not everyone .........went to Bluewater once never again......only been to Lakeside twice but not through choice just happened to be where the coach trip was planned for much prefer to get as much as I can in Hertford and support the local retailers.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Don't be a plonker Spooky. Why do you think no one shops in Hertford and everyone shops in places like Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Brookfield, Harlow, Stevenage, Cambridge (Even Bishop's Stortford)? Because they all have CHAIN SHOPS. Get in the real world will you ?
Originally posted by spookyquote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58698
quote:..and me.[:D]
Originally posted by aubendquote:My mistake. Everyone except Marilyn. [:)]
Originally posted by Marilynquote:Not everyone .........went to Bluewater once never again......only been to Lakeside twice but not through choice just happened to be where the coach trip was planned for much prefer to get as much as I can in Hertford and support the local retailers.
Originally posted by aubendquote:Don't be a plonker Spooky. Why do you think no one shops in Hertford and everyone shops in places like Bluewater, Lakeside, Brent Cross, Brookfield, Harlow, Stevenage, Cambridge (Even Bishop's Stortford)? Because they all have CHAIN SHOPS. Get in the real world will you ?
Originally posted by spookyquote:How does every town having the same national chains represent choice? If you want an example of how Hertford could go in this repect visit Newmarket the most boring towwn in Britain. I think Aubend is a forum troll...
This anti national chains thing is wrong. This town needs more big chain shops to provide choice and value.
Reply ID 58753
and me... i haven't been to to bluewater / lakeside or anywhere like that for years. If I want anything Hertford can't supply Welwyn or St Albans does nicely. Sorry if that makes me a plonker!
Reply ID 58754
quote:Spot on , Welwyn and St Albans covers most things .
Originally posted by spooky
If I want anything Hertford can't supply Welwyn or St Albans does nicely. Sorry if that makes me a plonker!
Reply ID 58756
Likewise. These big chainstore complexes are all the same. Doesn't matter which you visit, the choice, or lack of it is identical. They rely on high volume, so you'll only see very standard stuff at the standard price over and over. That really sums Starbucks up. Their products are designed to be innoffensive, rather than exceptional. Sadly, they even fail to achieve bland.
Reply ID 58763
quote:The sofas are nice though .. oh, and the Almond Croissants.
Originally posted by shunt
Likewise. These big chainstore complexes are all the same. Doesn't matter which you visit, the choice, or lack of it is identical. They rely on high volume, so you'll only see very standard stuff at the standard price over and over. That really sums Starbucks up. Their products are designed to be innoffensive, rather than exceptional. Sadly, they even fail to achieve bland.
Reply ID 58795
quote:Because they have plenty of big chain shops!
Originally posted by Donostia
Spot on , Welwyn and St Albans covers most things .
Reply ID 58796
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by jez_pquote:Because they have plenty of big chain shops!
Originally posted by Donostia
Spot on , Welwyn and St Albans covers most things .
Reply ID 58798
quote:I don't recall ever thinking, "I must drive 40 miles, park half a mile from anywhere in a windy wasteland to get a cold brown liquid served in a flowerpot, which contains hardly any coffee." Anybody else noticed an extreme coffee shortage in Hertford which Starbucks is suposedly saving us from?
Originally posted by Brockmanquote:Exactly.
Originally posted by jez_pquote:Because they have plenty of big chain shops!
Originally posted by Donostia
Spot on , Welwyn and St Albans covers most things .
Reply ID 58801
quote:No, fair enough when it comes to Starbucks in particular, but I know I was – and assume jez was – referring to chain stores in particular. Put it this way. I recently tried to find a shirt at the last minute – had a heart attack when I saw the prices in Dilemma, Hertford Jeans Shop had nothing that was smart (no offense), Yates was closed – granted I totally forgot about Roberto Gerrards but I assume shirts would have been expensive there too. I ended up plumping for a shirt on sale from Coles for £20. Anyway, I recently went clothes shopping in Liverpool and spend nearly £200 and got a pair of jeans, cargo pants, two shirts and a pair of Vans trainers from Topman, Burtons, River Island and Schuh. I'm not that stupid to think I could even get the quality or quantity of that stuff for anywhere near that price in Hertford. You see, the problem here is that when we say chain store, people seem to think of negative, down market stores. Hell, I can't see anything wrong with getting some of the more trendy stores in. Hertford wouldn't be hurt if Topman/shop, Burtons, River Island etc came to town. Hell, the only people who would be are the over priced stores currently in town. And before you shoot me down for that comment: when I can buy a full price train ticket to Stevenage and still buy a shirt of equal or higher quality for less than in Hertford, then they're overpriced – independent or not.
Originally posted by shuntquote:I don't recall ever thinking, "I must drive 40 miles, park half a mile from anywhere in a windy wasteland to get a cold brown liquid served in a flowerpot, which contains hardly any coffee." Anybody else noticed an extreme coffee shortage in Hertford which Starbucks is suposedly saving us from?
Originally posted by Brockmanquote:Exactly.
Originally posted by jez_pquote:Because they have plenty of big chain shops!
Originally posted by Donostia
Spot on , Welwyn and St Albans covers most things .
Reply ID 58803
I think we're drifting off-topic here.
Reply ID 58815
Coffee anyone? !
Reply ID 58816
Brockman you could have got your trainers like I did (Addidas) in the sports shop in Herford (Scotts?) - just as cheap as Next. I don't think Hertford Jeans is expensive either. Starbucks has NOTHING as good as the chocolate milkshakes in Serendipity.
Reply ID 58818
they do - seats indoors and fast service!
Reply ID 58823
And they are giving out (to regulars) a wallet where every day in Jan you get 50p of a drink per day :o)
Reply ID 58843
The problem I have with Starbucks is that even with 50p off a coffee every now and then its still yuk. And the menu is tiny compared to next door and just not as tasty. And I can't be bothered to learn Italian to order a coffee.
Reply ID 58845
quote:Oh if only the coffees were as Italian in character as the names suggest.
Originally posted by spooky
The problem I have with Starbucks is that even with 50p off a coffee every now and then its still yuk. And the menu is tiny compared to next door and just not as tasty. And I can't be bothered to learn Italian to order a coffee.
Reply ID 58857
quote:Just ask for a large Insipido. [:D]
Originally posted by spooky
And I can't be bothered to learn Italian to order a coffee.
Reply ID 58861
For non coffee Connoisseurs like myself, can someone explain why Starbucks is so incredibly successful if their coffee is apparently so awful? Thanks.
Reply ID 58867
quote:50p off will only bring the cost of their coffee in line with Nero's who make a far nicer coffee!
Originally posted by spooky
The problem I have with Starbucks is that even with 50p off a coffee every now and then its still yuk. And the menu is tiny compared to next door and just not as tasty. And I can't be bothered to learn Italian to order a coffee.
Reply ID 58870
quote:There are two ways an already well funded retailer (in this case from it's US operations) can expand into a market. One is to produce a superior product and compete, the other, like noughts and crosses, is to displace possible competition by getting your X into every box, using fiscal power to override planning objections and any initial losses of placing an outlet in an already well served location. Starbucks, Tesco and many others, all use the latter method. Starbuck's US success is largely due to the American's habit of only travelling the world in tin hats, taking domestic products with them. They are also not coffee connoisseurs.[:D]
Originally posted by aubend
For non coffee Connoisseurs like myself, can someone explain why Starbucks is so incredibly successful if their coffee is apparently so awful? Thanks.
Reply ID 58874
quote:The same reason why Carling and Fosters are so successful - the British aren't known for their sophisticated palates.
Originally posted by aubend
For non coffee Connoisseurs like myself, can someone explain why Starbucks is so incredibly successful if their coffee is apparently so awful? Thanks.
Reply ID 58878
quote:Thanks Steve. Basically it's because plebs like it. I see now.
Originally posted by Stevequote:The same reason why Carling and Fosters are so successful - the British aren't known for their sophisticated palates.
Originally posted by aubend
For non coffee Connoisseurs like myself, can someone explain why Starbucks is so incredibly successful if their coffee is apparently so awful? Thanks.
Reply ID 59960
The following article may be of interest. Wonder if the Hertford branch is one of those selected for closure? I feel sorry for the staff if it is, but will have no regrets about the company http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23630989-details/Starbucks+set+to+axe+hundreds+in+the+UK/article.do
Reply ID 59961
They must surely have got the message by now that they're not wanted in Hertford so let's hope it's one of the ones to close. I can't see that they make much money, there are enough people who know what they've done and won't go in there on principle. I'd also feel sorry for the staff, but if Serendipity had been allowed to expand into that unit, they would presumably have taken on more staff instead.
Reply ID 59967
quote:Trouble is, if you read the comments posted at the end of the article, it would seem that a lot of people in other places don't want them either!
Originally posted by dennismoore
They must surely have got the message by now that they're not wanted in Hertford so let's hope it's one of the ones to close. I can't see that they make much money, there are enough people who know what they've done and won't go in there on principle. I'd also feel sorry for the staff, but if Serendipity had been allowed to expand into that unit, they would presumably have taken on more staff instead.
Reply ID 59986
quote:Onviously they are welcome in Hertford otherwise they wouldn't have any customers whatsoever. I go there, & Serendipity too before any one kicks off [:p]
Originally posted by dennismoore
They must surely have got the message by now that they're not wanted in Hertford so let's hope it's one of the ones to close.
Reply ID 60000
quote:The only message they will be listening to is the ker-ching. Judging from what I have seen myself, I would imagine that they're disappointed. I've never seen it approaching anything that might be called busy. However, I'm sure they wouldn't be wasting time and effort appealing the council's decision if they didn't believe it was profitable.
Originally posted by dennismoore
They must surely have got the message by now that they're not wanted in Hertford so let's hope it's one of the ones to close.
Reply ID 61709
On the blog, it mentions that the council were discussing the appeal last Wednesday - any news??
Reply ID 61759
so, the appeal - is this to a higher body than the council then? The article said it was rejected for a 2nd time, so how can they still be trading out of the additional unit? Mind you, what will happen to the unit if they pull out of it? Serendipity weren't allowed it, so it will probably be just anothe rempty store in town.
Reply ID 61762
quote:They put in a second planning application whilst appealing to The Planning Inspectorate for the first one. They're just playing the system and stringing it out for as long as possible,
Originally posted by thefair1973
so, the appeal - is this to a higher body than the council then? The article said it was rejected for a 2nd time, so how can they still be trading out of the additional unit? Mind you, what will happen to the unit if they pull out of it? Serendipity weren't allowed it, so it will probably be just anothe rempty store in town.
Reply ID 61769
Can they keep re-applying and appealing forever? Or would a time come when they actually have to stop trading from that unit?
Reply ID 61770
Do starbucks still pay business rates to the council? Are they paying more because they are occupying a shop that otherwise would be empty?.
Reply ID 61779
I presume some people want Starbucks in Hertford, otherwise the unit would still be empty. The bigger crime is the fact that Starbucks are using a unit that another successful business was not allowed to use due to stupid planning rules. Although having that extra unit certainly helps to make the "Waterfront" unit more prominent within the shopping precinct and probably makes the venture more viable. It is not Starbucks' fault that the planning rules are stupid and would rather see empty shops than shops selling the wrong things.
Reply ID 61799
I feel that whilst this is raging on about not having planning, I would have thought Starbucks should have been made to shut up shop until something is reached.... they are breaking the planning law, God forbid if us mere mortals tried to do this with our properties......
Reply ID 61815
Just a thought - but I wonder if the council would be within their rights to refuse to carry out environmental health inspections and so force them to stop trading? Presumably this would make their Public Liability Insurance invalid. [?]
Reply ID 62451
Planning appeal result. http://www.herald24.co.uk/content/herald/news/story.aspx?brand=EHHOnline&category=NewsEastHerts&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=newslatestEHH&itemid=WEED07%20Apr%202009%2013%3A47%3A10%3A730
Reply ID 62453
Big name runs roughshod and wins AGAIN...... breaks all the rules and gets away with it, small traders who abide by the rules but with less clout lose out AGAIN.................. I am afraid it will end up with every town being even more a clone of the next, shop local is a very good idea but pointless when the small traders are not on a level playing field with the giants they will just get forced out.
Reply ID 62454
WELL DONE STARBUCKS. pleased that issue is now closed.
Reply ID 62455
quote:So you think it is fair that Serendipity played by the rules and were not allowed to do it, Starbucks ignored the rules and got away with it?
Originally posted by teddylad
WELL DONE STARBUCKS. pleased that issue is now closed.
Reply ID 62457
Gotta say, I'm glad its over and done with.
Reply ID 62459
That's an outrageous decision. Feel very sorry for Serendipity - and I speak as someone who doesn't really rate them highly at all - sticky tables, passable food, very long waiting time etc. If anyone is under any illusion that this country is not run by big business they are fooling themselves.
Reply ID 62462
the shop was rented out via Savills who knew what Starbucks were going to do, if anyone should be blamed its Savills. if serendipity wanted to move in there so badly they would have played the system (which would cost a fair amount of cash), Starbucks played the system and won. big business 1 Icelandic investing local authority 0.
Reply ID 62463
This should come as no surprise to anybody. As I've said either here or elsewhere the precedent was set with Caffe Nero. An East Herts councillor said almost the same thing about Salisbury Square after Nero had opened as Mr Perrins the Inspector said about Starbucks. It adds to the vibrancy of the area. I gave a copy of the approval for Caffe Nero to Carla to support her application. It was the same A1 to A3 consent. By the time Caffe Nero had placed their application they were able to say that after 6 months trading their sales of takeaway coffee entitled them to be considered as a retail/cafe unit. Not saying Starbucks did the same thing because Nero didn't even bother with planning until there were open. Starbucks just assumed it would be granted. A lesson I learned from the late Brian Juniper in Buntingford was that close competition does no harm. Serendipity has seen an increase in trade since Starbucks opened; possibly as a result of people saying no to corporations and yes to the personal service. I may now open a book on a joint Tesco and Sainsburys approval - but you won't get good odds from me on that happening. Evens anyone?!
Reply ID 62465
quote:The only way they could have been forced to stop would have been to serve a Stop Notice which would have been attached to the Enforcement Notice that EHDC served. As the Planning Inspectorate have now granted planning permission on appeal, EHDC would have had to pay compensation to Starbucks for cover the trade they would have lost. I'm sure in those circumstances EHDC would have come in for heavy criticism to losing even more money. Hence Stop Notices are served very rarely, as I'm afraid it was pretty certain that an appeal would have been successful, despite the policy objections, as the appeal are not determined locally. Serendipity also had the opportunity to appeal their planning refusal, but I guess they didn't have the same big pockets to take on the lease and run the risk of not winning an appeal. And I speak as a (frustrated) planning enforcement officer (not at EHDC), having just completed a thesis on the barriers to effective enforcement. Basically the system is OK until you get to the rogues and those with big pockets who can exploit the delays and pay fancy barristers!
Originally posted by furrybunny
I feel that whilst this is raging on about not having planning, I would have thought Starbucks should have been made to shut up shop until something is reached.... they are breaking the planning law, God forbid if us mere mortals tried to do this with our properties......
Reply ID 62470
I’m also pleased this debate is over. I have some sympathy with Serendipty but if Starbucks had been thrown out there is nothing to say that Serendipty would have automatically moved in. Would we have been left with yet another vacant shop? Starbuck are still here so I would assume they consider it worthwhile to stay in Hertford and as sloopjohnb says Serendipty has increased it’s trade then perhaps, despite the unfairness of the system,this has not been a bad outcome for the town.
Reply ID 62471
quote:The decision is not outrageous, what is outrageous is the stupid planning rules in the first place which stopped 1 successful business from expanding.
Originally posted by Jo S
That's an outrageous decision. Feel very sorry for Serendipity - and I speak as someone who doesn't really rate them highly at all - sticky tables, passable food, very long waiting time etc. If anyone is under any illusion that this country is not run by big business they are fooling themselves.
Reply ID 62473
This is absolutely disgusting! Just shows that money can buy anything. If I were of a cynical dispostion might be inclined to think that money in brown envelopes had changed hands.
Reply ID 62477
quote:Money between whom? EHDC have not made this decision; they refused the application, took enforcement action and this final decision was made by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. EHDC would have spent time and money backing up their original decision to refuse planning permission. Unfortunately it would seem that Starbucks were advised differently by their consultants to Serendipity in terms of their chances of success on appeal. The only way planning legislation can be changed is through lobbying MPs (Hello, Mr Prisk??) .... the current legislation allows Starbucks to appeal while still operating, even though Serendipity were not granted the opportunity to expand. I presume that the original officer's report for Serendipity (and Starbucks) recommended refusal, which the councillors accepted. However the very same legislation allows for the successful business of J Sainsbury to expand their market share, when democratically elected councillors grant permission against the planning officer's recommendation. We can't have it both ways just because we like one retailer and not another.
Originally posted by buzz
This is absolutely disgusting! Just shows that money can buy anything. If I were of a cynical dispostion might be inclined to think that money in brown envelopes had changed hands.
Reply ID 62478
quote:They probably wouldn't have done actually - they would have indicated that they won't resist the application to save costs and leave the rest up to the Treasury Solicitor (in my experience)..
Originally posted by SMTquote:Money between whom? EHDC have not made this decision; they refused the application, took enforcement action and this final decision was made by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. EHDC would have spent time and money backing up their original decision to refuse planning permission. Unfortunately it would seem that Starbucks were advised differently by their consultants to Serendipity in terms of their chances of success on appeal. The only way planning legislation can be changed is through lobbying MPs (Hello, Mr Prisk??) .... the current legislation allows Starbucks to appeal while still operating, even though Serendipity were not granted the opportunity to expand. I presume that the original officer's report for Serendipity (and Starbucks) recommended refusal, which the councillors accepted. However the very same legislation allows for the successful business of J Sainsbury to expand their market share, when democratically elected councillors grant permission against the planning officer's recommendation. We can't have it both ways just because we like one retailer and not another.
Originally posted by buzz
This is absolutely disgusting! Just shows that money can buy anything. If I were of a cynical dispostion might be inclined to think that money in brown envelopes had changed hands.
Reply ID 62485
quote:My experience has obviously been different to yours! But that's life [:)] Just because EHDC refused the original application does not necessarily mean that they would have had to pay costs because the appeal was successful; unless they had erred in law in making the original refusal. Reading the Herald article, EHDC have been consistent in their opposition to this specific proposal.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading They probably wouldn't have done actually - they would have indicated that they won't resist the application to save costs and leave the rest up to the Treasury Solicitor (in my experience)..
Reply ID 62486
quote:It is not a direct payment from Starbusk, e.g., as a bribe. But it is the fact that Starbucks took on this legal fight, knowing they have the resources of a multinational corporation available to them, whilst this costly option would clearly not have been viable for a small business like Serendipity. And, call them naive, but when they were told something wasn't possible, Serendipity actually complied with that ruling, instead of saying, 'la la la, we're going to do what we like anyway'. I am not anti-Starbucks - I went there yesterday (not in Hertford), and I am not looking at Serendipity through rose-coloured spectacles, as I don't think they're that great. But it is clearly a fact that the clout and financial and legal resources available to Starbucks were a strong influencing factor in the outcome of this process.
Originally posted by SMTquote:Money between whom?
Originally posted by buzz
This is absolutely disgusting! Just shows that money can buy anything. If I were of a cynical dispostion might be inclined to think that money in brown envelopes had changed hands.
Reply ID 62487
quote:I would have made damn sure I would have got costs out of them as part of any consent order to kill the matter. I haven't looked into this case specifically but it is likely the Tsol would have had to have paid the claimant's reasonable costs on entering into the consent order. High court litigation is not a game - if you oppose an application, even for a short period of time, costs rack up - and costs follow the event - not that the Tsol care because it is the public purse that bears the cost!
Originally posted by SMTquote:My experience has obviously been different to yours! But that's life [:)] Just because EHDC refused the original application does not necessarily mean that they would have had to pay costs because the appeal was successful; unless they had erred in law in making the original refusal. Reading the Herald article, EHDC have been consistent in their opposition to this specific proposal.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading They probably wouldn't have done actually - they would have indicated that they won't resist the application to save costs and leave the rest up to the Treasury Solicitor (in my experience)..
Reply ID 62488
It is now almost commonplace in planning for the applicants to offer something in return usually a Section 106 - extra CCTV, road improvements - see the long list agreed by Sainsburys. Starbucks didn't have much to offer in this respect as they are sited on private land but Caffe Nero were asked to contribute £15000 for replacement street furniture in Salisbury Square. Not exactly money in brown envelopes but when Councils are short of funding for capital projects getting the applicant to pay is one way of 'easing' things. And Tesco had a long list of projects they would happily pay for such as re-designing the roundabouts and access routes around Ware Road, Mill Road and Mead Lane.
Reply ID 62490
quote:As I say, my experience has been different. In five years, the only time I am aware of paying costs was when a prosecution fails, not on the back of an appeal. And I would disagree about your comment about the Treasury Solicitor not caring about the public purse; I have been frustrated on a number of occasions that stronger action has not been supported by legal departments but this has often been through concerns over the risk of compensation. Perhaps we will meet in the High Court one day! [B)]
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading [ I would have made damn sure I would have got costs out of them as part of any consent order to kill the matter. I haven't looked into this case specifically but it is likely the Tsol would have had to have paid the claimant's reasonable costs on entering into the consent order. High court litigation is not a game - if you oppose an application, even for a short period of time, costs rack up - and costs follow the event - not that the Tsol care because it is the public purse that bears the cost!
Reply ID 62491
quote:S106s are now being phased out, and being replaced with an Community Initiative Levy; basically works as a tax on development and is to be used to pay for wider infrastructure redevelopments required to support approved applications. Is it fairer?? Not sure.. in this climate, it will probably do even more to limit development, and attract fewer retailers to the town.
Originally posted by sloopjohnb
It is now almost commonplace in planning for the applicants to offer something in return usually a Section 106
Reply ID 62492
quote:You've missed the point I was making. When Starbucks issued their claim in the high court for this they essentially issue against 2 parties, 1) the local authority 2) the Tsol on behalf of the secretary of state. My experience as a solicitor indicates that in the vast majority of cases the local authority will not defend the claim, on the basis of costs, and leave it to the secretary of state to defend the application (if indeed they choose to defend it). I can guarantee you that if the Tsol caves in at any point and enters into a consent order to kill the proceedings, and consequently a redetermination or whatever is granted, then costs will be payable. That is the way it is. It makes no difference about how the result has come about, or whether it is an appeal or a prosecution - costs follow the event. My client won't care if it's the secretary of state or the local authority that is paying their costs as long as the costs are paid. This isn't Jackanory, its High Court litigation and costs a lot of money. Although I don't litigate in Hertfordshire I have seen some outrageous decisions made by planning officers and quite frankly they deserve to get hammered!
Originally posted by SMTquote:As I say, my experience has been different. In five years, the only time I am aware of paying costs was when a prosecution fails, not on the back of an appeal. And I would disagree about your comment about the Treasury Solicitor not caring about the public purse; I have been frustrated on a number of occasions that stronger action has not been supported by legal departments but this has often been through concerns over the risk of compensation. Perhaps we will meet in the High Court one day! [B)]
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading [ I would have made damn sure I would have got costs out of them as part of any consent order to kill the matter. I haven't looked into this case specifically but it is likely the Tsol would have had to have paid the claimant's reasonable costs on entering into the consent order. High court litigation is not a game - if you oppose an application, even for a short period of time, costs rack up - and costs follow the event - not that the Tsol care because it is the public purse that bears the cost!
Reply ID 62512
quote:Are you indicating, as a litigator not plying your trade in Hertford, that the likes of Tesco will win their case against the local planners? Simple answer, yes or no.
Originally posted by exiled_in_Readingquote:You've missed the point I was making. When Starbucks issued their claim in the high court for this they essentially issue against 2 parties, 1) the local authority 2) the Tsol on behalf of the secretary of state. My experience as a solicitor indicates that in the vast majority of cases the local authority will not defend the claim, on the basis of costs, and leave it to the secretary of state to defend the application (if indeed they choose to defend it). I can guarantee you that if the Tsol caves in at any point and enters into a consent order to kill the proceedings, and consequently a redetermination or whatever is granted, then costs will be payable. That is the way it is. It makes no difference about how the result has come about, or whether it is an appeal or a prosecution - costs follow the event. My client won't care if it's the secretary of state or the local authority that is paying their costs as long as the costs are paid. This isn't Jackanory, its High Court litigation and costs a lot of money. Although I don't litigate in Hertfordshire I have seen some outrageous decisions made by planning officers and quite frankly they deserve to get hammered!
Originally posted by SMTquote:As I say, my experience has been different. In five years, the only time I am aware of paying costs was when a prosecution fails, not on the back of an appeal. And I would disagree about your comment about the Treasury Solicitor not caring about the public purse; I have been frustrated on a number of occasions that stronger action has not been supported by legal departments but this has often been through concerns over the risk of compensation. Perhaps we will meet in the High Court one day! [B)]
Originally posted by exiled_in_Reading [ I would have made damn sure I would have got costs out of them as part of any consent order to kill the matter. I haven't looked into this case specifically but it is likely the Tsol would have had to have paid the claimant's reasonable costs on entering into the consent order. High court litigation is not a game - if you oppose an application, even for a short period of time, costs rack up - and costs follow the event - not that the Tsol care because it is the public purse that bears the cost!
Reply ID 62513
I'm afraid that everything turns on it's facts so it is not possible to give a yes or no answer. What I will say is that it's likely that if it doesn't go Tescos way initially they will have no hesitation in issuing proceedings. I do know that whilst it is a disadvantage to the public purse more often than not that the Tsol ( and they are really the last line of defence,) have essentially a bottomless pit of cash to service costs orders against them with, I have, on occassion, seen them fight tooth and nail. They love taking a point - which commercially minded clients and their lawyers try to avoid as it costs too much. The problem is that Tesco can also afford to do this - so the end result will be interesting... (As an aside, whilst I am a hard nosed lawyer I have also read Tescopoly by Andrew Simms and try to avoid giving them too much of my business)
Reply ID 62818
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=410687
Reply ID 62823
quote:I take it the Mercury have run out of things to report on after last weeks front page news!
Originally posted by Donostia
http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/hertfordshiremercury-news/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=410687
Reply ID 62826
The Waterside had a shed exactly the same in the same spot and not one complaint was ever lodged!!
Reply ID 62843
They know they can do whatever they want. They could build a five storey extension on the waterfront if they liked and the council would lamely give in.
Reply ID 62844
quote:As I think I said before on the same topic, EHDC served and defended their enforcement notices; this is the only real option available to local authorities under current planning legislation. It was the Planning Inspectorate that overturned the enforcement notice, rather than EHDC lamely giving in. Defending such action has manpower and cost implications, and I can imagine that EHDC are rather unimpressed at the Planning Inspectorate's decision. The Planning Inspectorate is completely separate from the local authorities and upholds approximately 35-40% of appeals (i.e. it approves an application previously refused by council, or dismisses an enforcement notice).
Originally posted by dennismoore
They know they can do whatever they want. They could build a five storey extension on the waterfront if they liked and the council would lamely give in.
Reply ID 62845
Apologies. I should have made that distinction.
Reply ID 62850
Perhaps this is an issue that EastHerttsPeople could come to grips with, getting local wishes for planning the town implemented, instead of us being run over roughshod by large corporates.
quote:
Originally posted by SMT As I think I said before on the same topic, EHDC served and defended their enforcement notices; this is the only real option available to local authorities under current planning legislation. It was the Planning Inspectorate that overturned the enforcement notice, rather than EHDC lamely giving in. Defending such action has manpower and cost implications, and I can imagine that EHDC are rather unimpressed at the Planning Inspectorate's decision. The Planning Inspectorate is completely separate from the local authorities and upholds approximately 35-40% of appeals (i.e. it approves an application previously refused by council, or dismisses an enforcement notice).
Reply ID 62865
Just come back from the town and it was pleasantly satisfying to see that Serendipity customers were outnumbering the Starbucks ones by at least 50%
Reply ID 62871
quote:Probably been waiting half an hour for their coffee & beans on toast! [:p]
Originally posted by Leo Densian
Just come back from the town and it was pleasantly satisfying to see that Serendipity customers were outnumbering the Starbucks ones by at least 50%
Reply ID 62881
quote:And probably enjoyed it all the more!
Originally posted by Harranquote:Probably been waiting half an hour for their coffee & beans on toast! [:p]
Originally posted by Leo Densian
Just come back from the town and it was pleasantly satisfying to see that Serendipity customers were outnumbering the Starbucks ones by at least 50%
Reply ID 67839
http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf free muffin...
Reply ID 67864
They know what they can do with their free muffin. Might even improve the taste!
Reply ID 67870
quote:If only it were a muffin, warm, soft and dripping in butter.[:p] I suspect they are not speaking in English and actually mean one of those doughy American fairy cakes.[xx(]
Originally posted by teddylad
http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf free muffin...
Reply ID 67876
quote:You are so right I don't think Gt Grandad would hve gone round with those chocolate chip over sized fairy cakes on the tray on his head!
Originally posted by shuntquote:If only it were a muffin, warm, soft and dripping in butter.[:p] I suspect they are not speaking in English and actually mean one of those doughy American fairy cakes.[xx(]
Originally posted by teddylad
http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf free muffin...
Reply ID 67883
quote:errrrmm.. actually, a muffin is what they sell.. as per the actual definition of a muffin[img]http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf [/img] whereas, *ENGLISH MUFFINS* - are those drippingly good *a moment on the lips forver on the hips* type of goody!--->[img] http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf or... did you mean a crumpet..??--->[img]http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf [/img] sometimes confused with the above delight! *J* These images are probably too large - sorry Admin![:I]
Originally posted by shuntquote:If only it were a muffin, warm, soft and dripping in butter.[:p] I suspect they are not speaking in English and actually mean one of those doughy American fairy cakes.[xx(]
Originally posted by teddylad
http://images.taglab.com/SBX0007/starbucks_free_muffin_day.pdf free muffin...
Reply ID 67890
No, sorry, Jaycee. "English muffin" is an American term used to differentiate them from what they call muffin. In English the soft bread product is just "muffin" and has existed for longer than America itself has. Your first picture is a "fairy cake" in English.
Reply ID 67914
quote:I stand corrected, Shunt darling... *J* [img]http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/women/038.gif[/img]
Originally posted by shunt
No, sorry, Jaycee. "English muffin" is an American term used to differentiate them from what they call muffin. In English the soft bread product is just "muffin" and has existed for longer than America itself has. Your first picture is a "fairy cake" in English.
Reply ID 67919
quote:Enjoyed the pictures though.[:p]
Originally posted by Jayceequote:I stand corrected, Shunt darling... *J* [img]http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/women/038.gif[/img]
Originally posted by shunt
No, sorry, Jaycee. "English muffin" is an American term used to differentiate them from what they call muffin. In English the soft bread product is just "muffin" and has existed for longer than America itself has. Your first picture is a "fairy cake" in English.
Reply ID 67920
quote:Have to beg to differ I'm afraid. I make muffins all the time - made a lovely batch of blueberry ones last night in fact. The process of making muffins (not 'English muffins', the ones you're describing as fairy cakes) is completely different from the process of making fairy cakes. You make muffins using plain flour, baking powder and bicarb of soda, buttermilk, caster sugar, melted butter and a single egg for a batch of 12, plus any fruit/chocolate chips you want to add in. You mix all the ingredients together in a haphazard way, taking care not to stir too much as the lumpier the muffin mixture is, the lighter the end, baked, result. Fairy cakes are made using different ingredients (self-raising flour, butter, caster sugar, eggs - 2 for a batch of 12), and will only taste good if you follow the recipe exactly - ie, cream the butter and sugar until light and fluffy, beat in the eggs a little at a time, very carefully fold in the flour so as not to 'deflate' the mixture. Fairy cakes should be a lovely light texture, whereas muffins are more dense. Having said all of that, the muffins they sell at Starbucks in this country are an abomination and should never be purchased imho (they sell lovely ones in US Starbucks though). This is possibly my favourite post ever - debating the differences between fairy cakes and muffins - yum yum yum,
Originally posted by shunt
No, sorry, Jaycee. "English muffin" is an American term used to differentiate them from what they call muffin. In English the soft bread product is just "muffin" and has existed for longer than America itself has. Your first picture is a "fairy cake" in English.
Reply ID 67922
The ones in cases are "American Muffins" they have chocolate blueberries etc in, true muffins are the ones that Shunt describes that you cut in half and butter they have been made in this country for centuries, like all thinks the Americans took the term and used it to their own ends. Starbucke etc have a lot to answer for. My Gt Grandad was a "muffin man", he used to carry them from village to village on a tray on his head, he would not recogise those fruit ones in cases!!! They didn't have to be called "English Muffins" till the American's started to describe their offerings with the same word
Reply ID 67923
quote:I'll grant you that. The recipes do differ from one side of the Atlantic to the other and the U.S. "cup cake" is nearer in character to our fairy cake, though the gap between the two U.S. products is closing. However, no-one in the UK referred to any type of cake in a paper case as a "muffin" before the American fast food chains introduced them as such. The bread version dates back to the 10th century (a bit stale by now, you'd think).
Originally posted by Jo Squote:Have to beg to differ I'm afraid. I make muffins all the time - made a lovely batch of blueberry ones last night in fact. The process of making muffins (not 'English muffins', the ones you're describing as fairy cakes) is completely different from the process of making fairy cakes. You make muffins using plain flour, baking powder and bicarb of soda, buttermilk, caster sugar, melted butter and a single egg for a batch of 12, plus any fruit/chocolate chips you want to add in. You mix all the ingredients together in a haphazard way, taking care not to stir too much as the lumpier the muffin mixture is, the lighter the end, baked, result. Fairy cakes are made using different ingredients (self-raising flour, butter, caster sugar, eggs - 2 for a batch of 12), and will only taste good if you follow the recipe exactly - ie, cream the butter and sugar until light and fluffy, beat in the eggs a little at a time, very carefully fold in the flour so as not to 'deflate' the mixture. Fairy cakes should be a lovely light texture, whereas muffins are more dense. Having said all of that, the muffins they sell at Starbucks in this country are an abomination and should never be purchased imho (they sell lovely ones in US Starbucks though). This is possibly my favourite post ever - debating the differences between fairy cakes and muffins - yum yum yum,
Originally posted by shunt
No, sorry, Jaycee. "English muffin" is an American term used to differentiate them from what they call muffin. In English the soft bread product is just "muffin" and has existed for longer than America itself has. Your first picture is a "fairy cake" in English.
Reply ID 67925
quote:'True' muffins to the English are the ones you toast and split in half. 'True' muffins to Americans are the ones with blueberries etc.
Originally posted by Marilyn
true muffins are the ones that Shunt describes that you cut in half and butter they have been made in this country for centuries,
Reply ID 67927
quote:and who had them first.....................me thinks it was us. So in this country Muffins and American Muffins ......in USA they can call them what they like[:D]
Originally posted by Jo Squote:'True' muffins to the English are the ones you toast and split in half. 'True' muffins to Americans are the ones with blueberries etc.
Originally posted by Marilyn
true muffins are the ones that Shunt describes that you cut in half and butter they have been made in this country for centuries,
Reply ID 67930
I guess I could really stir things now and ask the difference between a fairy cake and a cup cake...??? - maybe a bun fight will follow?? *J* [img]http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1227.gif[/img]
Reply ID 67931
quote:Geographic location or the nationality of the person describing it.[:D]
Originally posted by Jaycee
I guess I could really stir things now and ask the difference between a fairy cake and a cup cake...??? - maybe a bun fight will follow?? *J* [img]http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1227.gif[/img]
Reply ID 67933
quote:With my family history I will defend muffins forever, fairy cakes and cupcakes don't bother me as much though I think as Shunt says it could be Fairy cakes this side on the pond and cup cakes the other.
Originally posted by Jaycee
I guess I could really stir things now and ask the difference between a fairy cake and a cup cake...??? - maybe a bun fight will follow?? *J* [img]http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1227.gif[/img]
Reply ID 67942
The link to Starbucks in all this bakery product controversy is that, like many American imports, the name has not been changed to take account of an existing product of the same name, which shows a certain contempt of the culture of their location. However, Starbucks coffee is also American in character and bears no resemblance to what a european expects coffee to be like, so maybe we have to just consider Starbucks to be foreign soil on which English is not spoken.
Reply ID 67959
Thanks for the link to the voucher! I will be in there on monday getting my free muffin :D
Reply ID 67963
quote:Your free "AMERICAN Muffin" [;)][:D]
Originally posted by GillP
Thanks for the link to the voucher! I will be in there on monday getting my free muffin :D
![http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/women/038.gif[/img]](http://www.smilies-and-more.de/pics/smilies/women/038.gif[/img]){kind=link}
![http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1227.gif[/img]](http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/a1227.gif[/img]){kind=link}