Teenage Boy Killed In Samurai Sword...
News1 min ago
Supermarket Shopping Bags
Charging for plastic shopping bags (compulsory from 2015) and giving the proceeds to environmental charities is all very well. It may reduce consumption but won't end it. Many purchases are impromptu shops when the buyer does not have bags with them. Can anyone explain why shops do not provide the brown paper grocery bags (such as those used in the USA) and charge for those instead?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by QuietLife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, joko, I’m afraid it is you who does not “get it”.
You are quite correct. Retailers do not have to provide bags for their customers. I never suggested they do. Many do because they believe it is good business. Some charge for them, some don’t. Again, it should be for them to decide what their business will best stand.
But this measure is not being imposed by the retailers to recoup their costs. It is being imposed under mandate by the government. I would not be paying for a facility provided by the retailer because the retailer cannot afford to absorb the costs. I would be paying 5p, most of which will go to charity. Retailers currently decide whether or not to provide bags free of charge. Those that do retain the money taken for them, I know the policies of most of the retailers I use and I can choose whom I buy from. Those who would like to continue to provide free bags will no longer be able to do so thus removing their choice and mine.
As I think I said earlier, factor, if the shop wanted to charge me £40.05 for my goods, wrapped to take away, I would not know (nor care) how the costs were distributed or what they did with the money. I also have no problems with shops wanting to charge me separately for a bag, so long as it is they who decide whether or not to do so. This is not about money. What I object to is interfering, busy bodying , pettifogging rules which serve little or no purpose other than to introduce red tape ((which Mr Cameron avowed to reduce) and dictate to businesses what they may and may not do.
In general I find it increasingly worrying that many people are prepared to have the minutiae of their lives determined by politicians who, quite frankly, should occupy their minds with more important matters. It should be nobody’s business how retailers deal with their customers provided they are doing nothing illegal. If plastic bags are so hazardous the answer for the government is simple - make their use illegal. Otherwise leave businesses to decide how to deal with their customers and certainly do not compel them to collect money from their customers for charities.
You are quite correct. Retailers do not have to provide bags for their customers. I never suggested they do. Many do because they believe it is good business. Some charge for them, some don’t. Again, it should be for them to decide what their business will best stand.
But this measure is not being imposed by the retailers to recoup their costs. It is being imposed under mandate by the government. I would not be paying for a facility provided by the retailer because the retailer cannot afford to absorb the costs. I would be paying 5p, most of which will go to charity. Retailers currently decide whether or not to provide bags free of charge. Those that do retain the money taken for them, I know the policies of most of the retailers I use and I can choose whom I buy from. Those who would like to continue to provide free bags will no longer be able to do so thus removing their choice and mine.
As I think I said earlier, factor, if the shop wanted to charge me £40.05 for my goods, wrapped to take away, I would not know (nor care) how the costs were distributed or what they did with the money. I also have no problems with shops wanting to charge me separately for a bag, so long as it is they who decide whether or not to do so. This is not about money. What I object to is interfering, busy bodying , pettifogging rules which serve little or no purpose other than to introduce red tape ((which Mr Cameron avowed to reduce) and dictate to businesses what they may and may not do.
In general I find it increasingly worrying that many people are prepared to have the minutiae of their lives determined by politicians who, quite frankly, should occupy their minds with more important matters. It should be nobody’s business how retailers deal with their customers provided they are doing nothing illegal. If plastic bags are so hazardous the answer for the government is simple - make their use illegal. Otherwise leave businesses to decide how to deal with their customers and certainly do not compel them to collect money from their customers for charities.
You are just being pedantic.
It amounts to the same thing as far as your concerned so why get in a huff over it?
At least this money goes to charity, not the government and not the retailer
something needs to be done about waste, and they have brought in all manner of other recycling schemes - this is just another attempt to somewhat control the situation.
in years to come young will not expect carrier bags for free.
It amounts to the same thing as far as your concerned so why get in a huff over it?
At least this money goes to charity, not the government and not the retailer
something needs to be done about waste, and they have brought in all manner of other recycling schemes - this is just another attempt to somewhat control the situation.
in years to come young will not expect carrier bags for free.
There is no pedantry involved, joko. At present retailers can choose whether to charge for bags. When this measure comes in they will have no such choice.
I don't expect to have any say in how they conduct their business. But at present they choose how to deal with their customers and I choose whether to trade with them based on the way they deal with me. After 2015 those choices will be removed. It's similar to, say, Tescos charging me £1 for a sack of spuds and Sainsburys charging me £1.50. The retailer chooses what to charge, I choose who I buy from. Then along comes the government and says "People are eating far too many spuds, from next week they cannot be sold for less than £2 a sack (and 50p of that cost must be paid to the "Keep Britain Thin" campaign". End of choice.
It seems that many people are quite content to have their lives regulated by government interference in matters that should not concern them.
I don't expect to have any say in how they conduct their business. But at present they choose how to deal with their customers and I choose whether to trade with them based on the way they deal with me. After 2015 those choices will be removed. It's similar to, say, Tescos charging me £1 for a sack of spuds and Sainsburys charging me £1.50. The retailer chooses what to charge, I choose who I buy from. Then along comes the government and says "People are eating far too many spuds, from next week they cannot be sold for less than £2 a sack (and 50p of that cost must be paid to the "Keep Britain Thin" campaign". End of choice.
It seems that many people are quite content to have their lives regulated by government interference in matters that should not concern them.
I grocery shop online and you can elect to have your shopping delivered 'bag free' or 'with bags'.
I always have mine delivered with bags as I then use them for poop bags. If they start charging for them I will simply buy a pack of dog poop bags which is cheaper but will not do the environment any favours.
I always have mine delivered with bags as I then use them for poop bags. If they start charging for them I will simply buy a pack of dog poop bags which is cheaper but will not do the environment any favours.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
U-Turn Sks Now Knows What A Woman Is,...
News5 mins ago
Law9 mins ago
