You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
...big deal !
How about they give away some of their fees for performing.
Before anyone says they give away £££ I’m sure they do for “tax” reasons - champagne socialists at their best.
Glastonbury stars give away clothes for charity https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48900699
I heard about this this morning, and thought that at least its a move that might throw a bit of a spotlight on the throwaway fashion industry. If it makes kids (and it's mostly kids) think a bit more about how clothes can be made so cheaply, and why it's not a great thing to buy the cheap rubbish that will end up in the bin/landfill in a month, then I'll see it as a good thing.
We’re all to blame - are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago
Definitely. Don't know about you, but I tend not to grow out of stuff anymore.
We’re all to blame – are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
I am just now - I'm pretty sure every stitch of clothing I'm wearing right now is more than four years old. Recently I was working for a producer who was younger than my tshirt. 🙂
Should they perform for free for tax reasons?
I wear clothes well over 4 years old, who doesn't?
Lots of my clothes are older than 4 years, but I'm in complete agreement - we all look for "lowest price" without really considering the environmental cost of things. I'm saying that clothes are a particularly good (bad...?) example of this, and if some hugely rich stars are able to draw a little attention to this, then it's a good thing in my book...
I have a belt I bought around 1988.
It no longer *ahem* works 😁
Some of my clothes are old enough to vote and drink.
Not sure I’m the target market of fast fashion tbh.
we all look for “lowest price” without really considering the environmental cost of things.
Not all of us.
[strong]fadda[/strong] wrote:
Lots of my clothes are older than 4 years, but I’m in complete agreement – we all look for “lowest price” without really considering the environmental cost of things. I’m saying that clothes are a particularly good (bad…?) example of this, and if some hugely rich stars are able to draw a little attention to this, then it’s a good thing in my book…
personally I've gone the other way, where possible I now look for clothes that I feel are made responsibly and which will last. Last couple of pairs of shoes I've bought have been hand made in the uk (sorry, bit of a CFH moment there), I reckon my next jeans will be from these guys and so on
How about they give away some of their fees for performing.
missing the point really. Their endorsement gets the issue talked about and achieves more than a bit of cash.
I mean obviously it pales into insignificance when you compare it to the OPs tireless charity work. (He doesn't like to talk about it). But the sack cloth and ashes he's wearing are only 3 years old - bloody hypocrite!. 🙂
That Robert Smith shirt has to be worth a few quid though eh... Trawl the Oxfams!
It'll probably be bought for £3 and sold on ebay for a few 100. Charidee work is awesome mate.
The Glastonbury performers get very little by comparison to other festivals as one of its driving forces is raising money for charity. In an interview a couple of years ago it was reported that artists got less than 10% of their standard festival fee in general.
As much as I hate the whole celebrity culture there are others that follow it and having the stars give away their cloths to Oxfam does bring the headlines and keeps the charity in peoples collective consciousness for a while longer.
I saw this earlier on and one thing jumped out at me.
Kylie Minogue donated a sun visor, which she had at the festival but did not wear during her performance
Wow, super generous work there Kylie.
We’re all to blame – are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
I think some of my clothes are closer to 40 years old!
I mean obviously it pales into insignificance when you compare it to the OPs tireless charity work. (He doesn’t like to talk about it). But the sack cloth and ashes he’s wearing are only 3 years old – bloody hypocrite!. 🙂
lol i do work for a charity !
We’re all to blame – are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
Yes, I am. I honestly think around 80% of my clothes will be more than 4 years old.
My Bufallo Super Six shirt will be 25 years old this year. Sure that is the exception but the vast majority of my clothes will be more than 4 years old.
I would buy Sheryl Crow's vest.
I saw this earlier on and one thing jumped out at me.
Kylie Minogue donated her underpants, which she had at the festival but did not wear during her performance
Wow, super generous work there Kylie.
FIFM
🤯🤗
I have lots of clothes older than 4 years. I rarely buy clothes, most of my spare cash goes on bike stuff.
Maybe these 'stars' should wear the clothes again rather than giving them away? I have fleeces from uni days and I graduated in 1991...
When we last remortgaged the mortgage dude was running through the affordability part which included questions about outgoings. He asked for spend on clothes and I said £200 - £300. He assumed I meant per month when, of course, I meant per year. He said it was not uncommon to meet people (women) on very modest incomes who would spend £300 - £500 per month on clothes.
We’re all to blame – are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
pretty sure you'd be in the minority here if you only (or mainly) wore clothes less than 4 years old...
lol i do work for a charity !
What!?!??!?
i thought you did work for charity - not work FOR A charity. You mean you trouser celebrities’ generous donations as so called ‘wages’? Disgusting!!!
no wonder you don’t like to talk about it.
Indeed. 90% of my clothes are more than 4 years old.
I wear plain stuff generally and mostly jeans/shorts tee shirts. No real need to keep buying new ones that look the same.
Some good eco worriers on here
£300 – £500 per month on clothes
WTF ?!?
Slight stereotyping but:
Charity shops are a good way to see differing attitudes to clothes. Look at the men's* stuff and 99% looks like the previous occupant died in it somewhere between 1950 and 1980 and only after being dead for over a quarter of a century finally admitted they probably wouldn't wear it again.
There never though seems to be a shortage of women's* clothes.
£300 – £500 per month on clothes
WTF ?!?
I've recently been doing some design work for a major fashion retailer. Talking to the buyers, the number of units of both expensive designer gear, and cheaper, essentially disposable fashion, that they shift is absolutely staggering. There must be a lot of people out there spending an awful lot of money on clothes
If it makes kids (and it’s mostly kids) think a bit more about how clothes can be made so cheaply
It really isn't kids at all. I've got two teenage daughter and I can assure you that the younger generation are actually far more environmentally conscious than older generations. They have to be
My 15 year old buys pretty much all her clothing second hand off sites like Depop and trawling charity shops. She turned up to meet me the other day having raided my wardrobe and dug out an old Fox hooded sweatshirt of mine (definitely over 10+ years old), which she'd then re-purposed with a pair of scissors and accessorised with various stuff. Looked better than it ever did on me.
The people chucking perfectly good clothes into landfill are people plenty old enough to know better
There must be a lot of people out there spending an awful lot of money on clothes
urgh. It's an absolute racket. I saw a kid on Saturday (ok, he was probably at least 25) wearing a pair of these:
Yep, that's a sock glued to some polystyrene, costing more than most people spend on clothes in a year 😡
Glastonbury stars give away clothes for charity…
Yeah, good luck with that... 😉
Did stormzy donate his vest? That will fetch good money...
Yeah, good luck with that…
I'll have you know that's Stella McCartney, billed as "Sustainable Luxury Fashion". So it's sustainable.
(I quite liked it to be honest, she was great fun bouncing about in it. Not sure it'd be me though.)
Yeah, good luck with that…
Stella McCartney designed with Blue Meanies on it... pretty penny on ebay that one (revolting as it may be!)!
I've got a friend currently on tour with Kylie. I've asked him to get some of her clothes.
Our family don't waste anything, make do and mend. is mostly our motto.
My wardrobe is full of good quality clothes and shoes that are mostly around 10 years old.
My oldest garment is a knitted top (1976) and my newest is a year old.
All our clothes get taken to a charity shop. I've now started hanging things on the line inside out, so they don't fade in the sun too much.
I've been up close to Kylie and nothing she wears would fit 99.9 % of the population.
Yeah, I've bumped into her as well… neither of my kids would be able to wear anything in her size.
Binners, my eldest also wears one my old MTB hoodies with regularity. Suits her better than me as well, obviously.
The highest bidder for Kylie's pants is unlikely to wear them, apart from as a balaclava.
I get alot of my clothes from charity shops. Lots of them are near new.
Our family don’t waste anything, make do and mend. is mostly our motto.
Fantastic mantra for dealing with global poverty....by creating zero demand for consumer goods all those jobs that are dragging people out of poverty would disappear overnight. These clothes will fetch a tidy sum for the charity which will provide some minor relief for those who need it....but nowhere near as much as pulling them out of poverty altogether by creating demand for stuff and them having a job.
We like to make ourselves feel better by donating to charity, gives us a nice warm fuzzy feeling of doing good inside...but the efforts of charity in dealing with global issues is insignificant compared to what the global economy does. So don't make do and mend. Buy new. Create the demand. Create that job somewhere in the world that will give others half a chance.
wobbliscott - I personally am not doing someone out of a job, as it's something I've always done.
Sorry can't agree with you. There are too many cheap clothes being worn once and thrown out into a already nearly full, landfill.
I'm the kind of girl that knits her own dishcloths.
Create that job somewhere in the world that will give others half a chance.
Or keep women in the Midlands working on less than minimum wage.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/22/cost-cheap-fast-fashion-workers-planet
"MPs found that the Modern Slavery Act was not robust enough to stop wage exploitation at UK clothing factories. There was a lack of inspection or enforcement, allowing factories – none of which are unionised – to get away with paying illegal wages."
We’re all to blame – are you telling me you’re wearing clothes from 4 years ago ??
T-shirt (Chunk Star Wars parody with Chewie as a basketball player) ~2010
Jeans (Ben Sherman) ~2012
Shoes - Converse copies from ASDA ~2012
Guesstimating those dates based on jobs/house moves. Socks are definitely less than 4yrs, boxxers are a maybe but possibly.
Only clothes I can remember buying this year are socks and a new rash vest because the one I bought in 2005 is holier than the Pope. My OH bought me a new cycling jersey.
Fantastic mantra for dealing with global poverty….by creating zero demand for consumer goods all those jobs that are dragging people out of poverty would disappear overnight.
I'm not convinced.
For one thing, for one thing cheap tat can be made just as effectively in more developed countries like China.
For another, people aren't saying "don't buy anything" they're advocating buying a £50 pair of jeans that will last almost indefinitely rather than a £10 supermarket pair that lasts 6 months for example. The £50 pair probably takes a bit longer to make with more skill and probably more pay for everyone from the cotton mill to the retail shop floor.
"'Strange to think that even in Our Ford's day most games were played without more apparatus than a ball or two and a few sticks and perhaps a bit of netting. Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do nothing whatsoever to increase consumption. It's madness. Nowadays the Controllers won't approve of any new game unless it can be shown that it requires at least as much apparatus as the most complicated of existing games.'"
vote wobbliscott for World Controller 🙂
Create that job somewhere in the world that will give others half a chance.
One of the 18-30 crowd at work quoted that as my when I moaned at him for leaving the kitchen in a state. Apparently if we all cleaned up there'd be no need for the cleaner.
Go figure.
Am I the only one that follows a clothing hierarchy?
1: Buy something and wear it for best / not working.
2: When it’s a bit worn wear it for work.
3: Starting to look very worn? Wear for lounging around the house.
4: Ruined? Wear for gardening, decorating etc.
5: Rags for cleaning bike.
^ Pretty much.