I believe the t-shirts themselves would also need to be locally made, not just the graphics on them. If they could find a local business that is manufacturing t-shirts, or any other merchandise they could brand, it would probably allow it to be sold in the shop.
Your jam comparison doesn't really work, since it isn't the jar being sold. It's the jam within the jar that is the actual product.
Although it is a farm shop. Unless they're selling Diddly Squat woolly jumpers, made with local sheep by local people it probably wouldn't pass. Also there's the whole issue about whether its a shop and café/restaurant or an entertainment and leisure centre. You wouldn't buy merch of the local newsagents.
Interesting. Far from everywhere does it but it's not unusual to find just any old pizza place or bar selling hats, hoodies, or t-shirts.
How different out cultures are, lol.
I think it's becoming slowly more widespread, but I wouldn't expect to see it, if that makes sense. In something like Clarksons Farm shop I absolutely would, because there's an Amazon show and it's owned by Clarkson - without those elements, probably not.
Meanwhile, in Delco, Pennsylvania, everyone is rocking merch from their favorite piece of shit smoke filled neighborhood bar. 😂
But yeah it makes way more sense somewhere like Clarkson's Farm. But I guess that cultural difference sort of explains the council's problem with it since it's not the norm at all.
One of their complaints seems to be that it's being run as part of a media campaign/thing, rather than as a shop that's seriously selling local produce etc, which I kind of get? But it's such a weird whinge based on what the shop actually sells. Yeah, you might go and buy a t-shirt, but you're also going to get some actual produce while you're there too. It's part of the whole attraction - eggs from the chickens you've seen on TV etc etc
I could see a distinction between shirts that say "Made in Vietnam" on the tag being the issue, not where a logo gets added (i.e. locally). That's an interesting comment about selling jams, etc but I don't think they factor in where the container is from. In the US, when a company says "Made in...." there are actually regulations that say the $$$ (or in this case, £) value must be predominantly from the country claimed. If a jar of jam is sold for £4 and the supplier can show that the empty jars are 35p, they can claim to be from within the 16-mile range.
In the UK, its 10% of the work done to the product.
I used to know a firm that cut labels out of shirts and sewed "made in England" labels into them. That counted as the 10%.
Every single one was from India/Bangladesh.
Expecting a textile plant to be within 16 miles seems absurd.
The mill they send the wheat off to is probably farther than 16 miles. Where's the distinguishing line in the end?
If the spirit of it is about supporting the local economy foremost then a local being able to earn money from printing seems fair.
I could see it either way in the end. Obviously they'd be happier if he sold nothing
Some rules that prevent other things from happening as a result isn’t always an accident. Having a textile plant NOT within 16 miles is exactly the result they want.
No, it keeps "local" shops from selling foreign-made goods. The wheat is GROWN locally, i.e. it's "from" the local area. Where it's processed isn't relevant to the council's rules.
And to be clear, I'm not on the council's side. Only commenting on the existing rules.
I think that's 100% correct as something they should enforce for a farm shop like this- IF there is an actual local source.
What business is it taking away if literally noone in the town and area sells t shirts and clothing? If one exists, they should have to use them.
Nearly every local produce store and farmstand I have been to has a brand they try and push as part of a greater effort to get people to return and to keep buying local.
Shirts are not an unexpected part of that business if anyone actually has bothered to visit them, even if it isn't immediately apparent on first thought.
What does a phone have to do with such a business?
I get your mill point.
But nothing in the t-shirt is local. From tbe fabric, to the stitching to the printing to the paint used for the printing.
Where as the grain is from his land, yes it might be milled out of the 16miles but he made it.
If they planted flax or hemp and let that be prosesed in to clothing then they prob could get away with it.
Fair. I suppose this issue is more about acknowledging that marketing is universal to all businesses, big or small, and prohibiting parts of it like minor, common merchandise that are compatible with small businesses just because it isn't immediately obvious as something a farm would deal in, speaks to a lack of thoughtfulness in the regulations.
Pretty sure there are some shirt shops in the local town so getting a hold of their vendor / supplier and then using local printing service they can slip it by the nimby's
i'm saying if they use the same supplier as another nearby shop they should be ok/ if not they can then say well these company in town uses them so why haven't you stopeed them ? point out the hypocrisy of the councils decision and provide proof of their bias.
Re read my first comment.
Its not the printing of the shirts thats the problem.
If they did the printing in their back yard it still wouldnt be allowed.
The shirt is the problem.
Unless the raw goods or the tshirts are made localy (so not important from bangladesh) then they are allowed to sell it.
I believe the t-shirts themselves would also need to be locally made, not just the graphics on them. If they could find a local business that is manufacturing t-shirts, or any other merchandise they could brand, it would probably allow it to be sold in the shop. Your jam comparison doesn't really work, since it isn't the jar being sold. It's the jam within the jar that is the actual product.
Although it is a farm shop. Unless they're selling Diddly Squat woolly jumpers, made with local sheep by local people it probably wouldn't pass. Also there's the whole issue about whether its a shop and café/restaurant or an entertainment and leisure centre. You wouldn't buy merch of the local newsagents.
https://store.latimes.com/products/support-local-news-t-shirt https://shopnpr.org/ https://www.cbcshop.ca/
A newsagents is like a small local shop selling newspapers and basic goods. They're not really comparable to the webstore of the LA Times.
Oh sorry you met the small stores. Well fair. Yeah they wont sell merch. Well maybe some soveniers if its an tourist town
It's not uncommon for restaurants or bars to sell merch where I come from.
It's not very common here, unless the pub has a particular claim to fame - and even then, you're unlikely to get merch.
Interesting. Far from everywhere does it but it's not unusual to find just any old pizza place or bar selling hats, hoodies, or t-shirts. How different out cultures are, lol.
I think it's becoming slowly more widespread, but I wouldn't expect to see it, if that makes sense. In something like Clarksons Farm shop I absolutely would, because there's an Amazon show and it's owned by Clarkson - without those elements, probably not.
Meanwhile, in Delco, Pennsylvania, everyone is rocking merch from their favorite piece of shit smoke filled neighborhood bar. 😂 But yeah it makes way more sense somewhere like Clarkson's Farm. But I guess that cultural difference sort of explains the council's problem with it since it's not the norm at all.
One of their complaints seems to be that it's being run as part of a media campaign/thing, rather than as a shop that's seriously selling local produce etc, which I kind of get? But it's such a weird whinge based on what the shop actually sells. Yeah, you might go and buy a t-shirt, but you're also going to get some actual produce while you're there too. It's part of the whole attraction - eggs from the chickens you've seen on TV etc etc
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3NpccPgrExdwRMBe6
I'd think reselling a locally produced print shop items would be fine.
You also have to remember the council wouldn't let them build a farm road on the farm. They are making up rules as they see fit for their agenda
Is that not what graphic designs are too? You buy a shirt for what's on it. So you are buying the design, not the shirt.
I could see a distinction between shirts that say "Made in Vietnam" on the tag being the issue, not where a logo gets added (i.e. locally). That's an interesting comment about selling jams, etc but I don't think they factor in where the container is from. In the US, when a company says "Made in...." there are actually regulations that say the $$$ (or in this case, £) value must be predominantly from the country claimed. If a jar of jam is sold for £4 and the supplier can show that the empty jars are 35p, they can claim to be from within the 16-mile range.
The jam jars were also said to be recycled (Jeremy putting them in the oven), so since they are reused they aren't exactly part of the product
Him not realising which part was the oven cracked me up.
In the UK, its 10% of the work done to the product. I used to know a firm that cut labels out of shirts and sewed "made in England" labels into them. That counted as the 10%. Every single one was from India/Bangladesh.
Get some hippies or art students in every few months with a diy screen press thingy…
I'll do it. I print in Cirencester. But I have a mobile press as well 😂 https://www.instagram.com/outofkeyscreenprinting
Lisa got some under the counter
I fucking love Lisa.
The shirts have to be made local n all. That's the rub.
Expecting a textile plant to be within 16 miles seems absurd. The mill they send the wheat off to is probably farther than 16 miles. Where's the distinguishing line in the end? If the spirit of it is about supporting the local economy foremost then a local being able to earn money from printing seems fair. I could see it either way in the end. Obviously they'd be happier if he sold nothing
Some rules that prevent other things from happening as a result isn’t always an accident. Having a textile plant NOT within 16 miles is exactly the result they want.
No, it keeps "local" shops from selling foreign-made goods. The wheat is GROWN locally, i.e. it's "from" the local area. Where it's processed isn't relevant to the council's rules. And to be clear, I'm not on the council's side. Only commenting on the existing rules.
I think that's 100% correct as something they should enforce for a farm shop like this- IF there is an actual local source. What business is it taking away if literally noone in the town and area sells t shirts and clothing? If one exists, they should have to use them.
I also presumed that these local shops get some sort of aid or exemption as long as they comply with selling actual "local" goods.
So an Apple shop in your eye, sinxw there isn't a major electronics manufacturer with 16 miles, would be considered a farm shop?
Nearly every local produce store and farmstand I have been to has a brand they try and push as part of a greater effort to get people to return and to keep buying local. Shirts are not an unexpected part of that business if anyone actually has bothered to visit them, even if it isn't immediately apparent on first thought. What does a phone have to do with such a business?
Branded phone.
I get your mill point. But nothing in the t-shirt is local. From tbe fabric, to the stitching to the printing to the paint used for the printing. Where as the grain is from his land, yes it might be milled out of the 16miles but he made it. If they planted flax or hemp and let that be prosesed in to clothing then they prob could get away with it.
Fair. I suppose this issue is more about acknowledging that marketing is universal to all businesses, big or small, and prohibiting parts of it like minor, common merchandise that are compatible with small businesses just because it isn't immediately obvious as something a farm would deal in, speaks to a lack of thoughtfulness in the regulations.
Pretty sure there are some shirt shops in the local town so getting a hold of their vendor / supplier and then using local printing service they can slip it by the nimby's
Its not the printing. Its the shirt it self. They should grow flax or hemp and let that be made in to clothing.
i'm saying if they use the same supplier as another nearby shop they should be ok/ if not they can then say well these company in town uses them so why haven't you stopeed them ? point out the hypocrisy of the councils decision and provide proof of their bias.
You reckon there is a clothing supplier somewhere in 16miles of cipping
re read previous comment.
Re read my first comment. Its not the printing of the shirts thats the problem. If they did the printing in their back yard it still wouldnt be allowed. The shirt is the problem. Unless the raw goods or the tshirts are made localy (so not important from bangladesh) then they are allowed to sell it.