Resourceful mum kits out home for free (From The Argus)

Well, it's good to see the Argus getting local news from Radio 2. She was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday. Is that all you need to be a journalist thses days? Have the radio on?

I don't think it's something to be proud of to say you've diddled charity out of money! (amongst other ways "scouring charity shops, Newhaven’s Cat Fletcher, 49, has fully furnished her house for free").
Plus it wasn't all for free she admitted paying someone to fetch a tree!. But the worse thing is her blatantly admitting to depriving charities of much needed money. May she hang her head in shame.

Full coverage was in yesterday's Daily Mail.

Headline should read "Resourceful Mum finds way to get Argus to promote her business for free"

alyn, southwick wrote:
I don't think it's something to be proud of to say you've diddled charity out of money! (amongst other ways "scouring charity shops, Newhaven’s Cat Fletcher, 49, has fully furnished her house for free").
Plus it wasn't all for free she admitted paying someone to fetch a tree!. But the worse thing is her blatantly admitting to depriving charities of much needed money. May she hang her head in shame.

You guys! So funny. Great bit of trolling there.

How is taking stuff out of a skip - diddling a charity!

Good for her. Makes a change from the fag smoking tracksuit wearers who expect the state to pay for everything.

onlyme wrote:
How is taking stuff out of a skip - diddling a charity!

TRy reading my pasted quote!

I'm a big fan of Freegle, but I am surprised at some of the things offered, that could eaily be donated to charity shops. Freegle is meant for things too good for landfill. However, Freegle gives you the luxury of someone coming to collect the goods, something not all charity shops do, and some charity shops are very picky, throwing away perfectly good books and records, for example, because they are not 'nearly new'!

She gets first pick of anything which comes up so no one else gets a look in, nice business to get into, get it for free and sell it for profit..Me I'd rather give the stuff to a charity

billy goat-gruff wrote:
I'm a big fan of Freegle, but I am surprised at some of the things offered, that could eaily be donated to charity shops. Freegle is meant for things too good for landfill. However, Freegle gives you the luxury of someone coming to collect the goods, something not all charity shops do, and some charity shops are very picky, throwing away perfectly good books and records, for example, because they are not 'nearly new'!

Freegle sounds good, as is FReecycle I use a lot.
Nowt wrong with that

GIVE UP wrote:
She gets first pick of anything which comes up so no one else gets a look in, nice business to get into, get it for free and sell it for profit..Me I'd rather give the stuff to a charity

I too believe that running the group that was a split off group from freecycle just to give herself first dibs is an insult to what these groups are all about.

Advertising it is just rubbing members noses in it. Perhaps giving to charity is a better option.

GIVE UP wrote:
She gets first pick of anything which comes up so no one else gets a look in, nice business to get into, get it for free and sell it for profit..Me I'd rather give the stuff to a charity

Ignorantpigquote of the week. All Freecyclers have the option to ask for items on offer, and it is not about selling on either. As for giving stuff to charities, they themselves are multi million pound businesses. Surely it is more charitable to pass on unwanted items to needy families for free.

Wouldn't call that load of clutter in the picture luxury but hey, fair play, nothing wrong with giving stuff away to anyone that can make use of it.

I'm afraid to say that the clutter in the background looks like something from 'Hoarders' - it's hardly going to get her a photo shoot in Elle Decoration! But hey, one man's trash is another man's treasure!

I feel nothing but tears for the 'finger pointing crybabies' expressing accusation and distress that someone or somewho has suffered loss at the hands of Ms Fletcher or the Freegle movement.
Do these irrational fears keep you 'penned' in to a private misery of inequity, quietly coveting yet never receiving the hope of possibility to make a change to your own miserably dissatisfied life?
Humanity can only ever be so great as the perception of the eye that falls upon it; 'Entertainment' stories such as this craftily threaded tapestry of rabble rousing, slowly feed your own self affirmation that society and regulation is a good remedy for a stagnant and pustulent humanity, youselves included.
Look at your behaviour - if humanity were a child or spouse, you would be locked up for inflicting emotional and mental abuse.
Throw these garbage 'news' stories away, get to know the people who ARE making a difference, or better still - MAKE the difference for yourselves and THEN find out how kind and understanding the rabble like yourselves are - or ask Jesus how easy it is to make a difference to humanity - before you stand in line calling for crucifiction. :'(

What on earth is 'Zeezee' on about - Poor old Jesus dragged into it, will-he nill-he, thereby undermining any residual credibility this post might have had. Also the word is spelt CRUCIFIXION. And using emoticons is childish.

NickBrt wrote:
Good for her. Makes a change from the fag smoking tracksuit wearers who expect the state to pay for everything.

I would've said dope smoking. Then by your very nature you're being so kind Nick. Have a nice day you all I'm off too work at tip now to see what can be salvaged!!!!!!!!

Can we put some of our Councilors on it?
Complete with free cycles and clips?

Seriously, what's the problem? She is making use of items our wasteful society would just throw away. Lets not attack her for this. This is not stealing from charity. This has got to be a good thing!

The Vikster wrote:
Seriously, what's the problem? She is making use of items our wasteful society would just throw away. Lets not attack her for this. This is not stealing from charity. This has got to be a good thing!

Per the quote from the article I gave in my first post - "scouring charity shops, Newhaven’s Cat Fletcher, 49, has fully furnished her house for free". So if she's got something from a charity shop that has value for free it means that value is not going to charity. I doubt she's shop-lifting, but to my mind IF she is getting something for free from then morally she is stealing from charity - or taking advantage of them and the laws they have to operate under. (I wouldn't be proud of doing so!)
use FReecycle http://groups.freecy
cle.org/freecyclebri
ghton/posts/all

Freegle is a yahoo group. Any items listed are seen by all subscribers simultaneously.
I also have a substantial amount of freegled stuff, once had a car with some M.o.T and tax!
Charity shops will not handle any electrical items. I'm pretty good with electrics so have done ok, eg - a dishwasher which had a broken door catch and a microwave which needed a new lightbulb (fixed today!)
I also regularly offer stuff on freegle which would otherwise only be chucked!
Chicken shed anyone?!

To Alyn,
Quote from Argus:- "By using the website Freegle, searching through skips and scouring charity shops, Newhaven’s Cat Fletcher, 49, has fully furnished her house for free."

I think inaccurate reporting has led you to believe Cat has been abusing charity shops. The free goods are from Freegle and skips, but of course she pays for goods from charity shops. {The article called her a "mum-of-two" which is also a mistake, as she has a son and twin daughters.}
As a user of Freegle since 2009 and of Freecycle too before that, I can tell you that all the hours Cat works as a Freegle moderator are unpaid, and she obtains any goods from Freegle in the same way as any other user, by asking the offerer for it. People who give items have sole responsibility for choosing who receives their goods. The original and main purpose of sites such as Freegle is to keep usable items out of landfill sites, but naturally there are side benefits to both the donators and the receivers of the offered items.
Incidentally, although the article concentrated on the "getting" aspect, it is very pleasing to have someone come and take away something you do not want, and be grateful for it. People ask for all sorts of things, from empty jars to fill with jam, through cardboard moving boxes, children's clothes, furniture and white goods up to caravans and cars---even the latter requests are sometimes fulfilled!
Cat Fletcher is an enriching member of society, and one of those people you feel sure only need an hour's sleep each night, as she crams so much into her life. She has even helped Freegle members who are disabled by delivering items to them
By appearing in The Argus, Cat intended to promote the good work of Freegle, and I am pleased to say there are many new members as a result. Why not check it out for yourself?
Oswalde.

Well said Oswalde - Cat is a true local hero and the world would be a better place if more people were like her!
Regarding the comments on here about 'promoting her business for free', 'depriving charities of much needed money', 'getting it for free and selling it for profit', 'giving herself first dibs', etc - you people clearly have no idea about how Freegle operates and the philosophy which underpins it.
Still pretty much what one comes to expect from the Argus comments - why let the facts get in the way when you can just sit at your keyboard making unfounded & offensive comments about the people who are actually achieving things in trying to make the world a little bit better for everyone?

Yes, it is unfortunate that so many commenters seem to get so irate at other's activities - my opinion on that is that their lives are very shallow.
Research may show that they may not have good, varied, social connections. Such isolation can lead to entrenched dogma.

farang wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many commenters seem to get so irate at other's activities - my opinion on that is that their lives are very shallow.
Research may show that they may not have good, varied, social connections. Such isolation can lead to entrenched dogma.

Farrang my social life is very active and fulfilling - it mainly comes from helping others often at my own expense, rather than helping myself at the expense of others.
I am so glad to hear this lady has not deprived any charity morally, legally deliberately or inadvertently. Living a life that is not beset by trying to gain regardless of costs is so liberating.
I did look at freegle and found it too hard to assess it's usefulness by needing to register first before being able to assess. Something I don't find in freecycle. But another means to make the world a better place by not creating junk from perfectly good stuff can only be commendable.
You know there are many people out there who do deprive charities of as much value as they can get by duplicitous means; I've been to many charity sales where those traders in second hand goods are those who haggle the most - and heard too many stories where people do shop lift from charity shops - shops that often give away free to those in genuine need. That's why I get angry, not because of some lack of social involvement but because of active social involvement.
(By the way, do people realise the cost they sometimes impose on charities by giving or dumping stuff on them that really is junk or even good stuff but given in the wrong way. Anything left unattended by closed doors/gates often has to be thrown even if it was originally good, because of damage done after by nature, animals or other fellow persons. Why donate out of date food to food banks, often years if not decade out of date - if its not good enough for you why should it be good enough for those less fortunate.)

alyn, southwick wrote:

farang wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many commenters seem to get so irate at other's activities - my opinion on that is that their lives are very shallow.
Research may show that they may not have good, varied, social connections. Such isolation can lead to entrenched dogma.

Farrang my social life is very active and fulfilling - it mainly comes from helping others often at my own expense, rather than helping myself at the expense of others.
I am so glad to hear this lady has not deprived any charity morally, legally deliberately or inadvertently. Living a life that is not beset by trying to gain regardless of costs is so liberating.
I did look at freegle and found it too hard to assess it's usefulness by needing to register first before being able to assess. Something I don't find in freecycle. But another means to make the world a better place by not creating junk from perfectly good stuff can only be commendable.
You know there are many people out there who do deprive charities of as much value as they can get by duplicitous means; I've been to many charity sales where those traders in second hand goods are those who haggle the most - and heard too many stories where people do shop lift from charity shops - shops that often give away free to those in genuine need. That's why I get angry, not because of some lack of social involvement but because of active social involvement.
(By the way, do people realise the cost they sometimes impose on charities by giving or dumping stuff on them that really is junk or even good stuff but given in the wrong way. Anything left unattended by closed doors/gates often has to be thrown even if it was originally good, because of damage done after by nature, animals or other fellow persons. Why donate out of date food to food banks, often years if not decade out of date - if its not good enough for you why should it be good enough for those less fortunate.)

Well done - nice to see a bit of contrition here. I still feel that you owe Cat an apology for accusing her of "depriving charities of much needed money" (your words) in your original post tho'. Have a good day!

SmileyD wrote:

alyn, southwick wrote:

farang wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many commenters seem to get so irate at other's activities - my opinion on that is that their lives are very shallow.
Research may show that they may not have good, varied, social connections. Such isolation can lead to entrenched dogma.

Farrang my social life is very active and fulfilling - it mainly comes from helping others often at my own expense, rather than helping myself at the expense of others.
I am so glad to hear this lady has not deprived any charity morally, legally deliberately or inadvertently. Living a life that is not beset by trying to gain regardless of costs is so liberating.
I did look at freegle and found it too hard to assess it's usefulness by needing to register first before being able to assess. Something I don't find in freecycle. But another means to make the world a better place by not creating junk from perfectly good stuff can only be commendable.
You know there are many people out there who do deprive charities of as much value as they can get by duplicitous means; I've been to many charity sales where those traders in second hand goods are those who haggle the most - and heard too many stories where people do shop lift from charity shops - shops that often give away free to those in genuine need. That's why I get angry, not because of some lack of social involvement but because of active social involvement.
(By the way, do people realise the cost they sometimes impose on charities by giving or dumping stuff on them that really is junk or even good stuff but given in the wrong way. Anything left unattended by closed doors/gates often has to be thrown even if it was originally good, because of damage done after by nature, animals or other fellow persons. Why donate out of date food to food banks, often years if not decade out of date - if its not good enough for you why should it be good enough for those less fortunate.)

Well done - nice to see a bit of contrition here. I still feel that you owe Cat an apology for accusing her of "depriving charities of much needed money" (your words) in your original post tho'. Have a good day!

Sorry Cat if what the Argus printed was dreadfully wrong - I don't know the commentators nor the journalist so I can't judge between the two. (many commentators do seem to be familiar with you so would be biased, whereas the journalist I presume is neutral). If it was more obvious I was wrong and the commentators were less demanding I would have finished with just my first two words!

alyn, southwick wrote:

SmileyD wrote:

alyn, southwick wrote:

farang wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that so many commenters seem to get so irate at other's activities - my opinion on that is that their lives are very shallow.
Research may show that they may not have good, varied, social connections. Such isolation can lead to entrenched dogma.

Farrang my social life is very active and fulfilling - it mainly comes from helping others often at my own expense, rather than helping myself at the expense of others.
I am so glad to hear this lady has not deprived any charity morally, legally deliberately or inadvertently. Living a life that is not beset by trying to gain regardless of costs is so liberating.
I did look at freegle and found it too hard to assess it's usefulness by needing to register first before being able to assess. Something I don't find in freecycle. But another means to make the world a better place by not creating junk from perfectly good stuff can only be commendable.
You know there are many people out there who do deprive charities of as much value as they can get by duplicitous means; I've been to many charity sales where those traders in second hand goods are those who haggle the most - and heard too many stories where people do shop lift from charity shops - shops that often give away free to those in genuine need. That's why I get angry, not because of some lack of social involvement but because of active social involvement.
(By the way, do people realise the cost they sometimes impose on charities by giving or dumping stuff on them that really is junk or even good stuff but given in the wrong way. Anything left unattended by closed doors/gates often has to be thrown even if it was originally good, because of damage done after by nature, animals or other fellow persons. Why donate out of date food to food banks, often years if not decade out of date - if its not good enough for you why should it be good enough for those less fortunate.)

Well done - nice to see a bit of contrition here. I still feel that you owe Cat an apology for accusing her of "depriving charities of much needed money" (your words) in your original post tho'. Have a good day!

Sorry Cat if what the Argus printed was dreadfully wrong - I don't know the commentators nor the journalist so I can't judge between the two. (many commentators do seem to be familiar with you so would be biased, whereas the journalist I presume is neutral). If it was more obvious I was wrong and the commentators were less demanding I would have finished with just my first two words!

and what about the judgemental comments of commentators taking a more pro-"Freegle" view casting aspersion against mine and others sociability.

@alyn, I do a weekly session with a very well known food 're-distribution' charity and food that is on-date or out of date is never redistributed as it contravenes health and safety legislation, however, it can be taken by we volunteers as, in a way, we would only have ourselves to blame if we became ill.
I am confident that no well run food bank would ever do the contrary.
Thus you may see that you have, once again, made a comment which has no basis and it is that habit which is letting you down.
I had two poached eggs for breakfast - which are 14 days out of date. Yesterday I had several quiches which were a couple of days out of date!
re: Freegle, the registration process is very straight forward. Several years ago Yahoo wanted to enforce copyright on the use of the name and many thought this was inappropriate thus Freegle was born - it is still a yahoo group just using a different name.
In regard to casting aspersions I would suggest that if you feel they are being made about oneself then one should either be more resilient or less opinionated.

farang wrote:
@alyn, I do a weekly session with a very well known food 're-distribution' charity and food that is on-date or out of date is never redistributed as it contravenes health and safety legislation, however, it can be taken by we volunteers as, in a way, we would only have ourselves to blame if we became ill.
I am confident that no well run food bank would ever do the contrary.
Thus you may see that you have, once again, made a comment which has no basis and it is that habit which is letting you down.
I had two poached eggs for breakfast - which are 14 days out of date. Yesterday I had several quiches which were a couple of days out of date!
re: Freegle, the registration process is very straight forward. Several years ago Yahoo wanted to enforce copyright on the use of the name and many thought this was inappropriate thus Freegle was born - it is still a yahoo group just using a different name.
In regard to casting aspersions I would suggest that if you feel they are being made about oneself then one should either be more resilient or less opinionated.

Farang I was commenting on the general public who have donated to the food bank I run, food that was a decade out of date - and that was just yesterday (along with food that was several years out of date - neither of which I would give to anyone).
I think we are both miss reading comments and being too opinionated.
(I repeat my comments about donated food was about some members of the general public, not Cat, nor any other operations redistributing unwanted food, or whatever.)
I certainly needed to have included an "if it was true" type statement in my original comment. For that I am sincerely sorry.

Quote from Alyn:-
Sorry Cat if what the Argus printed was dreadfully wrong - I don't know the commentators nor the journalist so I can't judge between the two. (many commentators do seem to be familiar with you so would be biased, whereas the journalist I presume is neutral).

Hi Alyn,
you are correct in assuming I and most other Freeglers are pro-Cat, but journalists, no matter how neutral, do make boobs. In the article, the word spend-thrift was used to mean exactly the opposite. {See below.}
Oswalde.

DICTIONARY
Definition
]NOUN
spend·thrift
1. extravagant spender: somebody who spends money recklessly or extravagantly
ADJECTIVE
1. wasteful with money: tending to spend money recklessly or extravagantly

oswalde wrote:
Quote from Alyn:-
Sorry Cat if what the Argus printed was dreadfully wrong - I don't know the commentators nor the journalist so I can't judge between the two. (many commentators do seem to be familiar with you so would be biased, whereas the journalist I presume is neutral).

Hi Alyn,
you are correct in assuming I and most other Freeglers are pro-Cat, but journalists, no matter how neutral, do make boobs. In the article, the word spend-thrift was used to mean exactly the opposite. {See below.}
Oswalde.

DICTIONARY
Definition
]NOUN
spend·thrift
1. extravagant spender: somebody who spends money recklessly or extravagantly
ADJECTIVE
1. wasteful with money: tending to spend money recklessly or extravagantly

Oh yes I forgot to add that journalists are well known, like everyone else for making mistakes.
Sorry for my forgetfulness