Skip to main content

Don't go to Bicester!

We're lucky, living in Swindon having a designer outlet centre on our doorstep, but we thought we'd give the Bicester equivalent a try. What a nightmare.

I have never been in such a badly laid out car park. No indication how to get to the upper level, no idea if the lanes were one way (some people clearly thought so from 5 near collisions).

The 'village' itself has no maps up, just paper ones. And catering was ludicrous - vastly under supplied. You either queued just to get in or sat outside in the rain.

Ok the shops were ok (though I hate the way the staff keep speaking to you - if I want help I'll ask for it), but mostly too small and crowded.

Won't be coming here again.

Comments

  1. Adam Creen13 February 2012 at 15:54

    The Clarks shop in particular is like the seventh circle of Hell. Can you imagine working there, crawling round picking up sweaty shoes discarded by rich foreign tourists? Yuk.

    ReplyDelete
  2. peetm14 February 2012 at 07:32

    Blimey, either things have changed of late, or I'm terribly unobservant - the last time I was there the car park was just a huge ground level open tarmac'ed lump - have they built a multi storey one now then?

    Also, you ought to complete the triad now - and have a look at the Clark's Outlet near Glastonbury.

    P.S. it's peet here. Trying to verify with my Google ID but it keeps wanting me to create a blogger account.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg14 February 2012 at 08:00

    There were two bits that had two stories, as well as a ground level bit, Peet. They're down the far end - perhaps you never got that far. Or perhaps they are so new that they haven't painted the markings on the roads yet.

    BTW that post was written on my phone, standing outside a shop in the rain, which may have helped with the bile, and explains the brevity.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
123 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more