So incredibly wasteful!

In the 80s and 90s Burberry had a factory in Littleport Cambs. Every so often they would have a sale there but you could only be admitted with an invitation. I used to go with a friend but mist of the time the clothes etc were poorly made and not even worth the "sale" price which was still high. My ex did buy a raincoat there which he wore for years. Other than their famous check are their clothes instantly recognisable? Surely the labels could be removed and the clothes sold rather than burnt. A total waste of resources in my opinion.

Burberry at Bicester Village used to be great for bargains but now they cater for the foreign market so there are no value purchases to be had.

I think they are too late if the purpose of destroying their surplus stock was to achieve exclusivity. The Burberry check is copied everywhere, every market stall has bags/scarfs you name it, the factories knock out the pirated copies. To me, seeing someone wearing Burberry is seeing someone wearing a knocked off/pirated article. Not classy, not exclusive. Sorry Burberry, that boat has sailed as it has with Tommy Hilfiger.

Nfk Absolutely!

You’re right Synonyous. It does make the wearer look needy. Like school kids having to all have the same in order to be included in the gang.

I hate this obsession with wearing labels with clothes attached. It’s like wearing free advertising.

If I were to wear Burberry all my friends would assume it was a copy so there’s no point. And I don’t like it anyway.

What a waste!
I really don't understand this obsession with labels. It is 'The Emperor's new clothes" all over again.
If anyone wanted me to wear an item of clothing with their name on it I would tell them that they could never pay me enough to do so as it makes the wearer appear very needy.

My school raincoat years ago was actually called a 'burberry' so I had no idea it was now a 'posh' brand name! Did the firm grow from humble beginnings then as I'm pretty sure that my coat would have been cheap to buy. The only brand names I wear are 'George' and 'F&F, though I did buy some Adidas trainers in a sale this year.

I heard someone on Radio 4 today say that all the expensive brands do this to protect their intellectual property - Burberry just happen to be the subject of this story.

About 20 years ago I bought an Armani coat in Brick Lane for £50. The trader said she bought up their left overs at the end of the season because Armani couldn't be seen to have stuff left to reduce.
In the days when Victoria Beckham was famous for her Gucci habit Tom Ford asked an aide what they could do to stop "that awful woman" wearing their clothes. He was told nothing could be done because she actually bought them!

That doesn't surprise me keriku!

I worked in a factory over 30 years ago which made garments for several companies including Burberry. The main difference was a slightly better grade of fabric, plus the linings were hand cut individually to ensure they matched exactly. That was it! The garments then sold for much, much more than the other items we manufactured - madness!

It is shocking.

If you want to be exclusive, you don't make lots and then burn it. You just make less in the first place. That is the ultimate ecological solution.
That would be the sensible option - obviously people do not want their over-priced items so they have been left with them.

The only thing that wearing 'Burberry' means is 'I have more money than sense - this item cost peanuts to make and I have paid an extortionate price for it'.
Stupid.

They don't want the 'wrong' people wearing their stuff so they destroy it.

Nothing exclusive about Burberry since every market stall has been selling a version of "Burberry check" for decades.
This obsession with labels is pathetic.

Never again will I buy Burberry

I do object to the expression worth when they mean cost, they are totally different concepts. The value of these items is a simple sum (cost of materials + cost of labour) which I estimate would be a value of circa £20,000 to which, if they have actually been delivered to the shops (which I actually doubt) might double the cost of manufacture at most

lucky girl. Totally disgusting unethical behaviour from a pretentious brand which smacks of a publicity stunt anyway - as if it wasn't going to become common knowledge in this mass communication age.

Clothing like this used to be sold in Leather Lane market. The stallholders just had to agree to cut the labels off which they always did. Suddenly everything is a problem. I doubt that there was that much over ordering in the past though. They could give it to fashion colleges to remake or rip it up and sell it as rags. It just seems like they've taken the easiest way.

Greedy that’s all not even out in a sale meanies.

The whole designer thing is nonsense, isn't it? Who is going to be impressed by it anyway? Only another idiot. Even if I became a millionaire I'd still refuse to buy into it. This would apparently make me 'eccentric' - complete and utter garbage.
OTOH industry relies on us to get fed up with things and replace them due to changing fashions. If everyone was like me we'd have even fewer manufacturing industries.

The answer to these idiots is for us not to buy Burberry, ever.

What a disgusting way to behave and expect the world and his wife to 'understand'.

We should shun them for being so up their own backsides and thinking they are that important, Makes me mad !!!!!

Some brands give old stock to charity shops. I've seen new Bon Marche and Edinburgh Woolen Mill clothes. I know who I'd rather support.

Although it’s hugely wasteful, they are, like it or not, an international luxury brand and by disposing of unwanted stock this way are in effect looking after their shareholders’ interests. They won’t be the first or last to do this...
Their own CSR info states:
Only 20% of textiles are recycled, with the remaining 80% lost to landfill or incineration (‘Loved Clothes Last’, Fashion Revolution Issue #2).
I don’t expect they’re even the worst offenders - it’s just that someone spoke out about it!