Home > Businesses > Archived Reviews of Thomson Reuters > Review

"Cambridge overlooked once again!"

A review of Thomson Reuters by Shopping Girl Maniac written on Tuesday 30th of October 2007

Advertisements

No Primark, no MK1, no Peacocks, no Mango, no Ethel Austin, no decent vintage clothing shops, no Matalan, no MAC, no House of Fraser, no Space NK, no All Saints, no Pilot, no Ravel, no Shellys, no Etam even! All the shops we have in the city centre are duplicated in the Grafton centre and it looks like they'll be duplicated again in the Grand Arcade. We already have a Topshop, a Wallis and a River Island so why do we need them again? And who the hell can afford Hugo Boss?! Please give us some NEW shops! Or better still take away one of the New Looks (for example) which are both tatty and tiny and give us one good one of a decent size! Have you seen the branches in other cities? They actually have nice stuff! Compared to most UK cities Cambridge seems like the eastern block in the 1980's! Younger women, particularly those on a low income, are shamefully overlooked in this city. .

Agree? Disagree? Add your own review of Thomson Reuters

Did you find this review inappropriate or offensive?

More Thomson Reuters Reviews

Now showing reviews 1-5 of 49

View all 49 reviews »

  • JESSIICA by J
    I think that we should have a primark in cambridge and i think that it should open asap as i have to...
  • Primark Opening November by Big Valerie
    Opens 9am Friday 6th November according to their website. Yay! New shoes for me! I hope they'l...
  • What utter tosh...Thomson Reuters are nothing whatsoever to do with Primark who are moving into Burl...
  • When is it open by P negus
    Can you give me any idea when i live in cambridge but have to travel to bedford please we think prim...
  • Primark is coming! by MrsPrimark
    I work in the Bedford branch and its true we are coming to Cambridge and if all went to plan we'd of...

View all Thomson Reuters reviews

Advertisements

NOTE: Reviews are submitted by visitors of our site. The contents of this page are in no way representative of the entity being reviewed, Thomson Reuters, and are merely third party opinions. Cambridge Online accepts no liability in respect of any material submitted by visitors and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy. For further details, see our Terms & Conditions.