Brand needs bonfire of vanities Shameful product displacement

THERE is only one way to react to this. Destroying £28million of stock is disgusting. It is morally reprehensible and raises environmental and ethical issues.

But – and there is a very big but here – Burberry have a problem. It started 16 years ago when their iconic check became the uniform of the chav generation – and clearly has not gone away.

The ultimate nightmare for the brand came in 2002, when EastEnders’ Danniella Westbrook stepped out in a Burberry mini skirt, carrying a Burberry handbag, wheeling a Burberry pram. And despite multi-million-pound ad campaigns, the damage has never been fully reversed.

There are claims that designer labels destroy products to prevent them being sold at discount prices on the “grey market” to the “wrong people”.

Sadly, this bonfire of the vanities has to happen for the brand to survive – nobody will spend £1,400 on a Burberry mac when you can get one in the market for £20.

Y VTell us what you think: yourvoice@mirror.co.uk WORRINGLY, Burberry is not the only designer brand to burn unsold products.

Nike has admitted slashing trainers and dumping them as they did not meet its “restock, recycle or donate” criteria.

Luxury Swiss watchmaker Richemont, which owns Cartier and Montblanc, has destroyed £400million worth of timepieces over the past two years to prevent them being sold at knockdown prices. Last year, a whistleblower from Urban Outfitters claimed he had been ordered to “pour green paint” on unsold Toms shoes, but the company declined to comment. And even high street chain H&M has burned 15 tonnes of items at a power station. The company insisted the stock was in too poor condition to recycle or donate as it was either mouldy or had been contaminated with lead. DUMPED Cartier and Nike

Westminster Heritage trench coat, £1,550 English pinstripe wool suit, £1,690 Vintage check silk tie, £140 Vintage check baseball cap, £230 Large rucksack in vintage check, £1,150

ON TREND Meghan in Burberry tartan