Marks and Spencer support new 'Hooters' in Bristol

[JessinAvalon]

Dear all
(I've posted this under the feminism list but it's been suggested that I post it here as well.)

I live in Bristol and, last week, 'Hooters' was granted a licence to open in the city centre. The site is virtually opposite 3 apartment blocks, the lower floors of which are social housing and children are living in them.

What's most disappointing is that Marks and Spencer are leasing the site to 'Hooters'. They have been e-mailed by many concerned people to ask if they will reconsider leasing the building but they have just replied saying it is a "commercial decision" (as if that makes it ok!). In Sheffield, a 'Hooters' didn't even make it to application stage because the developer (Ask Pizza) realised that it would be better not to be associated with a company like 'Hooters'.

Marks and Spencer don't seem that concerned, however. Although they have signed up to the "Let Girls Be Girls" Mumsnet campaign they are not concerned about a company which sells merchandise including babygros which say "Future Hooters Girl" and "Does my butt look big in this?"

I have written to Marks and Spencer telling them that I won't be shopping in their stores again. If you feel strongly about this, please e-mail:

[email protected].

'Hooters' tries to sell itself as a family friendly restaurant but it is anything but. The Hooters in Nottingham attracts mainly stag parties and football fans. Hooters Girls take part in bikini contests and iced wet t-shirt competitions (the t-shirts are put in the freezers before the girls wear them). 'Hooters' has links to Playboy magazine....I could go on.....

I think Marks and Spencer should be shamed for facilitating this company's expansion into Bristol. They are selling women and girls down the river by leasing to this company and all just to make a "quick buck". As one former customer said to them, being a hitman is a "commercial decision" but it doesn't make it right!

Thanks everyone.

We have a petition here which we set up and a blog here which is recording articles etc and news on the Bristol Hooters.

I don't know whether notices were in the Evening Post or not, however do know that it was absolutely not publicized and numerous people have said that they would have objected had they known.

Seems to me grounds for appeal, plus the police objection.

Surely 'American-style sports cafe' is such a dishonest description of Hooters as to be downright misleading? Might that not be grounds for appeal?

There must be lots of restaurants which could be described as that which are nothing like Hooters.

that's a really excellent point....

Guardian Article from 2008 from when campaigns re Sheffield and Southend were operational.

The Council normally goes and checks that he notices are on the building as obviously there is no way of proving proof of the same afterwards. With regard to advertising it in the paper, you only have to do it once in a local paper (can be absolutely any local paper). Objectors can only appeal in certain instances and if you were to apply on procedural grounds (not sure if this is possible) I think you are going to have prove that the required procedure was not followed.

Also any application to have a premises licence reviewed must clearly show how the operation of the individual premises has not promoted, or has worked against, one or more of the Licensing Objectives and can only be made by responsible authority or an interested party (as described in the Act).

Brighton licensing committee have approved a Hooters and are in the process of formally writing the licence up.

In that license over 18's are not allowed after 9pm and before 9pm they must be accompanied by an adult!

This makes it completely different to say a TGI Friday, Pizza Hut etc where groups of teenagers can socialise together over a meal.

The Brighton application also includes a licence to show films all day and to have dancing.

Hi Tabouleh
It's the same here in Bristol - over 18s only after 9pm. I wonder if they'll be rigorously checking the ID of all the 16 & 17 year olds who were in there before 9pm?

The footage is of American sport apparently but is 'incidental' (as described by the solicitor) and the dancing is just a bit of "cheerleading type dancing" for the children's parties.....(yes, I know!!)

Mingg - well I'm equating it to planning permission for example where someone is completely able to apply for planning permission on land they do not own, even land they may never own or have a lease on.

The license may have been granted, but the final signatures on the dotted line of the lease may not have been placed. I don't see why one could not apply for a license without ownership/lease of a premises. Surely it is good business practice from the lessee to dip feet in water and make sure a license will be granted prior to signing on the dotted line?

And you think the licensing sub committee would grant a licence to someone that has no right to the premises?

As far as I'm aware, the issue of who owns the premises didn't come up in the discussions at the committee hearing.

I think they might/could. The license would be site and applicant specific. If it then transpires that the applicant could not enact the license (because they weren't able to get hold of the property), then tough on them. And any subsequent potential user would have to go through the whole process again, as a fresh applicant.

I'm assuming that planning permission (which is of course a separate aspect) has been granted for the A3 use of the site. Which could mean if not hooters, then a zizzi, or a pizza joint, or an independent restaurant. But each of those alternatives would have to apply for a license to operate and I personally see no reason why they should have to have the immediate ability/right to open by having already entered into the leasehold/ownership of the property.

Of course you may be an expert on the matter (I'm more knowledgeable about the planning side) and welcome to disagree.

On that basis any of us could go and apply for a licence for any old premises... you also need to provide detailed plans showing number of things like fire escapes/extinguishers/toilets etc and explain what you are going to do to comply with the 4 objectives, difficult to do if you do not have premises. Jess, 'ownership' details are disclosed on the application form.

More or less mingg. That's certainly the case with planning permission (though I am aware planning legislation is separate from licensing issues).

You don't have to be the owner/lessee to be able to provide plans, details of fire escapes, staffing levels, hours of operation and so on.

Of course it would be wise and appropriate to have the permission of the owner of the site before applying and no doubt their support (certainly in terms of early access for providing the info required). But I still don't see why you would have to be the owner/occupier/lessee before applying.

Which takes me back to my original suggestion that there may still be some room to manoeuvre for M&S.

Of course there may not - depends what the actual situation is with regards to money and legal documentation.

Dear Posie Parker,

Thank you for your reply to George Mason's email about our decision to sub-let to Gallus Restaurants. George is out of the office today, so I am responding on his behalf.

I was disappointed to read you felt fobbed of by George's response to you initial email. I can appreciate how important this issue is to you and many other people. M&S certainly take this matter very seriously and has not been entered into lightly. I truly am sorry you dont aggree with the decision taken on this issue.

Thank you again for your feedback on this matter.

Kind regards
Simon Hoskins
Executive Office
Your M&S Customer Service

Truly am sorry you don't agree is not the same as being truly sorry at the decision they have taken!

And the response is still just a fob off! Very disappointing from M&S.

On the other thread there is a more telling response, basically corporate decisions cannot be entered into by him.

Yeah, I got the standard response and replied back, 'thanks for the cut and paste...'

of course they have a corporate responsibility. They talk the talk, for instance by signing up to the Mumsnet 'Let Girls Be Girls' but then allow Hooters to sublet their premises

Simon has been busy today, I got this:-

"Thank you for your email back to Sharon Carvell over her response to your complaint about Hooters opening in Bristol. Unfortunately Sharon is out of the office today so I am responding on her behalf.

I am sorry to read that you have been unhappy with her response to your complaint. I can appreciate this is a sensitive issue for many customers and we do take all feedback very seriously. It is disappointing to read that you will no longer shop in M&S as a result of this."

What Simon doesn't know is that I needed some new trousers and sports clothes today and bought them from Next so M&S have already lost £50 from me.

simon sent exactly that one to me as well.

i got this one - what a surprise

Thank you for emailing Sir Stuart about our decision to sub-let to Gallus Restaurants. As a member of his personal team, I am responding on his behalf.

We have agreed to sub-let the site to Gallus Restaurants. Gallus has received A3 business use permission from Bristol City Council for the property.

It has been reported that Gallus plan to open a branch of ?Hooters? in the property. I have noted your comments about Hooters, and your concern that the reputation of Marks and Spencer may be tainted by our arrangement with Gallus. I understand your concerns; however, we do not feel it is appropriate for us to comment on the Hooters brand. If contacted directly, Gallus Restaurants may be able to provide more information on their plans for the site.

This is an issue which we take seriously, and understand that you feel strongly about this.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us.

Kind regards

Simon Hoskins

I think every morning when they get to work they draw lots for who is going to answer the emails from the mums.
Sharon got it on Sunday, Simon today.

I wonder if MN might feel inclined to ask M and S to withdraw their support for its 'let girls' campaign at our request, given it's association with Hooters? Not sure what others think?

Hello

I got the following response to my email to the M and S chairperson:

Dear Thisroomwastidyfiveminutesago

Thank you for your email to Sir Stuart about the sub-letting of our former Simply Food store at Bristol Harbourside. I am replying on his behalf.

We have agreed to sub-let the site to Gallus Restaurants. This is a commercial decision and Gallus has received A3 business use permission from Bristol City Council for the property.

It has been reported that Gallus plan to open a branch of ?Hooters? in the property. I have noted your comments about Hooters, and your concern that the reputation of Marks and Spencer may be tainted by our arrangement with Gallus. I have also noted your suggestion that we may be part-financing the property as an incentive. I understand your concerns; however, we do not feel it is appropriate for us to comment on the Hooters brand and I'm afraid that we are unable to disclose the specifics of our store property deals. If contacted directly, Gallus Restaurants may be able to provide more information on their plans for the site.

Thank you for taking the time to share your views with us.

Kind regards.
Simon Hoskins
Executive Office
Your M&S Customer Service

I should say I had to email him back coz I had never made any point about the part financing bit. My partner also emailed and got pretty much the same response. I still think it is worth keeping on going with the emails - and COME ON MUMSNET - pick this one up!!! Especially with the hideous Hooters merchandise - yuk.

This has been reported in the Indie here and in the Telegraph here

Don't read the comments! Depressingly predictable.

I should have said most of the comments! (Have just seen avalonjess's comment!)