Mumsnet in The Independent

[gingerPuddingBFLT]

I read in yesterday's Independent that MN is objecting to Marks & Spencers, because they have decided to sublet their Simply Food store in Bristol to US food chain Hooters - as part of the 'Let Girls be Girls' campaign.

Isn't this just interfering a bit in M&S's running its own business? Isn't also just a little bit random - after all, the high street is littered with things that don't help 'girls be girls', for example, shops that sell newspapers with p3 or similar. Why focus on M&S in Bristol?

There is a huge thread already on this topic, no need for another one. Go and have a look at the arguments for protest on that one,. that will answer your questions.

no-one is ever forced to take part in a boycott. It's simply a lot of people saying 'We shopped at M&S in part because we thought you were an ethical business, which is how you've branded yourself; now we know you're actually not ethical at all (because it is pretty egregiously dishonest to sign up to Let Girls Be Girls and then back a restaurant that sells 'Does my butt look big in this?' babygros, among other things) we don't want to shop there any more. And we think everyone else who fell for your ethical line ought to be told too!'

and it is not random - after all, Hooters in Sheffield couldn't open because Ask Pizza who were going to sublet the site decided they didn't want to encourage soft porn.

It's the hypocrisy of M&S actions. Sign up to the let girls be girls and support Hooters.

They are hypocrites and I think it is this that has angered people so.

It shows their signing up to the let girls be girls is meaningless pr.

Oh, and you can quote me on that.

Wow, it made the Independent, Brilliant!!!

Also made The Sun, according to my Google search.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3144102/MS-faces-boycott-for-letting-store-to-Hooters.html

individuals can and should legitimately protest if they dont like the boundaries of business behaviour

i saw the origninal thread but didn't read it as it was so big

so this is great news, well done MN Towers

What a rude response to the OP to begin with.

The Sun's comments are ace...I did think something as highbrow as The Sun would be full of enlightened comment.

Woot! Well done to the posters on the orginal threads, good stuff

I understand. I suppose it's just never once occurred to me that M&S is any more or less moral than any other large retail business.

M&S - in my view - over-package food, import unnecessarily food from thousands of miles away, scandalously over-price food - and have been decorating their shops with meaningless banners about how ethical they are for years. So no surprise to me that they're now branching out into a little soft porn.

Woohoo!

what is really good is that even though the Sun article is very brief and some of their readers may not have an awful lot of sympathy with the MN line, a related story comes up about the women suing Hooters for discrimination in the US.

Hooters strategy was to sneak in new branches under the radar by using a different name for the licensing application (lots about this on the other thread for anyone interested) so anything that makes people realise they are out there is going to be helpful.

what rude response? there is another thread of over 600 posts and all the debate is well established. if op wants to talk about it, it's unlikely that people will be interested in having the same conversation in 2 places at the same time. the alternative? ignore op as this conversation is taking place elsewhere? I think ignoring is more rude than directing to ongoing thread.

Ginger pudding - do you not see that M&S then signing up to the MN "Let Girls Be Girls" campaign is incongruent with this decision?

Was not rude. It was simply pointing out that it is futile to start another thread when another one with hundreds of posts is easily accessible.

in the original post wasn't also the fact the the building being let to Hooters was near chidlrens homes?

"I suppose it's just never once occurred to me that M&S is any more or less moral than any other large retail business" - then they should stop pretending they are and its perfectly valid for women to say so publically. Very loudly. IF they so wish (obviously you are entitled to be as silent as you like on the issue).

Casserole - I do see that M&S signing up to the Let Girls be Girls campaign may be incongruent with their decision to support a Hooters branch. It's just that this is no surprise to me at all. M&S - in my view - often uses 'ethical' advertising tacks that are completely inconsistent with its business practice.

some of us were clearly more naive than you GingerPudding

It doesn't remotely surprise me that M&S treat the LGBG campaign as nothing more than a bit of free publicity. The position at the moment is that they have secured some kind of accreditation/validation from MN's campaign with bugger-all obligation to live up to it. It is a bit infuriating.

Oh sorry, I didn't see any other thread so I am assuming that the op didn't see it either or she would have posted there. Who are you to say who can and can't post on mumsnet anyway? Who cares if there are 2 threads on the same subject? There are around a million threads on breastfeeding but you don't pop up there and tell them that it's been done before so don't post another thread about it.

Twas rude and that is that.

Oh chill out. Rude enough for you?

If you are going to post about a topic, it makes sense and is etiquette to have a quick trawl around active convos to see if there is a current thread. The thread is called 'M&S support new Hooters' and has been at the top of active convos for nearly a week, so is easy to spot.