AIBU to think that Innocent are guilty of online bullying?

[DrudgeJedd]

Over on Twitter, an anonymous troll with 10 followers told Innocent to stop following a woman because they consider that woman to be a transphobe. Innocent agree to do so and also copy the poor woman into their reply so that their 297k followers can have a go at her too. Of course they haven't bothered to reply to all the people telling them that this is shameful behaviour, they're just dull boring women after all.
YANBU - Innocent fucked this one up & should apologize
YABU - public shaming of non-compliant women by Innocent is a good thing
twitter.com/innocent/status/1355090886212923393?s=19

Body Shop, Lush, Flora, Innocent... always helpful to discover who not to give our money to.

There was no need for them to respond publicly, and FFS, reacting to one saddo with 10 followers libelling an elderly woman on social media? Were there no professionals in the office because it's Friday?

Avoiding this particular bear trap should be drummed into social media employees on day one. Even though they've fucked up they can't apologize to the woman involved or engage with the hundreds of tweets supporting her because they know that if they do they'll get the usual hyperbolic guff about denying people's existance and making smoothies unsafe etc.
Also the terrifying possiblity of a k-stan pile on

@InTheDrunkTank

I don't think they should just accept that someone is a transphobe based on one twitter user's say so but of course they are more than entitled to me against transphobia. I know on MN there are a very screachy group of women who loudly claim to speak for all women but people who tend to have more buying power (the educated, higher earning demographic) are in favour of trans rights.

The incredibly women VS trans war the commentors here like to pretend exists just isn't the case. Middle class Tumblr feminists vs trans rights yes fine. That's a small, middle england demographic innocent can afford to lose though. Sorry - you're just not that important.

I went to Cambridge and think Innocent were bang out of order. Care to take your misogynistic stereotypes elsewhere?

Just because someone says on SM so and do is transphobic, why is that statement assumed to be corrected?

I really like their orange juice but will stop buying from them now.

So if you believe in women's sex based rights you're poor and uneducated? Well shit, better give back my degree and hand in my notice then!

Or you can take your stereotypes and shove it.

Funnily enough, I've never met anyone 'educated and high earning' enough to give a convincing explanation of how a transwoman is literally a woman.
You'd think that kimono barrister chap could manage it at the very least.

Interesting that the Innocent Twitter account hasn't posted a single thing since Friday morning (ten minutes after their fuck up). They've really got themselves in a pickle over this, daft sods.

they are guilty of selling sugary muck dressed up as health food. Anything that takes them down gets my vote.

if you want to sell (or buy) sugary muck, fine - but don't lie about what it is.

@DrudgeJedd

Interesting that the Innocent Twitter account hasn't posted a single thing since Friday morning (ten minutes after their fuck up). They've really got themselves in a pickle over this, daft sods.

It ever fail to surprise me these companies, with all that money they spend on marketing, forget which group of people tend to do the household food shopping

I know . Twats

And they've finally broken cover with a little message reiterating their original message that they were right and all the people who disagree with them are awful transphobes.
It was never going to go any other way I suppose.
twitter.com/innocent/status/1356521012859404291?s=09

I don't think they realise it's not about who, but it's very much about HOW

When you check the Diversity & Inclusion section on their website (which should mean a good thing but so often these days means inclusion of certain group of people to the exclusion of many groups of women ie making the ladies toilets mixed sex in the name of ‘inclusion’ actually excludes certain groups of women who can’t or won’t share with males) it misstates the protected characteristics, swapping gender for sex. These are not the same thing and undermine sex based protections for women.

So I am very unsurprised that they are so quick to treat a woman on social media so badly and to double down when it is pointed out by thousands of women.

I will not be buying any Innocent products again.

Did this company have to do this to get some gold stars off stonewalls?

Is it because they is captured!

@prisencolinensinainciusol2

Did this company have to do this to get some gold stars off stonewalls?

Is it because they is captured!

That they use 'gender' rather than 'sex' as a protected characteristic shows that either they have deliberately chosen to change it when copying it from the Equality Act or they have used wording given to them by some other party.

Given what Stonewall say about how many companies and institutions they have trained, I think it's reasonable to speculate that that wording came from them, either directly or indirectly.

My organisation has been Stonewalled and uses 'gender' instead of 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'. Sigh.

Stonewall are a fucking disgrace.

I can't get too worked up about this.
Someone pointed out that they're following an activist with a controversial view-point. As a private company, it doesn't do them any favours to be seen as actively supporting that point of view. They replied to the person bringing to their attention saying that they've dealt with it.

YABU to expect a corporation to do otherwise. The "victim" doesn't seem particularly taken aback.

Innocent is owned by Coca Cola who have ties to Stonewall

Well mental health also isn't protected characteristic.
Quite not cool to be making their own characteristics.
It's not gender, bit "gender reassignment" which is protected

Innocent were bought by Coca-Cola, so not such a fuzzy company.

A quick look at their list shows Innocent are following many arguably highly controversial accounts. They're probably happy with the number of interactions they're getting, but not all publicity is good publicity. Their statement is demeaning from the start. I mean, 'cross'?!

Given what Stonewall say about how many companies and institutions they have trained, I think it's reasonable to speculate that that wording came from them, either directly or indirectly.

My thoughts entirely.

And now, predictably, the woman targeted is being abused on twitter. Innocent can fuck off