Marks and Spencer support new 'Hooters' in Bristol

[JessinAvalon]

Dear all
This is my first post on here so I hope I am doing this right!

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".

Thanks everyone.

(it wasn't actually mine, I was quoting Jess, but I think I did say something very similar earlier up in the thread as well )

M&S write:

"and feel we may not of taken the time to read "

This isn't ordinary illiteracy. This is MARKS AND SPENCER illiteracy. And in what alternative sector of reality does the formal communication from a CEO's office to a disgruntled customer use "you're"?

Seriously. If the chairman of a FTSE100 company can't employ executive yesmen who can form simple sentences in an appropriate register, why are we surprised they can't follow the chain of sub-lets either?

"as a ethical retailer"

I'm being nitpicky but I do hate bad grammar too!

I don't give two hoots about their grammar

I just wish they wouldn't sublet property to revolting sexist restaurant chains with a sideline in soft porn.

"I don't give two hoots about their grammar "

It is indicative of how seriously they are taking this matter: not at all.

nah, they just have shit grammar. There's a lot of it about these days.

Not in CEO's offices, in my experience. They're normally very careful. Hence my comment.

If you're registered a name in .uk as an individual you can opt to have your name and postcode not listed against the registration. Having your name and home address listed against a potentially controversial domain name probably isn't a smart move.

Hi there
It's all kept private. Someone had already warned me about that.

It isn't. The third letter of the registrant's surname is y, their road's name starts with S and their postcode finishes with an X.

Really? A guy checked in work earlier and it came up as private. Thanks for the warning. I'll get it double checked.

I've just compared it with two of my vanity domains. They say:

"The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their address omitted from the WHOIS service."

That's what you want.

Just wanted to say that you have my full support, and I've signed your petition.

I really hope we can get this overturned

I've signed the petition.

pixie - I think it is the policy questions - existence of policy and future policy covering this type of matter.

SGM also has not a reply yet.

Thanks for the privacy warning. One is definitely private and the other isn't. I'm trying to add privacy to the one that doesn't have it! What a pain!

"suggestive sell merchandise" !

Well I will be still shopping at M&S and suspect they won't see a drop in profits because of the piousness of Nunsnet

Vive la knocker!

I'd rather be accused of piousness than come accross as a frightened sheep who is so downtrodden that she goes along with whatever big daddy dishes out to her.