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.

Why do they think "it's a commercial decision" will wash?

WTF is plan A?

A meejah gimmick? Or a commercial decision?

Because obviously, if commercial decisions are what they use to decide how they act, then plan A is simply a marketing gimmick dressed up as ethical retailing.

Because um, they don't really believe in ethical retailing, do they? Unless they believe the objectification of their target market is ethical.

I'm sick of hearing that it's a commercial decision. I know that, it's what I expect a retailer to make. Just fucking stop telling me about fucking plan A, because that's a commercial decision too, you nobbers.

I agree....as someone else pointed out to them, being a hitman is a commercial decision and it doesn't make it right.

All this stuff about 'Plan A', ethical marketing and their commitment to the "Let Girls Be Girls" campaign sounds completely hollow now. When they are asked to actually abide by those principles, they sell out completely.

I am finding their bland responses quite insulting now. We've taken the trouble to ask specific questions and they are choosing not to answer them but are repeating the "it's a commercial decision" at us like a mantra. They clearly are hoping this will just go away. Keep ignoring those little ladies long enough and it will all die down....except these little ladies are their target market.

Perhaps we should all post how much we spent on average in Marks and Spencer every year. If they get some idea of how much they will be losing out on (especially if the IoS are running the story) then it might make them change their mind.

I probably spent about £40 a month on food from the Simply Food stores plus other presents for people at Christmas time.

So that's about £500 just from me alone and I'm not a clothing customer.

I only buy clothing from them and was somewhat shocked to see my spend has been about £450 over the last 12 months.

That's not including the new suit dh was about to buy though (and he's now decided to go elsewhere because of this issue).

Thanks RD. I will keep a running total.

`

oops sorry.

Meant to say, sod it, no more lemon drizzle cake from them either.

Lucky Waitrose does a v. fine lemon drizzle cake and I can never decide which one I like best - their's or M&S's.

That's that dilemma solved.

There are only 2 food halls in Bluewater and I can never decide whether to go to the John Lewis one or the M&S one. Another dilemma solved...

Marks and Spencer clearly believe that it's in their interest to support Hooters opening up now, otherwise they will have to find someone else to take up the lease.

I wonder how actively they will support Hooters if the licensing decision goes to appeal, which we are pressing to happen (the police can appeal the decision because the site is in a cumulative impact zone).

And if the licensing appeal is successful (i.e. the licence was withdrawn), I hope M&S wouldn't suddenly appear to take the moral highground and announce their withdrawal from the lease. That would look a bit pathetic then.

Come on Marks and Spencer - are you going to do the right thing here or not?

This week I would have spent £80 in M and S but have taken my custom to John Lewis. Actually, TBH, JL is far superior anyway.

I wonder if it's worth targeting Martha Lane-Fox (one of their non-execs). I tried e-mailing her but didn't get her e-mail address correct.

I can't imagine she'd be too impresssed.

Sent my email to M&S. Hope it helps!

I still haven't received a reply yet!

For those in the media looking at this - I think that the Nottingham branch sponsoring children at an event at the East Midlands Sports Academy is a good angle - photo here.

This could be linked in with the findings of the review into the sexualisation of young people. (home office archive weblink changed and not working again ).

Dr Linda Papadopoulos conducted that review and would be a good person to approach for a view as to the impact of the "mainstreaming" restaurants which treat their female staff as objects.

Another key points is - check the details of the licences. If these are "family restaurants" then how come under 18s need to be accompanied by an adult and there are not under 18s allowed after 9pm.

Compare this to eg a TGI Friday where groups of 15/16/17 year olds can have parties without adults.

Is it time for the licencing laws to be updated in this country?

Is it really acceptable in 2010 that a sign on a lampost and an advert in a publication of the applicants choice is deemed sufficient to notify interested parties of the intention to apply for a license?

On the M&S angle - the key is what's the ethics policy on selling/leasing spare space.

"Is it really acceptable in 2010 that a sign on a lampost and an advert in a publication of the applicants choice is deemed sufficient to notify interested parties of the intention to apply for a license?"

It might be worth some of you Bristol Mumsnetters checking that angle out. In my community we successfully managed to appeal a planning application because the "sign" hadn't been displayed properly.

Probably spend on average £50-80 a month in M&S, more if you include lunchtime sandwiches. But not since last weekend...

Simon hasn't said anything to me about a commercial decision - who wants to go back to him and point out that Primark having 9 year olds sewing sequins was a commercial decision that M&S already took a stand against?

Not sure if I posted it on this or the other thread but if you are keeping a running toatl I spent £50 this week in Next that would have been spent in M & S last week.

I had an interesting discussion with a bloke down the pub this evening!

His housemate is writing a corporate responsibility policy for the company he works for (a high street bank). Apparently Marks & Spencer's is held up as the 'Gold Standard'.

He said that when the Groundwork Trust was given the profits from the 5p carrier bag charge that was introduced, the corporate responsibility team, aka Plan A,was crawling all over the GT to make sure that it complied with the Plan A standards.

He suggested that perhaps M&S don't think there will be enough bad publicity from this for their corporate responsibility team to worry about. If that's true, then then it really is just a gimmick, because they only seem to apply the policy when there's a chance of very negative PR.

Perhaps those on Twitter could 'tweet' about it. I'm not on twitter but it might get the word out there more if lots do?

Yes, they know that supporting a company which has mysogyny and the pornification of our culture built into it, is just not that controversial.

It should be, shouldn't it!

Got my response from M&S, exactly the bloody same as all the others. Like a big, fat corporate hand in your face.