Marks and Spencer support new Hooters in Bristol, #2

[sethstarkaddersmum]

I went to post on the first thread but it was full so here is a new one.

I'm reposting Jessinavalon's OP from 10th September since it explains what is going on, for anyone who is new to the issue:

'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.'

Btw, if you passing the place, check out the doormat. A huge owl with cheeky big eyes like breasts so you can now trample all over a pair of breasts on the way in. I'm sure we could write an essay on the misogynistic symbolism of that doormat!

Good to see this thread back active again - and how sad that you've all been too busy about plans for the future to engage with the resident whining diddums

What is the news on latest target towns, do we know?

Yes, I'm so at the sneaky underhandedness about obtaining a licence. WHy not advertise Hooters a year in advance like the restaurants with nothing to hide Jamie Oliver?

"Good to see this thread back active again"

Oh, I think the undercover boss thread is much more active, and more interesting.

David-seeing as you seem to want to be so helpful, can you tell us which city the franchise holders will be targeting next?

I honestly don't know. There was a long list of sites going round, but I think that was quite out of date and related to the plans of the previous franchise holder.

Im not so sure that they can sustain a large scale roll out with just a single UK franchisee.

I'll understand if you think I'm trying to misdirected you, but that is my honest opinion.

You could ask local licensing authorities to keep you informed of any applications that fit your criteria, but I don't think they are obliged to help you in this respect. Other than that, you'll just have to keep an eye out for application notices.

In Cardiff and Brighton, they did use 'Hooters' in the application, but I'm not sure if there is any obligation to disclose the brand name of the venue in the application. I think they need only state the name of the applicant e.g. 'Gallus management', 'Bubo restaurants' etc.

Thanks David.

Do you know why Gallus decided not to mention Hooters in its application in Bristol when they made reference to it in Brighton & Cardiff?

No, but I would expect the inconsistency is down to them using different local solicitors and agents.

I have just been browsing the most recent licence applications for Bristol and we are (hopefully) getting a Jamie's Italian and a Sanctuary Spa. Two things I am quite excited about. There seems to be need to hide the brand names there.

Really? Do you not think it might be down to them wanting to avoid objections and negative publicity?

Indeed, but I don't expect that these two businesses are subject to an organised campaign to prevent them opening.

I happen to think that its quite underhand to hide the brand name, its also fully understandable. It may come back to bite them in any future applications though.

I would also argue that the perception of a particular brand can unduly influence licensing applications in both ways. It certainly does in planning as many local authorities are extremely keen to attract prestigious brands and may ignore legitimate concerns in favor of civic vanity.

I don't think you need worry about Jamie Oliver.

You have implied in previous posts that there is lot of support out there for Hooters. If this is the case, why do you think that they may have deliberately hidden the brand name?

Licencing isn't some kind of popularity contest. That said, they knew that there were people actively campaigning against them who would be quite prepared to submit, and encourage others to submit, spurious objections. Invalid as they may be, they might still influence the politicians on the committee.

They may have hoped to minimise this prejudicial effect by omitting the brand name from the application notices. AFAIK, this isn't against the rules, but its not without risk either.

I see what you're saying but, if there is so much support for the brand out there, why would they worry about a few "spurious" objections? Surely the support garnered by announcing the brand name would outweigh the few, "spurious" objections? It implies a lack of confidence on the franchise holder's part, that they have to resort to keeping the brand name quiet until assured of the licence.

And do you know for definite what their tactic was or are you surmising?

Are you also saying that the committee may have been influenced by what the local population wanted? Isn't that the way the process is designed to work? The committee have to be considerate to the wishes of the local residents. Do you not think that it was unfair to deny local residents a say in a business that is virtually opposite the entrance to their apartment blocks? These objections wouldn't be "spurious" surely but would be genuine concerns of those living near the business.

What would the risk be in concealing the brand name, would you say?

Again, its not a popularity contest - nobody weights up the support against the objections.

I agree that it implies a lack if confidence. However, starting to fit out the store before hand implies the opposite. What does it matter either way?

What did you mean by it being a risk to not admit to the brand in the application?

I'm surmising of course, but hiding a controversial brand might not be viewed sympathetically by the licensing committee, even if it isn't technically against the rules.

How is that a risk though?

And that's an interesting last comment! The committee are there to act on the interests of the people who elected them, not franchise holders!

And clearly, as you say, the company were happy to take this risk seeing as they decided to start recruiting in January and fitting out the premises several months before the licence was granted.

Do you not think that it was unfair of the company to not give those living nearby the full information about the application?

Sorry for the cross posting. I?ve been using my phone and it takes me ages to type a response. It doesn?t help when you hit me with those quick one-two combos!

The Licencing Committee is not there to ?to act on the interests of the people who elected them?. They act in a quasi-judicial capacity and are there to arbitrate between applicant and objector(s) in strict accordance with the law.

I don?t think it was unfair of the company not to use the name Hooters in the application notice as I cannot conceive of a valid (in law) objection that would apply to Hooters as opposed to any other brand seeking to license the same activities. Cynical? Yes. Unfair? No.

Speaking of cynicism, why are you talking to me again? What are you up to Jess?

Just enjoying the debate!

You seem to know an awful lot about the licensing process for a binman!

The whole point about the advertising of an application is to allow interested parties to make an informed decision as to whether or not to make a formal objection. Do you not think that, in withholding the brand name, the company was denying local residents the full knowledge about the business that may be operating and thus the opportunity to make an informed decision, whether you consider there to be a valid in law objection that they could lodge or not?

I am curious as to what will happen to the pregnant Hooters girl in the Nottingham branch. Will she be moved to a back room position when she starts to show, I wonder. David, any suggestions?