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.'

Have you invited anyone from Hooters?

Got that maternity policy for us yet?

I'm still looking.

So did you invite anyone from Hooters?

Apologies everyone, no more feeding of the troll.

Oh, so theres a question you don't want to answer so you stop 'feeding the troll'.

OK, I couldn't find a Hooters maternity policy. Thought about mocking one up, but really couldn't be arsed - got as far as finding a template, but just couldn't nail the Hooters Orange for the font.

Anyhow, I did find this from what appears to be a Yankee version of Mumsnet!

community.babycenter.com/post/a8051555/hooters_maternity_uniform

Reading around a little, it seems that the existence of a Hooters Maternity Uniform is down to the New Orleans franchise being sued for $20,000 by two pregnant women.

What a great idea for an event Jess - I love the idea of a discussion; it helps people crystallise ideas and thus turns them into more effective campaigners, as well as the fact that just doing stuff will help keep the issues on the map.
Will be good chance for feminists to network too.
Hope it goes well

Sounds like the 'Panel Debate' will consists of a few people who all know each other 'violently agreeing' on how terrible Hooters is.

Isn't this type of 'discussion' more appropriate for the pub?

Thanks Sethstark....won't type all your name! And Leningrad. It is disappointing that the chair of the licensing committee won't be there to join in with the discussion but we tried!

It will be useful to get other members of the council's licensing committee there as a few of them have said that they'd liked to know more about the issues that will be discussed. A working party is currently writing the council's SEV policy so it's quite timely.

Will let you know how it goes. Lots being organised in Bristol. The uni group is organising an event with Kat Banyard & Kirs Cochrane for a few weeks' time and there's a talk from Jean Corston who wrote the Corston report on women and prisons on Friday evening at the council house.

Did I mention I met Germaine Greer on Sunday at the Cheltenham Literary Festival?
She was really lovely and gave us some advice on the Hooters campaign (which I won't post on here!).

All happening in Bristol!!

OMFG that you met GG

Hi will do. I didn't see that series. I think I was away and didn't catch up with it. What were her thoughts?

Wow - very cool that you met GG!

Bristol has a very active feminist network at the moment.

I never quite know whether to take Germaine Greer seriously. At Charlatanism last weekend, didn't she suggest that women keep an online blacklist of men they accuse of rape?

Was this a serious suggestion? It sounds like a libel lawyer's wet-dream.

Cheltenham = Charlatanism. According to my spell-checker.

You're an interesting guy, davidsthubbins. An awful lot of time, to do what exactly? Hooters is obviously sexist and indeed damaging to men. Its further offence is to be rooted somewhere in 1970s soft porn. I don't know whether they advertise themselves as a retro experience but that's what they are. Your earlier posts (at some point) about the police not producing evidence are in error. The application, being in a CIZ in Bristol, placed the burden upon the applicant to prove on the balance of probabilites that the place would not add to cumulative impact. At the hearing of their application, they produced - literally - no evidence, merely rhetoric and predictive assertions. The licensing committee got it badly wrong, not only on the merits, but - crucially - in misunderstanding their own procedures. They got it wrong for sure, but unfortunately the individuals who complain and the pressure groups etc have no legal "locus" to appeal.

MumBristol,
Cody Brooks may find feminists bewildering, but is that any reason to deny him a right of reply ? hell, he might even learn something? Or does the university operate a ?no platform for misogynists? policy?

Welcome Mitzi,
How I spend my time is my business. Hooters do clearly discriminate against men in their recruitment policy ? that is self-evident. If you think Hooters channels a 70s soft porn aesthetic and you find this offensive, then perhaps you shouldn?t go there. I think most people can quite easily decide for themselves if they think Hooters is a retro concept ? they don?t need this spelt out to them.

The Police didn?t produce any evidence ? this is a matter of public record, and not an error in my previous post. I am fully aware of how a Cumulative Impact Policy creates a ?rebuttable presumption? that new applications in particular areas will be normally be refused if relevant objections are raised.

Neither side produced anything other than ?rhetoric and predictive assertions?, as you put it. As a matter of interest, what sort of empirical evidence would you expect an applicant to provide?

I think you?ll find that some committees, and indeed most magistrates, understand the procedures very well. The problem is that many people confuse a Cumulative Impact Policy with ?we don?t want any more bars here? political posturing.

In response to your last point, any ?interested parties? that made a valid objection to the application can make an appeal.

When I said it is damaging to men, I didn't mean in recruitment. I meant in the rather sad perpetuation of the lads' culture (cf Loaded etc) which militates against men reaching some kind of maturity and social responsibility beyond treating women with derision and as suitable only for consideration as objects of greater or lesser supposed sexual attraction.

The police evidence did not, at that stage, need to advance beyond the proposition that this was more of the same in a CIZ. I couldn't agree more that it would be difficult for the applicant to have provided evidence. That's the whole point. Their operation in itself stood against their ability to demonstrate no cumulative impact. Sadly, the licensing committee (hey, I'm rather beginning to wonder if you were on it, Dave) totally went off the rails of logic and procedure. They concentrated upon internal security and essentially cosmetic issues, whilst ignoring the impact on the area as a whole. And no, interested parties do not have the locus to appeal. The council rather helped to ensure that wider objections were not heard on the day, as you know.

So by ?damaging to men?, means it perpetuates a stereotypical view of the men who would go there? I?m sure they appreciate your paternalistic concern.

You seem to have trouble with the term ?rebuttable presumption?, well the rebuttable part at least. It seems that, in your view, the ?rails of logic and procedure? inevitably lead to the presumption that no more licences should be granted. I expect that the standard of proof you would require the applicant to provide is near impossible for anyone to meet.

And yes, ?interested parties? do have grounds to appeal, even if your definition of such differs from mine and, more importantly, that set out in the Licencing Act. In this case, the Police could appeal the decision. Unlikely of course, as they practically admitted that they had no issue with the application and were simply being dogmatic.

Of course, it?s not the Cumulative Impact Policy that concerns you. What grates is that your ?Wider Concerns? were not taken into account; that people who live nowhere near the site can?t object on grounds that have nothing to do with the licencing objectives.

But look, the upside is that the new government want to make it easier to object. Get lobbying the Home Office and better luck next time!

Mmm. Do you have a legal qualification?

The decision implied the police had no real issue. Unwise to believe everything you read. Unless you wrote it?

Would it make any difference if I did?

I Imagine it might, yes.