A Sainsbury’s shopper has shared her experience at a store this week after being told to cover her shorts after a male customer complained they were too short.
Lauren O’Conner, 33, was minding her own business shopping at Sainsbury’s in Staines when a staff member approached her to tell her to ‘pull down her T-shirt’ to cover her shorts.
The member of staff went on to explain that despite the scorching 32C heat, they received a complaint from a male shopper about her outfit.
Of course, Lauren was raging. She Tweeted: “I am so angry right now.”
She continued: “Just been approached by a Sainsburys staff member in Staines store to ‘pull my t shirt down’.
“An elderly man made comment to staff member who felt compelled to come and tell me as I was shopping.
“It’s 32 degrees. If I want to wear shorts I will.”
Laura attached a picture of her outfit – pink jersey shorts and a green and white striped t shirt – with the Tweets.
She explained: “For reference, this is my outfit. All I wanted was ice lollies and I get shamed in store doing so. So disappointed.
“When are we going to stop telling women how to dress? Especially when topless men frequent supermarkets, which I highly doubt are told to change [sic].”
Speaking to FEMAIL, Lauren said she was ‘humiliated’ by the incident. She added: “I was at a loss for words that A, someone felt the need to comment on what I was wearing and tell a member of staff.
“And B, that the member of staff told me about it. I was mortified. I was wearing a mask but can you imagine the colour my cheeks would have been.”
A spokesperson for Sainsbury’s told FEMAIL: “We are speaking to the store to understand what happened and would like to apologise to Lauren for any offence caused.”
Lauren’s case is not the only example of this situation. Throughout history women have continually been told what they ‘can’ and ‘cannot’ wear.
In 1942, America introduced restrictions on women’s clothing due to material rations while simultaneously keeping men’s clothing exactly the same. Swimwear became smaller and so the bikini was invented – at a time when women weren’t allowed to show their belly button.
In 1919 an activist was sent to jail for wearing a man’s suit in public. In the 1890’s table legs were covered because ‘they resembled women’s legs’ which also had to be covered at the time.
Just four years ago in 2016, France banned Burkinis – a type of swimwear – forcing Muslim women to remove headscarves while on the beach.
Many Twitter users responded to Lauren’s Tweets with similar disgust for the situation.
One user wrote: “so Sainsbury’s you’re [sic] not going to police people to wear a mask in a pandemic but will happily police women’s bodies in a heatwave?”
Another wrote: “I’m sorry this happened to you. They shouldn’t be able to say things like that. It’s your body not their’s.”
Contrastingly, some users have argued with Lauren claiming she is wrong. One wrote: “This is inaccurate. I have been with a shirtless man in Sainsbury’s when he was asked to put his shirt on whilst in store. However upset or angry you are, it was not sexism. Might feel harsh or misplaced judgement but not certainly sexist. Men do get treated the same.”
Lauren responded to one user with: “I’m so livid about it. When are we going to stop giving the space for men who can’t stop being perverts? I am so tired of having to defend my existence and love of booty shorts!!”
Shopper shows off ‘stunning’ Christmas decorations which cost as little as 28p at The Range
What a bargain!
Shoppers can’t get enough of The Range’s cheap and cheerful Christmas decs.
A woman has shared her ‘dirt cheap’ Christmas decorations she has snapped up at The Range on the Extreme Couponing and Bargains Facebook Group.
Captioning a picture of her beautifully decorated tree, she wrote: “Absolutely in love with my baubles from The Range. Seen a few people say about the Range.
“Video doesn’t do them justice at all.”
The woman’s tree donned stunning glittery gold, silver and white baubles and twinkling lights.
She also added the receipt with prices of baubles starting at just 28p, others ranged from 40p to 45p.
Needless to say, her fellow bargain hunters were blown away by her haul. One commented: “Wow looks fabulous !!!!”
Another said: “I’ve got all these too…I love the range for baubles.”
“I’ve been to the range today and they have some really lovely baubles, and decorations in there,” one admitted.
Other shoppers gave a handy hint to head to The Range in January when they have huge sales with discounts of up to 70% on decorations.
One wrote: “I know where we are going in January”, and a second said: “I did the same last year got loads of beautiful bits for next to nothing”.
A third said: “Its so cheap anyway! but always handy to stock up on a new theme for the next year even cheaper.”
B&M shoppers shocked to find ‘x-rated’ detail on popular Christmas decoration
Shoppers ‘stunned’ by surprising detail on one of B&M’s Christmas decorations.
A woman shared the ‘x-rated’ detail that can be found on a ‘cute’ Christmas reindeer ornament on Facebook.
The white festive decoration includes a reindeer with a number of adorable animals on its back including a sleeping fox, an owl, a rabbit and a squirrel, as well as a robin on top of one of its antlers.
Thinking it would make the perfect addition to her mantlepiece, the woman and many others put it in her basket.
It wasn’t until she turned it over to see the price tag she noticed a very realistic set of male genitals.
The shopper shared a snap of the £10 ornament on a Facebook group writing: “So I was just in B&M and saw this stag. Thought it was pretty cute.
“I go to find the barcode as it wasn’t round its neck where it usually is so thought it may be a stuck on somewhere…
“I turn it over & see that.”
More recently, a TikTok video of the ornament has gone viral showcasing the reindeers meat and two veg with the caption ‘B&M have some explaining to do’.
The video has been liked more than one million times and racked up hundreds of thousands of likes.
A B&M spokesperson said: “We don’t want to come across as cocky but we think we’ve got the best range of decorations on the high street this year!
“Our stag ornament has sold really well – we can’t help but think it’s because of his big personality.”
Mum demands £450 compensation from babysitter who fed chicken nuggets to her vegetarian kids
Who is to blame?
A babysitter fed two children a McDonald’s Happy Meal after their request, but their mum was furious because they are vegetarian.
The babysitter has refused to pay £450 ‘emotional support money’ to the mum after feeding her children chicken nuggets, because she wasn’t told they were vegetarian.
The 19-year-old babysitter has been babysitting for two years and was asked to look after two children from a new family.
The kids, nine and seven, were well-behaved while with the childminder who in reward for their good behaviour said they could have a Happy Meal after they requested one.
Both children and the parents failed to mention the kids were vegetarians. It lead to a blazing row when the parents returned to collect their kids and found out they had eaten chicken.
The babysitter explained: “The mom came home early and saw her children eating chicken nuggets. She literally ripped the nuggets out of their hands and started screaming that I’m horrible for allowing her children to eat dead corpses and yelling at her children for eating the meat.
“She kicked me out without paying me and then later text me saying that I need to pay her $300 (£227) for each kid for the emotional damage I have caused them and if I didn’t she’d take me to court.
“I refused to pay the money and told her that she should have told me that she was vegetarian and I would have made sure to completely respect her family diet choice and since she didn’t tell me it’s not my fault.
“She said that I shouldn’t just assume everyone eats meat.”
The sitter took to Reddit to ask how to handle the situation, unfazed by the legal threat as both her father and brother are lawyers.
One commented on the post: “It was her responsibility to tell you her kids were vegetarian. She still owes you money for babysitting. I’d be willing to bet she has pulled this stunt before to get out of paying and maybe try to get some extra cash.
“I find it weird that neither kid mentioned they didn’t eat meat and they wanted a happy meal.”
A second said: “Give her contact info to your lawyers. Ask her when you can expect to be paid or if you should settle that as well in court”.
Another said: “Call her bluff. She’ll be laughed at in court.”
Who do you think is to blame in the situation?