Sainsbury's Accused Of RACISM - Quickly Apologises Even Though They Did Nothing Wrong

19th May 2014

Sainsbury’s has apologised after one of its stores dressed a mannequin in a 'slave outfit' to promote the sale of the 12 Years a Slave DVD.

The Heyford Hill store in Oxford has now been forced to remove the display after a Twitter backlash.

The supermarket chain has since said sorry for the tasteless promotion stand, adding that 'it should clearly have never gone up'.

It featured a barefoot headless mannequin wearing an outfit similiar to that worn by Solomon Northup, the main character of Steve McQueen’s film.

The Oscar winning epic graphically depicts the brutality of slavery.

The model was wearing a beige shirt and cropped black trousers, with a twig in its pocket, and was placed on a stand selling DVD and Blu-ray copies of the film.

Around the model's neck is a sign saying 'new' - although it is not clear whether the clothes themselves were on sale as part of the promotion.






Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632876/Sainsburys-accused-racism-dressing-MANNEQUIN-outfit-matching-lead-character-12-Years-Slave-stand-selling-DVDs-film.html#ixzz32BizDOsE

The display was photgraphed and shared on Twitter, where it was roundly condemned as appearing to promote 'how to get the slave look'.

Beautycouture wrote: 'Er... what?! Not sure what Sainsbury's were going for with their 'get the slave look' for the film 12 Years a Slave... ‪#‎fashionfail‬

Milena Buyum ‏@MilenaBuyum said: '@sainsburys What the heck is that mannequin doing on your display for 12 years A Slave? You into slave chic now? #slavesburys #wtf'

Lee McEwan ‏@leemcewan, added: 'Sainsbury's shows shoppers how to 'get the slave look' with 12 Years A Slave display mannequin'

A Sainsbury’s spokesman said: 'We can only apologise.

'It’s been taken down from the Heyford Hill store and clearly should never have gone up in the first place.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632876/Sainsburys-accused-racism-dressing-MANNEQUIN-outfit-matching-lead-character-12-Years-Slave-stand-selling-DVDs-film.html#ixzz32BjNh9B1

Look, if a new film was about trailer trash, would I care if they dressed a mannequin up in the same chavvy clothes that the person on the front of the DVD wore?

No I fucking wouldn't.

The mannequin is dressed in the same clothes as the person on the DVD.

This is getting behind a joke!!!!

I don't see there was any intention to offend. Maybe I'm missing something.

I also can't see where they were accused of racism, more like bad taste.

I think it's pretty tasteless, yeah. Just saw that movie, and it was fantastic and really heartbreaking. I think if someone were to dress up a mannequin in garb like Holocaust victims wore at Auschwitz and put it next to a stand of Schindler's List DVDs, it would pretty much be the same sort of thing.

Sassy wrote:I also can't see where they were accused of racism, more like bad taste.  

Yeah, another Daily Fail headline that makes a claim not backed up in the actual article.   

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Sassy wrote:I also can't see where they were accused of racism, more like bad taste.  

Yeah, another Daily Fail headline that makes a claim not backed up in the actual article.   

It's their job in life, makes the other papers look more professional   

Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

BigAndy9 wrote:Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

This is just as bad as the terrorists who have been brainwashed.


Bet you liked David Koresh Andy   

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

This is just as bad as the terrorists who have been brainwashed.


Bet you liked David Koresh Andy   

Foreign muck!

BigAndy9 wrote:Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

It's just more bullshit. You start adding up all the bullshit that's been reported, and you end up with a big-picture view of people who believe bullshit.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

It's just more bullshit. You start adding up all the bullshit that's been reported, and you end up with a big-picture view of people who believe bullshit.

...I've tried to tell him politely Ben..but to no avail.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Forget this actual incident - think of the big picture of what is going on in our country.

This is just yet another story.

This is just as bad as the terrorists who have been brainwashed.


Bet you liked David Koresh Andy   

Foreign muck!

Predictable. Ask BO what the worst thing about David Koresh was, and you get, "Well, eh, reckon he was a farner, wunnee?"

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Foreign muck!

Predictable. Ask BO what the worst thing about David Koresh was, and you get, "Well, eh, reckon he was a farner, wunnee?"

  
..or maybe he will say his only fault was that he was a scrounger!

Innit?  

eddie wrote:Look, if a new film was about trailer trash, would I care if they dressed a mannequin up in the same chavvy clothes that the person on the front of the DVD wore?

No I fucking wouldn't.

The mannequin is dressed in the same clothes as the person on the DVD.

This is getting behind a joke!!!!

But you're white

You don't have a chip on your shoulder

I suggest everyone boycotts the purchase of the film since it promotes slavery

smelly_bandit wrote:I suggest everyone boycotts the purchase of the film since it promotes slavery

You're a fucking genius, you know that? You can pull these amazing opinions fresh out of your ass, no information required. You're my hero!  ::D:: 

it's just the PC world gone crazy, how many of those who complained had actually been slaves, was the mannequin representing a certain race, no it just perceived racism crap, i wish sainsbury's had the brass balls to just say no, it's fine it stays but it would not be worth the risk to their sales..
Absolute fricking madness..

Andy is right the liberal left are on the case of anyone and everyone so much so companies and individuals feel they have to apologise for everything.

the mannequin is white so is that racism towards us white people ?

Sainsburys WERE NOT ACCUSED OF RACISM. They were accused of bad taste for trying to promote clothes that would make you look like a slave. But go ahead, be sheep, follow the path laid out for you by the DM.

Vicar of Dibley wrote:the mannequin is white so is that racism towards us white people ?

good point ,,xx

Keep bleating, you make a good flock.

Sassy,i noticed that you made no comment on phills nasty post to me. As you also have cancer I thought you might be a little disgusted , or are you in full agreement with his post?

nicko wrote:Sassy,i noticed that you made no comment on phills nasty post to me. As you also have cancer I thought you might be a little disgusted , or are you in full agreement with his post?

Nicko, I very rarely go on the music threads, much as I would like to, as too many youtubes crash my computer. I do understand what he said was extremely nasty, and I think it was awful. I also think that the vile comments made about Doug on Flap are bloody awful as well and if I was on Flap I would speak out about them as well. I would imagine that you found it very hurtful, and I don't blame you, so would I.

Thanks sassy, I'v now put away the sleeping pills and unloaded my shotgun, [sob sob]

nicko wrote:Thanks sassy, I'v now put away the sleeping pills and unloaded my shotgun, [sob sob]

No worries. However Nicko, knowing how that hurt you, perhaps you would like to think how years and years of it have affected Phil. And that's not condoning what he said, that's just saying that abuse changes us, and not for the better.

..anyway, the topic was perhaps a bit distasteful, but blown a bit out of proportion.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:I suggest everyone boycotts the purchase of the film since it promotes slavery

You're a fucking genius, you know that? You can pull these amazing opinions fresh out of your ass, no information required. You're my hero!  ::D:: 

dry your eyes mate

  I think Smellybum thought that was a clever reply.

Sassy wrote:  I think Smellybum thought that was a clever reply.

sassy

i rarely waste my time with "clever replies"

why would i cast my pearls before you swine???

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:  I think Smellybum thought that was a clever reply.

sassy

i rarely waste my time with "clever replies"

why would i cast my pearls before you swine???

Odd, the Nazi's used to be derogatory to Jewish women as swine and pigs.

and didge is too thick to know the origin/meaning of the saying "casting pearls before swine"

OR of course he does know and is just trolling.......
out to cause conflict...

victorisnotamused wrote:and didge is too thick to know the origin/meaning of the saying "casting pearls before swine"

OR of course he does know and is just trolling.......
out to cause conflict...

No Didge is intelligent enough to know when a poster is being derogatory to a woman, referring to them as pigs and even worse how Victor now tries to defend sexist views against women, wow

That speaks volumes about you, I suggest you get over your petty feud with me and learn to grow up


Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:  I think Smellybum thought that was a clever reply.

sassy

i rarely waste my time with "clever replies"

why would i cast my pearls before you swine???

Smellybum, you don't have any pearls.

and do you know what that "generally" refers to???

since it is allegorical in nature??

and you may have found a reference...(isnt google handy)

but you still havn't given its meaning.........

and didge ISNT intelligent at all...hes seeing whats not there....

and trolling..... ::troll:: 

victorisnotamused wrote:and do you know what that "generally" refers to???

since it is allegorical in nature??

and you may have found a reference...(isnt google handy)

but you still havn't given its meaning.........

and didge ISNT intelligent at all...hes seeing whats not there....

and trolling..... ::troll:: 

No I have the quote itself from Jesus in the Gospels, which Smelly is a christian

 ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me that was hilarious, which is clearly showing a poor derogatory view of people, based yet again on a similar notion of cultural pessimism funny enough, based upon a view that do not offer anything of worth to those who seek to destroy this using a reference to dogs and pigs.

Yes I understand way better than you do being as I was raised a Christian mate

Anyway I have things to do, as usual it gets boring debating a child like victor whos only response is to call someone a troll, how intelligent of him, when as seen he lacks any ability to counter.

Will look in tomorrow to see your next lame answer and am still waiting for you to answer many points like being able to actually tell me what is an English identity, something you seem so afraid to answer, I wonder why. Or how your arguments are based upon unsubstantiated fear or how America counters any poor view you claim on multiculturalism.

Good luck

Night

smelly_bandit wrote:

Sassy wrote:  I think Smellybum thought that was a clever reply.

sassy

i rarely waste my time with "clever replies"

why would i cast my pearls before you swine???

Amen

didge the dodge...

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

sassy

i rarely waste my time with "clever replies"

why would i cast my pearls before you swine???

Amen

He wasn't praying VOD dear, or are you normally abusive when you pray?

Didge wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:and do you know what that "generally" refers to???

since it is allegorical in nature??

and you may have found a reference...(isnt google handy)

but you still havn't given its meaning.........

and didge ISNT intelligent at all...hes seeing whats not there....

and trolling..... ::troll:: 

No I have the quote itself from Jesus in the Gospels, which Smelly is a christian

 ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me that was hilarious, which is clearly showing a poor derogatory view of people, based yet again on a similar notion of cultural pessimism funny enough, based upon a view that do not offer anything of worth to those who seek to destroy this using a reference to dogs and pigs.

Yes I understand way better than you do being as I was raised a Christian mate

yeah...and it shows....

smelly wasnt derogatory...he was being "condescending"...something you do very well....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:



No I have the quote itself from Jesus in the Gospels, which Smelly is a christian

 ://?roflmao?/: 


Fuck me that was hilarious, which is clearly showing a poor derogatory view of people, based yet again on a similar notion of cultural pessimism funny enough, based upon a view that do not offer anything of worth to those who seek to destroy this using a reference to dogs and pigs.

Yes I understand way better than you do being as I was raised a Christian mate

yeah...and it shows....

smelly wasnt derogatory...he was being "condescending"...something you do very well....

Clueless, the verse is derogatory in itself, holy crap you really know little it seems.

Night

The literal verse may be.....but clearly you do not understand english didge...

its USUAL (and by far most common use) today is a reference to "pearls of wisdom"

and the tarmpling is commonly considered to be the herd behaviour of the uneducated...just like you are displaying

casting pearls before swine....
the pointlessness of explaining something to the wilfully ignorant.....yup I'd call that condescension.....

Oh so you looked it up and found it is derogatory ha ha

What an idiot, that says it all, mate some of us know Christianity and on that note, you got schooled again, because now you are just making up bullshit to try to correct your error


Night

bullshit yourself.....

YOU said it was derogatory....

I said it MAY well be...

therefore not making a judgement on that....


I then "schooled" YOU on its common, or vernacular use....

something you have trouble with often...

you see didge...you might know a bit about history

but I know a LOT about language and its use and construction....something you might study with profit...

you see didge...you DONT know what i'm thinking ...as you often prove...you just make groundless and inacurate assumptions....and end up looking a right wally.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think it's pretty tasteless, yeah. Just saw that movie, and it was fantastic and really heartbreaking. I think if someone were to dress up a mannequin in garb like Holocaust victims wore at Auschwitz and put it next to a stand of Schindler's List DVDs, it would pretty much be the same sort of thing.

I watched it last night actually.
I thought is was pretty good but was a little disappointed that it wasn't 'deeper' somehow? It seemed to state the facts without showing his real emotion.

I actually wept though, for the woman with the children   

Tell you something else, it made me realise more so, or should I say it reminded me again, now offensive the word N@@@er is to a Black man.
That word has deep roots and was used in such a derogatory way.

Sassy wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:
Amen

He wasn't praying VOD dear, or are you normally abusive when you pray?

Nothing to do with praying, Amen used in this way means strong agreement

I don't see anything wrong with the mannequin being dressed that way. It certainly isn't offensive, indeed it may be a fashion statement that many will have to follow with this shower running the country at the moment.