Nude shop stunt stopped
9:20am Friday 13th July 2007
Comments (76)A cheeky stunt designed to boost sales at a soap retailer came to a premature end when a member of the public complained.
Male and female staff at Lush in Watford's Harlequin shopping centre stripped off to serve the public, wearing nothing but white aprons bearing the slogan "Ask me why I'm naked".
The aim of the initiative was to highlight the overuse of packaging in the retail industry and to promote the environment.
But following a complaint from a member of the public, a Police Community Support Officer was sent to the shop, and insisted the naked assistants cover up.
Fortunately our photographer got there just before they put their clothes back on.
Was this just bare-faced cheek to boost sales, or a little bit of fun? Tell us what you think.
Your Say YourWatford Observer
Tigs, says...
10:33am Fri 13 Jul 07
Martin, Bristol says...
11:22am Fri 13 Jul 07
WatfordKev, Watford says...
11:28am Fri 13 Jul 07
Julie, Watford, says...
11:41am Fri 13 Jul 07
Its fun to see soemthing differnet, they where doing no harm,
and really come on most girls walk atound with much more showing lol, goodness its not like you did could see anything other thab there legs and arms, oh and a bottom 0-0.
Really though, fun and fresh I love it!
And if i saw a naked man selling soap i would have been straight in there to buy one, What a pleasant shopping suprise :)
Steve, Gravesend, Kent says...
11:41am Fri 13 Jul 07
Martin, Bristol says...
11:54am Fri 13 Jul 07
The Plinth of Darkneth, Watford says...
12:06pm Fri 13 Jul 07
You wouldn't have thought it so funny if one of the staff members was assaulted in the shop would you?
Or perhaps stalked on their way home later?
Irresponsible and childish in my opinion.
Mrs N, Watford says...
12:10pm Fri 13 Jul 07
How come you keep missing the nude shop assistants? Is your bike helmet too big and covering your eyes?
Martin, Bristol says...
12:26pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Pete Knight, Worc's says...
12:47pm Fri 13 Jul 07
WatfordKev wrote:There were indeed men at some of the other shops. The stunt was to raise public awareness of excess packaging, and it worked!!
An amusing story, and as much as I admire the female form, did the staff feel in any way co-erced / pressured into doing this? And would the same rule apply to male employees?
Now is it OK if I go shopping there in the nude?
Martin, watford says...
2:08pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Pete Knight wrote:You could well have a very valid point there Pete. I predict a flashmob coming on.
WatfordKev wrote: An amusing story, and as much as I admire the female form, did the staff feel in any way co-erced / pressured into doing this? And would the same rule apply to male employees?There were indeed men at some of the other shops. The stunt was to raise public awareness of excess packaging, and it worked!! Now is it OK if I go shopping there in the nude?
Kerri, watford says...
2:37pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Michael, Watford says...
2:41pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Kerri wrote:Get a grip.
Mmm - can see what the aim of the stunt was but in this day and age with so many sicko's out there - my worry would be that the sight of a naked woman/man could arouse the wrong sort of interest. Sad but true.
Martin, Watford says...
2:57pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Michael wrote:Kerri has a very valid point though.
Kerri wrote: Mmm - can see what the aim of the stunt was but in this day and age with so many sicko's out there - my worry would be that the sight of a naked woman/man could arouse the wrong sort of interest. Sad but true.Get a grip.
It's not the kind of behaviour that should be openly encouraged.
And it's highly innappropriate should there be children and minors around.
On the whole a patheticly rubbish and seedy attempt to boost sales and publicity on the back of an environmental issue.
Derek, Watford says...
3:12pm Fri 13 Jul 07
George McManus, says...
3:22pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Pete, says...
3:54pm Fri 13 Jul 07
I've been reading The Observer for years and this story has produced the most comments yet. The REAL news stories go without notice and comment. Pathetic! Get a life people.
Then why are you commenting monkey boy!
wurzel, says...
3:56pm Fri 13 Jul 07
George McManus wrote:ha ha...
I've been reading The Observer for years and this story has produced the most comments yet. The REAL news stories go without notice and comment. Pathetic! Get a life people.
Where the heck have you been in the last week Georgie?
What about the 'unprecedented response' to the WO story about the 'family from hell' last week?
Get a life ditto dude.
Michael, Watford says...
4:10pm Fri 13 Jul 07
wurzel wrote:What, you mean the story that the WO has removed all comments from yet printed quite a lot of them in this week's paper? Censorship, who'd have thought it?
George McManus wrote:ha ha...
I've been reading The Observer for years and this story has produced the most comments yet. The REAL news stories go without notice and comment. Pathetic! Get a life people.
Where the heck have you been in the last week Georgie?
What about the 'unprecedented response' to the WO story about the 'family from hell' last week?
Get a life ditto dude.
Karl, St Albans says...
4:13pm Fri 13 Jul 07
They certainly had more on than a bikini and judging by the photos had more on than many ladies doing to evening meals or cocktail parties in their little black dresses.
OK - well if the apron wafted in the breeze you might have got the tiniest flash of bottom.
Unfortunately, where's the breeze in a shop in a shopping centre?
And I got all excited !!!
Bt, says...
4:13pm Fri 13 Jul 07
George McManus, says...
4:54pm Fri 13 Jul 07
You are both morons and pathetic. Claim your prize.
wurzel, watford says...
4:57pm Fri 13 Jul 07
George McManus wrote:Alright mate... no need to go to the Personal Level now is there.
To: wurzel and Pete You are both morons and pathetic. Claim your prize.
A bit tetchy for a Friday aren't we ?
Gollum, Albany, New York, USA says...
6:50pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Martin wrote :
And it's highly innappropriate should there be children and minors around.
Confess it, Martin, you're a Yank aren't you? We're the only ones that make such ridiculous arguments against public nudity.
Michael, Watford says...
7:05pm Fri 13 Jul 07
Gollum wrote:I doubt Martin is a septic. My guess is that he is a home grown fuddy duddy. He needs to complain.
Martin wrote :
And it's highly innappropriate should there be children and minors around.
Confess it, Martin, you're a Yank aren't you? We're the only ones that make such ridiculous arguments against public nudity.
Robster, Watford says...
7:49pm Fri 13 Jul 07
I guess this only really helps if people have catch up TV etc and are interested in this subject!
Unfortunately, I can't see any relevant programmes about nudity!!! :)
ian, watford says...
7:54pm Fri 13 Jul 07
"Where's the soap?"
The other says,
"Yes! It does, doesn't it!"
More stunts like this please, please! What a great start to the weekend. It makes Watford a cheerier place and certainly put a smile on my face. I'll definately drop in and buy a couple of bars to show support. Well done!
Philip, Waco, Texas says...
1:52am Sat 14 Jul 07
Michael, Watford says...
2:01am Sat 14 Jul 07
Philip wrote:For a dollar?
Bend over, I'll buy that!
Scot Shill, Croxley Green says...
8:11am Sat 14 Jul 07
as LennyHenry said last night (actually AckneyEmpire 2004)
"I used to be an old man with a dicky heart, now I'm an old man with a hearty (censored)".
All good clean soapy humour.
Keep it up "Soaps-r-us"!
Vince, Somewhere safe says...
11:09am Sat 14 Jul 07
Luther, Watford says...
6:23pm Sat 14 Jul 07
Tigs wrote:As I have learnt, it was about excessive packaging not just a simple attempt to boost sales.
To boost sales you divvy!!
T*at.
fiona, watford says...
6:40pm Sun 15 Jul 07
Think of it like this- it's ok to have topless models in newspapers for viewing pleasure,but when people strip off to highlight a real and growing concern regarding the environment it's all a bit too much!!!
JohnBoy, Watford says...
7:59am Tue 17 Jul 07
fiona wrote:Fiona, go and find a tree to hug. Since time immemorial men have enjoyed the feminine form so don't start all that feminist tosh about nudes in newspapers.
The girls stripped to highlight the excessive and unnecessary use of packaging in the cosmetics industry.There was a C4 programme about this on friday featuring Mark Constantine of Lush. Think of it like this- it's ok to have topless models in newspapers for viewing pleasure,but when people strip off to highlight a real and growing concern regarding the environment it's all a bit too much!!!
Karl, St Albans says...
9:46am Tue 17 Jul 07
Fiona didn't try to stop you ogling at page 3, she was just pointing out that the police stopped these people wearing no clothes under their aprons but it's quite OK for the Sun to print images of topless girls every day.
The point is that the one that was stopped by the police was the one with a laudable political message and was not nudity, which some strange people find offensive, so where's the offence? In the political message?
The other is purely eye candy.
As regards the political message, if scientific evidence predicts that levels of unnecessary packaging being reduced may help to protect the planet for your children and grandchildren why would you find it offensive for someone to make that statement, even with the alterior motive?
JohnBoy, Watford says...
10:53am Tue 17 Jul 07
Looking at page 3 in a newspaper is a totally different affair, you have control with regards to minors reading it, you have no control over bumping into someone in a shop.
Karl, St Albans says...
11:11am Tue 17 Jul 07
They weren't nude or even semi-naked.
Do you take your kids to the beach? Does your daughter ever go to swimming classes with her mum? If she doesn't yet then she will as she gets older.
Granted I'm not going to try to foist my morals on people. Did I do so? Missed that, even with a re-read.
The self-contradiction in your comments though is that you are puritanical as regards non-nudity as a political (and / or marketing) statement but you as a parent want to teach your child that a woman showing her body to millions of men in a newspaper is desireable to you.
These girls were simply naked under their clothes. Last time I checked, I was!
JohnBoy, Watford says...
1:32pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Viewing a beautiful woman, whether it be an old masters or page 3 of the sun is contextually different to stumbling across a semi naked woman in a shop.
Take a child to the pool and expect to see women in bikinis, take a child to the harlequin and you don't.
Now it's not that difficult to understand is it?
With respect to foisting your morals on others, is the term 'ogling' somewhat judgemental? You use it chummy. Or maybe the fact you generalised all people that might find semi-nudity in the harklequin as 'strange'?
Cogita ante salis
Petrov Stoing, South Oxhey says...
2:52pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Karl, St Albans says...
3:23pm Tue 17 Jul 07
On the one hand you quote Latin and on the other hand you get offended by a good English word.
Ogling is not offensive - it just means looking with sexual interest (Cambridge). I would have though that was the whole point of page 3. You can't honestly compare page 3 to old master nudes.
The context is only offensive to a prude such as yourself because it is unusual.
Look at the picture. As I wrote previously, they are NOT naked in any real sense of the word.
Or has ogling the models on page 3 affected your eyesight? Hehehe
JohnBoy, Watford says...
3:55pm Tue 17 Jul 07
You are a very illogical person aren't you?
Thank you for labelling me a prude, I think it justifies my assertion that you are judgemental and foist your morals on others.
Perhaps you feel all muslims are prudes
Quentin, Watford says...
4:35pm Tue 17 Jul 07
The Plinth of Darkneth, Watford says...
4:47pm Tue 17 Jul 07
Karl wrote:Looks like you've let yourself down there Karl.
Get in touch chap - how old are you. On the one hand you quote Latin and on the other hand you get offended by a good English word. Ogling is not offensive - it just means looking with sexual interest (Cambridge). I would have though that was the whole point of page 3. You can't honestly compare page 3 to old master nudes. The context is only offensive to a prude such as yourself because it is unusual. Look at the picture. As I wrote previously, they are NOT naked in any real sense of the word. Or has ogling the models on page 3 affected your eyesight? Hehehe
This certainly gives evceryone an idea of just what sort of character you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Karl, St Albans says...
4:59pm Tue 17 Jul 07
What on earth has Islam got to do with it? This was a shopping centre, not a Mosque. And the Qur'an certainly does not advocate ogling women in newspapers. And there are many other day-to-day British activities, including drinking and eating non-Halal foodstuffs of which the Qur'an does not approve. That is no reason for the rest of us to stop doing those things.
So you guys find being naked under clothing offensive? I'm surprised you go out of the house.
JohnBoy - you state "the term 'ogling' somewhat judgemental". In other words you found it offensive, yet I used it in it's dictionary context.
Look before you leap......"Chummy"!
ROFLMAO!!! Hehehe
Hehehe - ROFLMAO
JohnBoy, Rome says...
8:17am Wed 18 Jul 07
Karl, St Albans says...
8:38am Wed 18 Jul 07
However...Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
Live in the now - this is the 21st century. and hey, if you look rationally at the history of clothing, it is a technology that was designed for utility and protection, only later becoming some "moral" covering. Most tribes where clothing was not essential, wear or wore, very little, before the arrival missionaries who did foist their "morals" on those tribes.
Vescere bracis meis.
hehe...hehe...hehe
The Plinth of Darkneth, Watford says...
11:17am Wed 18 Jul 07
Karl wrote:You are beginning to sound as if you have certain deep underlying issues Karl. My bet is that most people probably think you are quite a disturbing individual. Your postings do have an air of the 'weirdo' about them. Are you on medication?
Things aren't any more valid because you pretentiously write them in a dead langauge. Of course men will believe in what they want to. However...Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Live in the now - this is the 21st century. and hey, if you look rationally at the history of clothing, it is a technology that was designed for utility and protection, only later becoming some "moral" covering. Most tribes where clothing was not essential, wear or wore, very little, before the arrival missionaries who did foist their "morals" on those tribes. Vescere bracis meis. hehe...hehe...hehe
Crusty the Clown, Oxhey says...
11:24am Wed 18 Jul 07
Karl wrote:Karl you are one strange dude. Do ya stalk this website or something. I think you must been drinkin
Things aren't any more valid because you pretentiously write them in a dead langauge. Of course men will believe in what they want to. However...Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Live in the now - this is the 21st century. and hey, if you look rationally at the history of clothing, it is a technology that was designed for utility and protection, only later becoming some "moral" covering. Most tribes where clothing was not essential, wear or wore, very little, before the arrival missionaries who did foist their "morals" on those tribes. Vescere bracis meis. hehe...hehe...hehe
The Plinth of Darkneth, Watford says...
11:28am Wed 18 Jul 07
Not quite normal.
Makes him sound like some dirty old geezer.
Hang on - what's this thread all about again?... aha! perhaps that explains it all.
That's where you let yourself down, Karl.
Dewi, Wimbledon says...
12:22pm Wed 18 Jul 07
3 people did gang up on him and they clearly don't know the text or online gaming meaning of "hehe" and are using that to disregard other points he has made which are quite valid.
They also seem to be missing the point that the girls were not naked or semi-maked (one of his core points).
You guys should have come to Wimbledon. The shop assistant's dress was much more revealing and no complaints were made.
Maybe all this offence is just a local Watford thing? The stunt was just a bit of fun after all and was meant to highlight an unneccessary waste of resources and energy which all contribute to damaging the environment and exacerbate global warming.
Winmbledon Guardian report -
http://www.wimbledon
guardian.co.uk/news/
topstories/display.v
ar.1541894.0.shop_st
aff_strip_off_in_pro
test_at_packaging.ph
p
MaryOConnor, New Malden says...
12:55pm Wed 18 Jul 07
I was in Wimbledon the other day and everyone was smiling and joking and it was a real carnival atmosphere. There were Asian people about though I don't know what religion. No-one was obviously offended.
I'm really happy I don't live in Watford near such creepy guys as the P of D or Crusty. I'd be scared to go out in the evenings!
MO x
Sally, Leavesden says...
2:12pm Wed 18 Jul 07
As far as hehehe is concerned well i have been informed by one of my older children that it has sinsiter overtones sort of a cackling laugh so I'm not sure if Carl is acting strangely or not.
Eleanor, nascot area says...
2:45pm Wed 18 Jul 07
and I do find carls tone unsettling also.
Karl, St Albans says...
3:17pm Wed 18 Jul 07
http://www.ling.lanc
s.ac.uk/staff/tony/o
nlineslang.htm
It is usually considered a light hearted chuckle or amusement, but of course with the ridiculous over-reaction, Im over-using it now as a taunt. For a sinister laugh, MUAHHAHA is normally used.
Thanks to Dewi for pointing out that my points were in some way valid. The core argument that I was defending was my interpretation of Fionas point. That paradoxically, ****, however mild, is seen as OK but people who are clothed but suggesting nudity by highlighting that they have nothing on under their aprons are somehow being offensive. And this all when their main point was laudable that we should all make some effort to protect the world and one way in which we can do that is to limit non-essential packaging.
I would much rather my children had witnessed this than found that I supported glamour modeling in the Sun or found that before they reach forty find the World irretrievably poisoned with rubbish or uninhabitable due to extreme weather conditions.
What would JohnBoy do if, in 15 years time when his daughter is 18, she came home and said she was going to appear on page 3 or in a top shelf magazine? Buy several copies for his mates?
How would JohnBoy feel if he hears that his daughter has been killed by a freak weather storm that could have been prevented by earlier action on global warming and realise that he didn't do anything because he considered it too "tree hugging".
CYA
Karl, St Albans says...
3:21pm Wed 18 Jul 07
Y - not sure why they starred it out?
Sally, Leavesden says...
3:37pm Wed 18 Jul 07
Martin, Watford and Proud says...
3:39pm Wed 18 Jul 07
Karl wrote:I find your derogatory statement about the good people of Watford quite offensive Karl or whatever your name is.
Sorry for not responding sooner but Ive been AFK! Of course this is getting off the point which seems to be what these people in Watford want but for Hehe, please see - http://www.ling.lanc s.ac.uk/staff/tony/o nlineslang.htm It is usually considered a light hearted chuckle or amusement, but of course with the ridiculous over-reaction, Im over-using it now as a taunt. For a sinister laugh, MUAHHAHA is normally used. Thanks to Dewi for pointing out that my points were in some way valid. The core argument that I was defending was my interpretation of Fionas point. That paradoxically, ****, however mild, is seen as OK but people who are clothed but suggesting nudity by highlighting that they have nothing on under their aprons are somehow being offensive. And this all when their main point was laudable that we should all make some effort to protect the world and one way in which we can do that is to limit non-essential packaging. I would much rather my children had witnessed this than found that I supported glamour modeling in the Sun or found that before they reach forty find the World irretrievably poisoned with rubbish or uninhabitable due to extreme weather conditions. What would JohnBoy do if, in 15 years time when his daughter is 18, she came home and said she was going to appear on page 3 or in a top shelf magazine? Buy several copies for his mates? How would JohnBoy feel if he hears that his daughter has been killed by a freak weather storm that could have been prevented by earlier action on global warming and realise that he didn\'t do anything because he considered it too \"tree hugging\". CYA
You obviously have some kind of superiority complex because you live in an ancient run down old tip called St.Albans. Not really 21st Century now is it?
Sounds like you need to grow up a bit perhaps?. As for the over exaggeration regarding a 'freak weather storm' that was truly laughable and really makes you look rather silly doesn't it?
I hardly see any significant impact on global warming by such a pathetic publicity stunt. If this retailer felt so strongly about the issue, why don't they donate all of their profit to the cause?
incidentally, would it not be too much to ask if you could avoid annoying and useless jargon ( what on earth is AFK anyone?) if you are posting comments as I am sure that some of the more seniors members of our community may have difficulty undertanding just what it is you are trying to convey?
JohnBoy, Watford says...
3:55pm Wed 18 Jul 07
Dewi, Wimbledon says...
4:27pm Wed 18 Jul 07
There's certainly no derogatory statement that I can see about people from Watford.
Unfortunately, if the scientists are right then global warming will have some adverse effects. "Freak weather storms" are likely to be more frequent. That's not really laughable when most of London is near sea level and sinking.
Is St Albans a dump? I saw it on TV and it looked quite nice. A big park with Roman ruins.
"QED" - JohnBoy - you tease!
Frances P., London Colney says...
5:23pm Wed 18 Jul 07
To fill you in Dewi, St Albans is really quite nice. It has indeed got a lovely big park with views over a beautiful historic Abbey that was built out of reclaimed materials from the Roman town - only a few bits of the Roman town remain.
It has got rather a lot of road works and other building works at the moment that make it look a bit scruffy and a real pain to park in but the worst thing about it is the house prices. You seriously pay London prices yet it's a 40-60 mins commute. Many people have to live in the outlying villages (like Colney) to be able to afford it. Colney, where I live is a dump apart from having a lovely green with 2 lovely old pubs by the river. And, all round there's lots of lovely country walks if that's something you like to do.
Watford is good for shopping and may have been cleaned up in the last year but was just as scruffy as St Albans last time I went. It does have the tube too so is more convenient.
I don't come from this area. I used to live down nearer you in Sutton but moved up here with my family. Maybe this a bit of inter-town rivalry?
Karl is definitely on a loser with this argument, there's too many people from Watford. Several posts for every post he makes!
I agree with some of his fundamental points and he had been mis-represented by several of the posters - not just Martin. Maybe he's being a bit forceful though.
Frank :o)
Ape, watford says...
9:57pm Wed 18 Jul 07
Of course this is getting off the point which seems to be what these people in Watford want.
What do you mean by this? Are you a Saint along with that Alban chap?
Us people in Watford are generally wholesome, decent folk.
Why don't you lurk around some St Albans newspaper if you don't like us?
Karl, St Albans says...
11:18pm Wed 18 Jul 07
I am certainly no saint and if you read the context of my comment you'll see that I was refrring to the proclaimed Watford residents who were responding to me.
You are another Watford resident who is missing the point.
Perhaps you can explain what is wholesome about you? This is an American word that I for one don't really understand - is it "wholesome like ma's apple pie"?
Hehe
ape, Watford says...
7:43am Thu 19 Jul 07
I see that you posted at 11.18pm, perhaps your comments were influenced by something.
Michael, Watford says...
9:09am Thu 19 Jul 07
Frances P., London Colney says...
11:18am Thu 19 Jul 07
I have had a thought though...
Is he working for Lush? This thread is one of the most highly posted...free advertising for Lush.
Also, given the similarity (though opposite) of JohnBoy, if I were to guess then they are the same person, deliberately winding the thread up.
Frank :o)
Sarah, Watford says...
11:35am Sun 22 Jul 07
Karl, St Albans says...
12:11pm Sun 22 Jul 07
How did you feel about it yourself?
And how do you feel about it now?
Would you do it again and do you feel that it got the message across?
Thanks
Karl
Pete Knight, Not Watford says...
1:48pm Sun 22 Jul 07
I really can't see what all the fuss was about, its not as if you were naked is it!!
How does the sight of a naked body harm children, or anyone for that matter?
Hang around a club on a Saturday night and you'll see a lot more flesh than that.
Get a life prudes.
Karl, St Albans says...
2:18pm Sun 22 Jul 07
Well done - more of the same! (and I don't mean that lecherously...)
Sarah, Watford says...
3:57pm Sun 22 Jul 07
robbie, essex says...
11:18am Thu 26 Jul 07
robbie, essex says...
11:25am Thu 26 Jul 07
Malcolm Boura, British Naturism says...
3:09pm Fri 31 Aug 07
There is not one shred of evidence that nudity is harmful to children. Conversely there is substantial evidence that prudery does considerable harm to large numbers of children. For example compare the teenage pregnancy rates for prudish societies such as the USA with Denmark or The Netherlands.
cheryl, watford says...
9:28am Tue 25 Sep 07
At least the girls had aprons on and from my experience of Watford town thats alot more than most girls on a saturday night as they parade around in a 3 inch belt & called a skirt & a 2 inch elastic band called a boob tube.
Grow up Watford
Larry, Peoria, IL USA says...
3:12am Wed 26 Sep 07
Staff at Lush in The Harlequin wore nothing but white aprons.
In this section
- Firefighters called to M25 pile-up
- Bushey Carnival returns
- Round Table volunteers take on abseil challenge
- Flytipping top of rural concerns
- Harry Potter star catches swine flu
- Flower show blooms despite heat wave
- Church and school celebrate with summer fair
- Robina takes 12,500 foot plunge for sister
- Police ball benefits charities
- Animal group urges circus boycott
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Luther, Watford says...
10:08am Fri 13 Jul 07