B&Q apologises after cabinet described as ‘easy to assemble, even if you're a girl'
B&Q was forced to apologise after it advertised a storage unit as easy to assemble 'even if you are a girl', according to reports.
The DIY shop listed a flatpack bamboo bathroom shelf on its website with the information: "Easy to assemble the cabinet even if you're a girl,' The Sun reported.
It said the 'inappropriate' remark had come from a third-party seller and apologised for any offence caused, the same newspaper reported.
'Tall storage cabinet is perfect for saving space, slim design to fit in almost any corner,' the production information read.
'Three shelves provide plenty of storage to keep essentials organised and neat, and the cabinet door provides added privacy. Easy to assemble the cabinet even if you're a girl.'
It comes after the DIY shop launched a 'Do The Lift Thing' campaign to 'showcase tradeswomen breaking down barriers'.
The project wanted to 'highlight the new movement of women in trades, while spotlighting the barriers preventing more girls and women entering the field'.
Supply and Logistics Director Amelie Gallichan-Todd said at the time of the launch: 'With only two per cent of trade professionals being women, B&Q is committed to tackling this and has pledged £1m to fund trade apprentices across a variety of sectors, including carpentry, plumbing, painting and decorating.
'By showcasing successful women in these roles, we hope to inspire the next generation to pursue careers in trades, challenging stereotypes and changing perceptions.'
In the introduction to a 'gender pay gap report' last year, B&Q said: 'We're proud of the progress we're making. This is supported by 44 per cent of our management roles being occupied by women.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
23 minutes ago
- The Sun
Huge fashion retailer with over 250 UK stores ‘drawing up radical rescue plan' with shops and jobs at risk
A HUGE fashion retailer with over 250 UK stores is reportedly drawing up a radical rescue plan which could see shops and jobs axed. The high street giant - which is being forced to restructure due to tough trading standards - employs around 5,500 people and was founded in London in 1948. 2 2 The chain's owners have brought in advisers from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to come up with money-saving solutions, reports Sky News. The proposals are expected to be finalised in a matter of weeks, though sources have reportedly claimed no decisions have been green lit on the retailer's future. Accounts for River Island Clothing Co for the year ending December 30 2023 showed the firm made a £33.2 million pre-tax loss. Then the turnover during the following 12 months fell by more than 19% to £578.1 million. The firm's latest accounts at Companies House, warned of growing financial and operational risks. "The market for retailing of fashion clothing is fast changing with customer preferences for more diverse, convenient and speedier shopping journeys and with increasing competition especially in the digital space," it said. "The key business risks for the group are the pressures of a highly competitive and changing retail environment combined with increased economic uncertainty. "A number of geopolitical events have resulted in continuing supply chain disruption as well as energy, labour and food price increases, driving inflation and interest rates higher and resulting in weaker disposable income and lower consumer confidence." In January, River Island hired consulting firm, AlixPartners, to undertake work on cost reductions and profit improvement. It's understood PwC has now taken over. Why are so many pubs and bars closing? In recent months, a number of River Island stores have been closing, including in Corby and Chesterfield. Originally named Lewis Separates and then Chelsea Girl, the chain was founded by Bernard Lewis in 1948 and became influential during the 1960s fashion scene, including the iconic mini-dress trend. It was re-branded as River Island in 1988 and throughout the next two decades expanded to become a leading high street force in the UK. It now has a presence in over 125 worldwide markets, in stores and online. Why are retailers closing shops? EMPTY shops have become an eyesore on many British high streets and are often symbolic of a town centre's decline. The Sun's business editor Ashley Armstrong explains why so many retailers are shutting their doors. In many cases, retailers are shutting stores because they are no longer the money-makers they once were because of the rise of online shopping. Falling store sales and rising staff costs have made it even more expensive for shops to stay open. The British Retail Consortium has predicted that the Treasury's hike to employer NICs from April 2025, will cost the retail sector £2.3billion. At the same time, the minimum wage will rise to £12.21 an hour from April, and the minimum wage for people aged 18-20 will rise to £10 an hour, an increase of £1.40. In some cases, retailers are shutting a store and reopening a new shop at the other end of a high street to reflect how a town has changed. The problem is that when a big shop closes, footfall falls across the local high street, which puts more shops at risk of closing. Retail parks are increasingly popular with shoppers, who want to be able to get easy, free parking at a time when local councils have hiked parking charges in towns. Many retailers including Next and Marks & Spencer have been shutting stores on the high street and taking bigger stores in better-performing retail parks instead. In some cases, stores have been shut when a retailer goes bust, as in the case of Carpetright, Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Paperchase, Ted Baker, The Body Shop, Topshop and Wilko to name a few. What's increasingly common is when a chain goes bust a rival retailer or private equity firm snaps up the intellectual property rights so they can own the brand and sell it online. They may go on to open a handful of stores if there is customer demand, but there are rarely ever as many stores or in the same places. The Centre for Retail Research (CRR) has warned that around 17,350 retail sites are expected to shut down this year.
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Why banks may no longer refund fraud victims
Lenders are lobbying for new fraud reimbursement rules to be watered down over fears scam victims are being told to lie to their banks. Since last October, companies which handle payments have been required to give victims of 'Authorised Push Payment' (APP) fraud their money back, up to a limit of £85,000. In the first three months, 86pc of money lost to the scams – approximately £27m – was reimbursed to consumers by 60 firms. The current rules mean that, other than a £100 'excess' which firms can remove from payments, the only reasons that customers can be denied a payout are if they've ignored warnings, failed to quickly notify their bank of the fraud, refused to share information about the scam or do not consent to a police report being made. But in meetings in May, banks demanded that requirements for victims to act reasonably – and not to lie to their bank – were made stronger. This would mean that customers could be denied refunds in more cases. The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) will hold an independent review of the mandatory scheme in October, and will then recommend changes. Problems raised include the high reimbursement limit, compliance monitoring by which administers the scheme, and the limited number of exemptions for refusing payouts. Lenders also said they should be able to give clear warnings about lying to them, as victims are often guided to do by fraudsters. One bank told industry magazine The Banker that: 'The [consumer negligence] bar is set so high that in almost all these cases a customer can be incredibly reckless, can lie to their bank, can ignore warnings and still get their money back.' Riccardo Tordera, director of policy and government relations at The Payments Association (TPA), said: 'The PSR says just 2pc of claims are rejected on this basis yet acknowledges no clear shift in consumer behaviour. 'Meanwhile, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the PSR both apply a stricter definition of gross negligence than common law, which could make enforcement of reimbursement policies challenging in a British court.' Under the previous voluntary code – called the Contingent Reimbursement Model (CRM) – customers could be refused for ignoring warnings or failing to verify the payee. Now the test is much stricter. Reimbursement numbers never jumped above 75pc under the old scheme – compared to 86pc for the mandatory payouts. APP scams see victims convinced to move their money themselves, eventually into a 'safe' account controlled by the fraudsters, at which point it is lost. Ticket sale scams, such as those experienced by Oasis and Taylor Swift fans, are also considered APP frauds. At first glance, the implementation has gone well. The amount lost in APP frauds dropped by 2pc between 2023 and 2024, according to UK Finance, and the number of cases fell by a fifth. But £450.7m was still lost to fraudsters last year. But the scheme has not been without its critics. Before the scheme was implemented, some parts of the industry warned of the potential problems of moral hazard – which is when consumers are incentivised to lie – and that fraudsters would pose as victims. This, it was claimed, would drive a significant spike in claims. But these fears have not materialised. Originally, the reimbursement limit was set to £415,000 – with firms expected to pay out just days after claims were made. But lobbying saw the limit dropped to £85,000, the same as the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which protects money deposited with banks. Smaller and medium-sized payment companies had said that one large claim could wipe them out. David Geale, managing director of the Payment Services Regulator (PSR), which is responsible for the scheme, said in May that: 'While it is too early to draw firm conclusions based on the period covered by this data, we have not seen evidence of spikes in claim volumes that some had feared would occur under the policy.' Before the scheme was introduced, there was a voluntary code which most of the major banks were signed up to, run by the Lending Standards Board. Sources at the LSB said last year, before reimbursement was mandatory, that they had not seen fraudulent claims. Rocio Concha, director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: 'Based on the available data from the PSR, the new mandatory scheme appears to be performing well, with more fraud victims getting their money back. 'Sections of the industry had tried – without producing any evidence – to claim that mandatory reimbursement would lead to consumers acting irresponsibly or even teaming up with criminals to con banks out of cash. This seemed ludicrous at the time and initial insights have borne that out.' Ms Concha added that while the number of cases were down, there was another worrying trend. She said: 'Latest industry figures suggest more victims are being tricked into sending money to bank accounts overseas controlled by fraudsters. That is concerning as these transfers aren't covered by the new mandatory reimbursement rules.' A spokesman for the PSR said: 'We have always been clear that we would have an independent review following the implementation of the policy. 'If we think there are key learnings or adjustments to make to our policy, we will consider those carefully before making any changes.'
Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
SUV drivers should pay more tax, Sadiq Khan told
Sir Sadiq Khan is under pressure to tackle 'car-spreading' by hitting bigger vehicles in London with even higher taxes and parking fees. In a motion passed by the London Assembly, the Mayor has been urged to write to the Government to demand higher vehicle excise duty for heavier vehicles and tighter restrictions on car sizes. Assembly members, 11 of 25 of whom are the Mayor's Labour allies, also urged him to write to councils across the capital to ask them to adopt higher parking fees for bigger cars – a policy some have embraced already. The motion blamed larger cars for clogging up London's streets, putting pedestrians at greater risk of injury or death and causing road surfaces to wear down more quickly. Elly Baker, the Labour assembly member who proposed it, said the capital's streets 'weren't designed for larger vehicles like SUVs'. She said: 'Their greater size, weight, and higher bonnets put vulnerable road users at greater risk, reduce available parking spaces, and cause more wear and tear on our roads. 'It's time we took sensible steps to manage the impact of oversized cars and ensure our streets remain safe and accessible for everyone.' A spokesman for the Mayor said on Friday: 'The Mayor, Transport for London and borough partners are working to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on our roads, by expanding the cycle network, making road crossings and junctions safer, reducing speed limits on our roads, and making larger vehicles like HGVs and buses safer. 'This year the Mayor will be refreshing his Vision Zero Action Plan, to restate his commitment to reducing road danger and responding to new and emerging risks on our roads'. The assembly's call comes after several English local authorities have proposed higher charges for larger or heavier vehicles, amid complaints they occupy more space, produce higher levels of pollution and take a bigger toll on road surfaces. Such charges have been proposed in Haringey, Bath, Oxford and Bristol, among other places, with many councillors taking a lead from Paris, where Left-wing French politicians have launched their own crackdown on SUVs. Sir Sadiq currently lacks the formal powers to introduce such charges himself but has said he is watching developments in the French capital closely. 'SUVs take up more space and we know there's issues around road safety, we know there's issues around carbon emissions and so forth,' he said in February. 'We know some councils in London are taking bold policies in relation to parking fees, in relation to your tickets and so forth. It's really good to work with those councils.' 'Car-spreading' SUVs have grown in popularity in recent years, with many drivers favouring their higher seating position. They accounted for a third of all new car registrations in the UK last year, compared with just 12pc a decade earlier. SUVs are generally taller, wider and heavier than traditional cars, and less fuel-efficient. The increase in the size of cars has been described as car-spreading. However, Edmund King, the president of the AA, said it should be 'up to Londoners to choose the type of vehicle that best fulfils their needs'. He said: 'It is not really the role of the London Assembly to dictate what cars individuals should drive. 'Some larger families may well need bigger vehicles with more passenger seats, whereas a driver conducting most trips alone may well choose a city car. 'London's streets were developed around the horse and cart, so of course our infrastructure needs modernising to keep up with change.' A recent study found that pedestrians and cyclists are 44pc more likely to die if they are hit by an SUV or similar-sized vehicle rather than a traditional car. The analysis produced by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Imperial College London stated that the figure rises to 82pc for children. Meanwhile, research by the campaign group Transport & Environment has previously found the average width of cars in the UK was growing by about half a centimetre per year. A typical car was 180.3cm wide in 2023, up from 177.8cm just five years earlier.
