upvote
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
reply
Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
reply
They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.
reply
[flagged]
reply
If you insist on not watching the "really long youtube videos" youll unfortunately have to settle for taking our word for it

There were 10x small claims cases against i believe the single franchise (L2 Bricks LLC iirc) which were won by default and might not stick due to them going chapter 11

reply
[flagged]
reply
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.

All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.

reply
It's not vague speculation when there's obvious holes in the narrative being presented. I'm inclined to assume corporate is in the wrong here but I'm not going to blindly accept accusations when it's clear that key details have been left out.
reply
There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M
reply
As someone who has only read the article, there are absolutely glaring holes in it that made me suspicious while reading it. For example, they refer to the cops being "presented with a version of events favorable to the store". But it never tells you what that alternate version of events was! That's a hole.
reply
Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition.

The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".

reply
Yes, the story as presented here to us is incomplete. It's not our job to go research it. It's the author's job to recount the facts in a clear, objective, and reasonably complete manner. Failing that the work will be rightfully criticized. Perhaps HN isn't the correct target audience for this piece? Your own conduct in this comment section certainly hasn't been in keeping with the cultural norms for the site.

I couldn't say whether or not the work is misleading but I tend to assume guilt until proven otherwise under circumstances such as these. Of course that cuts both ways, I assume all parties involved to be misrepresenting things by default whenever there's drama. It's on them to prove otherwise to my satisfaction if they wish to convince me of anything.

reply
Beyond glaring omissions such as that one there's conflicting information between the linked article and what commenters here say the various linked videos contain. The article also lacks the necessary level of detail regarding the various legal claims, counterclaims, and entities involved which in this case are absolutely essential to understanding what's actually going on.

I'm inclined to believe that there's corporate wrongdoing but the piece itself comes across as a blatant attempt to stir up drama as opposed to objectively informing the reader. It's certainly not the sort of thing I come to HN for.

reply
> if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details

Here is that side, published last week: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-ore...

And some further elaboration today: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

reply
Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them
reply
Tell us more please. Especially specifics about where do you see lies.
reply