Comment by ryandrake

17 hours ago

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.

9 comments

ryandrake

Reply
fc417fc802  16 hours ago

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.

  • usehand  16 hours ago

    There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M

    • sparky_z  15 hours ago

      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.

      3 replies →

paulddraper  12 hours ago

> 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...