MORE than three weeks ago we carried a story about disgruntled shopper Shirley Read, who complained about Marks & Spencer changing its full refund policy from 90 to 35 days.

It caused a small storm – it was by far the most read story that day and, when the dust settled, 44 of you had commented, a high number for a news story (the hundreds attracted by Ivor are hard to come by).

The consensus seemed broadly that it was her fault and she should have read her receipt properly, where it gave her the last day to return her item for a full refund. There was also a fair bit of sniping at the BFP – “this isn’t news!” some of you cried.

Now the national media has decided this certainly is news (see links, bottom of story) and Mrs Read finds her complaint – that the change in policy was not made clear enough – at the forefront of a small media blitz on the treasured high street brand.

The News of the World (279 words) meanwhile bagged it as their “exclusive” and had headline – “What a right M&S”. Mrs Read tells them: “M&S should have been clearer about the change. I was so upset.”

While the Daily Mirror and Sky News devoted to the issue 110 and 293 words two papers with their finger on the pulse of middle England made sure they didn’t miss a golden opportunity. The Times managed 696 words while The Daily Telegraph made it all the way to 821 – all with Mrs Read’s comments (see links, bottom of story).

Why all the fuss? It seems dewey eyed sentimentalism is at play here – good old reliable, customer-caring M&S is as British as last night of the proms and Terry Wogan, it seems.

There’s this from The Times: “Is nothing sacred on the high street? After Woolworth’s boarded up its windows and Sir Richard Branson shut his Virgin megastores, Marks & Spencer has put a 35-day deadline on its no-quibbles return policy.”

And this from The Daily Telegraph: “The chain store decided to reduce the time limit to 35 days – “in line with the market” – but consumer groups warned it risked losing its “special” place in the hearts of British shoppers as a result.”

It’s worth noting that several news outlets said the change had happened “quietly” and had not been publicised. Clearly, they hadn’t looked at their receipts.