daughter was asked to leave homebase because she's under 18?

Your DD is lucky enough to have a childhood diagnosis and consequent support. I was diagnosed aged over 40 and yet to have a single coaching session. I've had to try to self-teach social skills, failed, burned out in the attempt, ended up with lifelong depression that is at time suicidal levels, and have given up with trying to be nice.

But why should they have to? Why should a 17 year old who wants to buy a shelf for their bedroom have to spend ages working out which shops will permit them to enter?

These are young adults who will be expected to participate in adult society very soon, why do we base our treatment of them on an assumption that they are incapable/badly behaved/malicious? And then is it a surprise that they are pissed off with it?

Wow this has turned in to a frosty thread.

I had no idea you had to be over 18 to look around Homebase so thanks for highlighting it.

My daughter would have probably questioned this rule too, especially if I as her parent had let her go shopping there. She would be very confused as to why an innocent person wanting to spend money would be refused entry, regardless of age.

She always likes to know why a rule exists before blindly following. If it's explained to her and she understands, she will happily abide by it. If it doesn't make sense to her, she still abides but not as happily (a bit like me when I have to do my tax returns!)

I admire that in her and find it sad that others would find it rude... It's just honest!

Anyway thanks again though for highlighting it.

I was in care and moved in to supported accommodation and I had my own flat at 16 it does happen

Good for your daughter, but you must realise that not everyone with autism presents in the same way and has the same skills?

Except this also applies to all supermarkets, the Coop, B&M, Poundland etc. Any shop that sells toilet cleaner sells a liquid that can be used to cause harm!

Which shops do you think teens / young adults should be allowed to enter?

It's one thing having a rule about unaccompanied younger children, but excluding young adults of 15, 16, 17 is not a sensible policy. A person doesn't become less likely to shoplift just because they are over a certain age.

Being straightforward and saying it how it is doesn’t necessarily equate to being rude, though.

Being rude would be “fuck off you stupid cow, I’m entitled to be here”

Being straightforward would be “Please show me where it says that, otherwise I will carry on about my business”

You are also being very unreasonable to blame it on autism. My 19 year old DD is also autistic - no issues at all in the department. She can articulate herself in a perfectly polite and meaningful way to authority.

’straight forward and says it how it is’
That would be considered rude in my book. There’s a time and place to be polite, mature and careful with your words. It’s a necessary life skill

You can get a trustee to sign a lease if you're 16 and need to rent or find a landlord willing to rent without a contract. It's difficult but not impossible. The issue is you'd have trouble (you can't legally) enforcing a contract signed by a 16 year old.

I had a bedsit at 16, in the 1980s, no contract, as did plenty of others under 18.

Please tell me about this "filter" because I was built without one. It's called "being autistic" and I keep getting into trouble.

My daughter is very straight forward and says how it is, she told the member of staff no as that is not true

That's deemed rude? No wonder I keep getting into trouble!

"Saying it how it is" = rude.

There is honest and there is rude.

Speaking without a filter is not honesty, it's rudeness.

☝this.

(Unrelated: I just noticed that the Mumsnet emojis include a middle finger 🖕 and that has made me giggle.)

That is correct - But there are ways of challenging it in a polite and mature way, rather than in a rude and entitled way which judging by the OP’s posts would be the case.

I repeat: A written policy, scrutinised by the legal department and created for objectively justifiable reasons that will stand up in court, is not the same as a staff member making it up as they go along.

There's nothing wrong with challenging unfair treatment.

What kind of danger do 2 15 year olds buying a pot plant pose?

A slight sideline but I detest The Range because of all the negative notices plastered around the entrance!

Surely we can aim for a higher standard than “nobody died”.

If you’re seriously going to imply that a pair of teenage girls being politely asked to leave a shop (by two separate staff members) is the same sort of situation as the Wayne Couzens case I’m afraid that’s a you problem @VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia

Unless OP’s daughter is a Homebase expert, I highly doubt this was the case.

In my decades of experience of work, frequently if you ask three different staff members what a rule is, you get four different answers, none of which are correct. Policy dissemination and training are minimal if they happen at all in retail. It was one of the reasons why I got out.

I’ve definitely had situations where I’ve known more than someone who has worked somewhere - I thought most people had?

I don’t actually think that it’s to do with shoplifting or restricted items at all, but to do with liability for unaccompanied minors if they get into accidents with machinery like fork lifts, they dislodge piles of wood or stacks of doors which fall on them, etc etc. The insurance implications could be huge. Parents would be responsible for supervising children with them, but staff can’t supervise them if unaccompanied.

It is rude assuming you know more than the person with more knowledge, in this case the person who actually works there ffs