To think this journalist from the independent is rather deluded ?

Of course some males do not pose a risk. Trouble is, you can't tell which ones! And how they present is no guide one way or the other. So the answer is, and always been, women's spaces for women only.

Anyway to answer the OP now that the thread isn't being taken over by posters who want to minimise inappropriate male behaviour.

I don't understand any woman who behaves like this journalist. She knows that we need to safeguard children but ignores this because she's determined that some males do not pose a risk. it's just bonkers.

You appear to be having a problem understaning the prior posts. Notsosure1 was think about what is and is not a socially acceptable way of offering help.

So not about what the employee may or may not have actually done or said to the girl. It was about what Notsosure1 deems to be* socially acceptable. The next (?) post had a "rape fantasy" and used a third party personal pronoun for the girls body part so I suspect that what is socially acceptable for Notsosure1 *would not be the standard applied by most people.

Summary for below : M&S has a safeguarding issue which needs to be fixed.

If any of the three specific actions which Notsosure1 was thinking about had happened ( that employee or indeed any employee (male or female) had asked about the girls breasts etc. rather than a generic enquiry ) then M&S would have had mother complaining about what is very very clear safeguarding problem.

Such specific employee conduct would have moved the complaint from a potential non-contact child sex abuse incident involving a member of their staff to a possible non-contact child sex abuse incident.

At that stage the manager in charge of the branch and more senior staff would have had an obligation to carefully consider the next steps. Non-contact child abuse is a criminal offence and would fall within gross misconduct grounds for sacking the employee.

I think in the 3 situation outlined by Notsosure1 it would be fair for management to make a judgement call and
• to make a police report and supply the police with any evidence which M&S has in its posession
• for M&S to put the employee on paid leave.

However "paid leave" in real terms could be no pay if the employee was on a zero hour contract and as the employee would still be employed any social welfare claim could be unsucessful. Finding a new job could also be complex as the employee would be under investigation for what could be a serious criminal offence. (And security staff move between local retail companies so gossip could follow the employee locally).

And police involvement is an issue too.
Sacking over a serious alligation when the employee has 'obtained' a not guilty verdict in a criminal court are deemed unfair dismissal and the employee would have suffered economic hardship as a direct result of M&Ss decisions.

Summary M&S has a safeguarding issue which needs to be fixed.

Dd when aged 14/15 has been approached a few times - by female students with a questionnaire and by reputable model scouts. On each occasion the young women asked me first if they could speak to her.

Point of principle here.

Even if this staff member is innocent they should face a disciplinary. The best outcome from this is retraining and being send on a safeguarding course to prevent the same situation arising again.

This is what we are saying.

This incident should not have happened.
Because it happened and has been acknowledged M&S should address the situation with this individual and with their in-store policy in general.

So it doesn't happen again.

Exactly. There is a reason this has made the news and that we are discussing it in the first place.

It is depressing that we have to ask why posters are trying to undermine safeguarding principles on a parenting forum.

We have not developed these principles to create unnecessary beaucracy. We have developed them because there are recognised patterns of creepy behaviour.

By making people aware of what these patterns are, and telling everyone to avoid these situations, it makes it easier to correctly identify people with dubious intentions because everyone knows anyone who takes that course of action is breaking a firm boundary of acceptability and will be held to account for doing so - even if they are innocent.

This is the problem with “polite” use of inaccurate pronouns.

Because:

“She asked if the customer needed help.” would be perfectly fine if the staff member was female.

The basis of the complaint is that the staff member is male.

However kind and polite we all wish to be. However good an employee the individual is, and however genuinely they wished to help and what ever pronouns you choose to use:

The staff member is male

If he wasn’t male, there would be no complaint.

Someone trying to undermine safeguarding principles whilst on a parenting forum, raises bigger questions than someone undermining safeguarding principles in another all adult setting where the focus is on something else.

Red flag. Red flag. Red flag.

My children are grown and I have been wearing bras for many decades and I have NEVER been approached by a male shop assistant in any lingerie shop. It would be utterly inappropriate at my age, for a young child it’s even more so.

You are deliberately trying to undermine safeguarding principles.

Why?

Anyone who tries to undermine safeguarding principles is a person who is dubious and should be looked on with suspicion.

It is a red flag.

You are displaying red flags.

PlanetJannette is a walking red flag.

You are dishonest.

We've made this clear.

You are in the lingerie department. A store assistant asked if you need any help.

What exactly do you think the conversation is going to be about? Lighting in the home section? Where the fresh salad is?

Quit it with the whataboutery and gaslighting.

If a member of staff asks a customer in the lingerie department if they need any help they EXPECT the conversation will relate to products in the immediate vicinity. In this case lingerie.

To suggest anything different is a) utterly ridiculous b) fails on the above safeguarding principles.

There is no wriggling out of this reality unless you are deliberately trying to undermine principles of safeguarding.

Is that what you are trying to do? Undermine safeguarding? Gaslight us completely?

No. If you ask if someone needs help in the lingerie department you expect an answer related to lingerie.

We
Are
Not
Fucking
Stupid
Don't
Treat
Us
Like
We
Are

Apparently you know what happened better than that woman, despite not being there? Amazingly perceptive of you.

Oh FFS. You can tell if someone's talking to you.

If they're talking to both, you say 'can I help, and you look between the two' if you only look at one person, then you are either extremely rude, or you don't know they're there.

Edit because I can't be bothered to do another post to your obvious ridiculousness 'Janet'

If he was asking the girl if she needed help whilst she was in the lingerie department, actively looking at a display of underwear, then yes, that's exactly what he's offering to help with.

He wasn't exactly going to be asking if she needed help finding the cheese!

Hey Janet, just so you know- you have no business speaking to little girls in underwear departments. If they need help, they will look around, make eye contact and ask someone.
They won’t then make a complaint to
M&S about it.

Don’t get the wittering about restocking. Restocking is one thing pestering teenage girls is quite another.

Sorry I am cynical and jaded about men’s reaction to attractive teen girls having been one myself and now parenting two. One male shop assistant actually chatted by up my 15 year old with me standing right next to her 🙄🙄🙄.

She wasn't with her mother, he scarpered when the mother came towards them.

Even if she was with her mother no decent man would ask to help a child with purchasing underwear.

So many ways to avoid answering a question of how it is ever appropriate for a male to approach a 14 year old girl in the lingerie department.

'Is there anything I can help you with' directed to a child and her mother is not one of them

It is in the BRA DEPARTMENT

I'm not sure I can take you seriously anymore. You seem to have no moral compass/decency at all.

Again, what help do you think this man thought this teenager needed in the lingerie department? Help with school stationery? Or maybe…. underwear?

AIBU: Is it ever ok for an unrelated man to approach a young girl in the lingerie section?

I feel like a Dr Seuss moment is building.

Agreed. There are certain conversations you don't go near with a child regardless of your sex.

'Is there anything I can help you with' directed to a child and her mother is not one of them.

How do you know what was discussed?

A male approached a teenage girl in the lingere department. That's creepy as fuck to anyone with a normal moral compass.