To report colleague who offered to buy my underwear

You know that HR still have to make a written note on the employee's record, slap on the wrist or otherwise? Faced with that, I'd expect the lad to give HR a thorough account of what was said in the pub and for them to speak to everyone who was there. If OP persists in lying to make it look as though his text came from nowhere, it's going to look just as bad on her and she's likely to have a note made on her record too for making a dishonest complaint against a colleague. He deserves to be reported for the text but she should give them the full facts.

Not sure a slap on the wrist is a sanction.

But the wording of his text makes it clear that a conversation was had between them on the subject. OP can lie all she wants but I bet her colleagues will soon cave in the face of an HR investigation.

Yes, this could end badly for OP if she is then questioned about the original conversation. As the more senior colleague, it won’t look good.i wonder if having a direct word with him would work best. Having said that, if OP was feeling intimidated and uncomfortable I can understand wanting a third party involved.

If your HR department hands out sanctions without investigating just because someone asks them to, they're not doing their jobs properly.

That’s their prerogative (to have an investigation) and OP’s if she wants that too. In my experience, if OP wants him to get a slap on the wrist for the text and for it to be noted in case it happens, then that can happen.

It didn't come out of nowhere. There is a background. Which will come out.

Text or message, it doesn’t matter. It was unsolicited.

Yes you've made your opinion on that very clear, but the point is that this is the very question that HR will need to investigate. Did she, by having that conversation, "invite" that message - or rather, would a reasonable person have believed that the text message was "wanted" based on OP's statements/behaviour? If so, it cannot, by definition, be harassment.

The employer could decide it's inappropriate/against their company policy on acceptable conduct anyway, depending on the details, but as to the harassment point, the existence (and content) of the prior conversation is very, very relevant.

OP: I received a late night DM on social media from him along the lines of ‘if you were being serious about selling your underwear, I don’t mind paying. Our secret’

So, not a text. And if she's going to show them the offensive message, she really is showing there was a previous conversation about it.

I hope he shows them the message. It rather puts her in it, with her intention to claim it came out of nowhere.

You will need to ask OP is there is a texting history.

From what I can see, the text was not invited.

But that's not a logical conclusion. She said nothing was documented in terms of that conversation.

Regardless, that was a minor aside to the main point: even if there is no texting history, that does not mean the text was not invited.

Where is the lie of omission?

I’m not saying that if I were in OP’s shoes, I wouldn’t mention the team night out.

But I can see why OP feels a text sent a week after the team night out needs to be considered on its own.

When she leaves that part out in her self-report to HR, and they interview him, it will not go well for her - even if you cannot see that.

If she goes ahead as stated on this thread, she is lying, colluding, and obfuscating. Not great for the career when it comes out, as it will.

OP says nothing was documented which I believe means there is no texting history with this man either.

She’s right though. She is reporting a text. It’s not her job to document team events.

Can you not follow logic?

OP wrote, re leaving out the conversation that preceded his text:

I wouldn’t need to relay that detail though - nothing was documented in terms of that conversation. I would frame it as an unsolicited message looking to exchange money for sexual favours. Which is documented.

That is a lie of omission.

So which part was the lie you refer to?

Good to know you are fine with lies, and framing people.

I’m looking at the facts as they are presented. I’ve never said I’m fine with lies and framing.

There was no texting history between them. She didn’t have any one to one interactions with him. The text message was not invited in anyway.

Surely you can see that this is illogical? The fact that there was no texting history between them (which we actually don't know) would not conclusively mean that the text message was not invited in "any way."

My interpretation is that she and her colleagues all know what happened so her side will be corroborated.

You have chosen to interpret her post to assume she will lie.

I didn't say it was a solicited message.

Good to know you are fine with lies, and framing people.

How was it a solicited message?

Which part of OP’s post says that she asked her colleagues to message her if they want to buy her clothes?

She has said her colleagues will corroborate her story. Well, she said "collaborate" but used it in the sense of corroborate. So they will join her in lying about the circumstances that led this junior colleague to send that inappropriate text - ie, an inappropriate discussion where OP discussed maybe selling her used underwear on Only Fans.

She said this:

I wouldn’t need to relay that detail though - nothing was documented in terms of that conversation. I would frame it as an unsolicited message looking to exchange money for sexual favours. Which is documented.

How is that not lying, not only by omission, but by her intention to "frame it"?

Wouldn't the message that her junior colleague sent be some sort of evidence that she had behaved unprofessionally on their night out:

‘if you were being serious about selling your underwear, I don’t mind paying. Our secret’

She could argue that he made that bit up, but it would be a very odd thing for him to do and pretty machiavellian for a not-too-bright junior colleague.

Anyway, the whole point is that OP is going to lie about the selling underwear conversation and has asked her other female senior colleagues to corroborate her lie. That is unprofessional behaviour on her part.