Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

Semantics?

Accosting is in the eye of the accosted.

A 14 year old girl who is shopping in the underwear department of M&S would not have been expecting to have a staff member contact her.

As she was in the underwear department she definitely would not have expected that the staff member who contact her would be male. Therefore from her perspective she could have found the contact to be both agressive and threatening.

But arguing over semantics will not change the circumstance of his making contact with the girl in the underwear deparrment.

If the male had in fact been assigned to work in the underwear department why would M&S go to such lenghts to obfuscate this fact?

A clear statement to confirm that a M&S manager had indeed instructed the male to work there would at this stage be the act of a responsible employer.

It doesn't surprise me that some people will defend anything if they're convinced it's in a good cause. I've spent long enough with the activist class (not just TRAs by any means) that it's become quite boring to me.

And it doesn't surprise me that some people think safeguarding doesn't apply when a special caste of men is involved. We've seen that before.

What takes me to the fair is how someone can, at quite short notice, construct an imaginary version of what MUST have happened and then wang on for dozens of posts about how everyone else is LYING (but if it did happen it would have been totally ok).

BINGO!!!

They are trying to have it both ways. It's the "It didn't happen. But if it did, it's a good thing!" excuse.

WRONG! If the MALE wasn't trans, the predator-enablers wouldn't defend what he did, and THEN it wouldn't have gotten coverage.

If he were an ordinary male, he'd be fired on the spot. But because he uses the LOOPHOLE trans, people like you say it's ok for this male predator to do what no other male could get away with.

If he wasn't 'trans', you wouldn't defend or enable him.

14 year old girls getting fitted for their first bra are still little girls to me.

But keep pouncing on wording because your hateful agenda has no legs to stand on so you have to resort to petty tactics. I feel embarrassed for you at this point.

I don't hate the gender movement.

I am very very disappointed in its lack of critical thinking skills and it's reliance repeating the same tropes so clone like that you start to think it's plagiarised off chatgpt.

What surprises me most about all this is the degree to which posters don't seem to realise how badly their comments reflect on themselves. Let alone the guy in the bra department.

How would the share price have been affected before it happened?

Being a Baker will like being a bra fitter specific training

If you dont know if M&S employs males as bra fitter how you know if this male has been trained to fit bras or not?

Or you do know if he had been trained or not?

If you dont know if he was not trained you can not say that he was not able to offer a fitting service if one had been booked online or arranged in person.

But even if he is not trained as a bra fitter he still approched a child in the underwear department.

Are you trying to claim that M&S management had specifically requested that he work in the underwear department that day?

Or claiming that M&S management had specifically instructed him to go up to female customers and offer assistance in the selection of the female customers underwear?

He was old enough to be employed by M&S so he is old enough to understand he should not go up to a 14 year old girl in the underwear department and begin a discussion about the surrounding products.

He knows or should know that such conduct is not socially acceptable and that even for a male shop assistant it is inappropiate contact with a female child.

There's nothing inconsistent there you complete liability.

1. she was behind / off to the side if the employee, so could see him, while he couldn't see her

2. 'His' voice (kindly stop being a complete idiot) which she could have heard at more or less the same time as seeing him approach. As any sane person will realise, we don't always remember events in exact, step by step, chronological time. Both things would have happened simultaneously, making it difficult to ascertain what happened 'first'.

Anyway, remember when it was fashionable to believe women when they spoke of their harassment by men? What ever happened to that, hmm?

The 'public' don't determine share prices, the markets do. What the public do determine is sales level, which have risen healthily over the great transphobe boycott of M&S.

But since you see share price as a metric, M&S share price over the last few years, when they were frequently in the crosshairs of transphobes, has been remarkably healthy.

This has been pointed out to @PlanetJanette multiple
times already, but no, it is not 'doing one's job' as a male to ask a 14 year old girl if she needs help with her bra purchase.

Do you not ever stop and think 'how did I end up defending this?' 🫠🫠🫠

Boundary violations are entirely what this movement is predicated upon. Dressed up as personal liberty.

No lies I'm afraid.

If your entire case is that JKR wasn't referring to this employee when she railed against 'cross-dressers' offering bra fittings, apropos of nothing and in direct response to this incident, that she wasn't referring to this specific employee, that's fine. Contort yourself all you want.

It either makes you dishonest too, or deeply idiotic if you genuinely think that wasn't her claim.

As for why I am appalled at what has happened here - it is because this story is nothing other than a trans person, one who could almost certainly be very easily identifiable, being vilified and lied about for doing their job. Even if you are right that they should have used better judgement or that M&S should change their policies (I don’t agree on either count but let’s go with it), acres of coverage about a private individual, a sales person whose only crime was to politely check if a customer needed help and step away when they said no is abhorrent.

WRONG!!! It has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING TRANS. It's about a MALE who approached a girl to ask her about her underwear, who was not where he should be, by M&S OWN ADMISSION, and who broke his job terms by approaching a customer.

That you have to twist the story to justify this MALE approaching a girl, re-write it as 'trans related' says everything about you. This is solely about a MALE. Not trans. Not anything. Just a MALE. Who approached a girl to talk underwear.

That is wrong, no matter how they MALE identifies. The fact you have to say he is trans to make what he did ok, shows the walking red flag you are.

I'm afraid there certainly are inconsistencies.

She simultaneously claims that she could see the employee approach but states with certainty that the employee could not possibly see her.

She also claims that both she and her daughter first perceived the employee by hearing her voice, rather than by seeing her (we knew it was a trans woman from the voice before we even saw). Which contradicts the claim that the mother saw the employee approaching.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as 'hate'....such a wasteful and destructive emotion...but I'd defintely say that I have had my fill of the narcissism that is inherent in trans activism - which has no awareness that others have feelings and sensitivities too.

An obvious male person, dressed as a woman and working in a women's underwear department is simply creepy ,and certainly if that person then approaches a young girl shopping for her first bra.

M&S should have known better.

Their stock plummeted in the last few days. Its a lesson that pandering to femphobes, misogynist bigots like yourself who don't believe in safeguarding and thinks males can get away with what they want IF they put a dress on, will not fly with the public!

No, accosted cannot mean just any old approach. It's very definition hinges on aggression or threat.

No, M&S have not confirmed where the employee was 'supposed' to be working. The only thing M&S have said about this publicly is that employees work across Departments.

No, responding to a customer is not 'proactive engagement'. It is reactive engagement.

I don't know if M&S employs men or trans women as bra fitters. All I know is that this particular employee is not a bra fitter and did not offer to fit the girl's bra, as has been claimed.

That does not change the point that M&S have confirmed that employees work across Departments. That doesn't mean that an employee can do any job in a store - one day they're a baker, one day they're a sales assistant. It means that they can do the same job across multiple departments. So that does not mean that any sales assistant can work as a bra fitter. In fact we know that that is not the case, as the latter role requires specific training.