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

[whatisgoingonitw]

My daughter and her friend (both 15) went shopping yesterday and nipped into Homebase as my daughter wanted a plant and her friend wanted a heated blanket. They were approached by a member of staff who said “what age are you both you don’t look old enough to be in here” they replied 15. The member of staff asked them to leave as you need to be 18 to shop. My daughter is very straight forward and says how it is, she told the member of staff no as that is not true. The girls continued to walk around the store and they were followed by this lady who works there. They got to the till and paid with no issues the employee at the till didn’t mention age. My daughter told me this when she got home and explained the employee was rude and followed them around the store as well as giving them “dirty looks” I rung the store today to speak to a manager as that customer service is not okay. He told me you do infact need to be with an adult 18+ to shop. Is this serious? I can’t find anything on the website.

Of course I am, but considering the poster in question is able to actively acknowledge her mannerisms and way of speaking to people this suggests that it’s more than ‘just autism’. A diagnosis is not an excuse to be rude, that attitude really bothers me. If you can acknowledge it then you can put in the effort to change it

While I agree with this in general, I do wonder if they’d know this rule about under 18s very well as it does them a massive favour? I worked in retail when a student and students from the local schools were a PITA after school as they’d come in in groups and try on as many outfits as they were allowed with no intention of buying anything (taking selfies) and didn’t really bother putting them back on the hangers. I would have loved this rule!

You’re greatly overestimating the knowledge of a random teenager on Homebase policies

Do you like to be purposely obtuse? Yes often they aren't given the best training, I do think they would at least know basics like shop hours and who is allowed in the store. You'd be more likely to know what isn't allowed rather than what is

😆👏

Yes, they are subjective!

But also, "you're being rude" can be weaponised as an excuse to ignore someone's legitimate points. That's literally what tone policing, that I mentioned upthread, is.

When someone has decided that they want to ignore you but recognises that the optics of saying "I'm going to ignore you" are poor, they will keep telling you to be politer and politer and you can never be polite enough because it's not about manners, it's about silencing.

For many on this thread, this teen girl could never be polite enough in how she challenged the shop worker because those posters think she should have meekly left when all she wanted to do was buy a plant. But some of them recognise that the optics of telling a teen girl to unquestioningly submit are not good when posting on a female-dominated, substantially feminist web forum. So they claim that she was "rude" when they weren't even there to see and hear the interaction, to undermine her.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia You’re just waffling now

I'm just going to repeat this:

If I could consistently tell the difference between polite and impolite, my line manager would not have have to take me to one side today to tell me that I'd upset someone, because I would already have known. I didn't know and still don't understand why.

What I described was the really unhelpful feedback I get when I get it "wrong" (according to NT people).

If you can acknowledge it then you can put in the effort to change it

I tried, I failed, it made me suicidal, I stopped. And I already said that in this thread.

With NTs, there's no consistency or logic behind "rude" and "polite". @GinaB8 said "Rudeness and being straightforward are clearly quite subjective" and she's correct. You can't even agree amongst yourselves what is and isn't rude, so how I am supposed to figure it out?

Interacting with NTs is like trying to play football with the rules silently changing every minute and being punished every time I break the ever-changing rules. Then you all act surprised when I simply stop playing the game.

I'm pattern-matching.

You’re what? Definitely still waffling.

Anyway, I don't think the kid's unreasonable in challenging an arbitrary rule, nor in peacefully finishing her shopping. I'd suggest to @whatisgoingonitw that you teach your DD to check for age restriction signage on doors in future because there are some shops (e.g. B&Q with fork lift trucks rolling around the aisles) that aren't safe for under-18s and she can't go in those alone for good reasons.

I've just realised that I don't actually have to justify myself to you.

Good - not bothered in the slightest about that! You do you

Ahh, the inconsistency of Mumsnet!

Everyday, posters are told to use their words and stand up for themselves; that we shouldn’t give into the misogyny that would see women silenced, yet when a girl/young woman does stand up for herself, she’s considered entitled.

By women, no less…

I learned long ago that many regular posters on MN will say black is white, just to be contrary. You have to wonder what sad little lives they have if this is how they get their kicks.

👏💯

How on earth do these 15 year olds manage to cross the road if they can’t keep safe in a contained area with some very slow moving and controlled fork lifts? 16 year olds can drive a moped in the roads and 17 year olds can drive a car but they can’t go in b&q?

It seems ridiculous that 16 year olds can't shop in stores unsupervised. Just thinking of my own girls and how lovely they are, and their friends. I guess the more badly behaved ones have scuppered it for the polite well behaved ones.

I lived in my own flat at 16.

It's legal arse-covering for the shop as much as protecting the kid, but legal arse-covering is also a good reason for having a rule.

If I hit a 15 yo with my car, that's my fault and comes off my car insurance. If DSis hits someone with her FLT, that's her company's fault under something called “vicarious liability" as long as she was obeying all rules and working within her training. In terms of legal liability, the road and the inside of a shop are very different.

You still need to buy stuff to decorate the flat though

The Shelter stuff I read indicated that the kind of accommodation that SS find for looked-after kids is hostels, shared housing, or foster care, all of which ought to come furnished and decorated.

Entitled? To think she can go into a shop and purchase a plant at the age of 15?

If you'd read the full thread, you'd have seen that I also wrote about the store's liability in the event of an accident.

I'm not a fool and I don't make the rules at Homebase or B&Q.

Perhaps the posters who accused the OP's DD and me both of being rude would like to comment on the language used by the poster I'm replying to? Or is it only autistic people and children who get tone-policed?