To think this journalist from the independent is rather deluded ?

[JifNtGif]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/m-s-trans-employee-teenager-bra-fitting-rowling-b2802822.html#comments-area

The issue is not that he is trans it is that he is male.

Anyone who thinks that a male, who shouldn't have been there in the first place, has any business talking to a child about buying a bra needs their hard wire checked.

Creating a sacred caste is exactly how men have got away with things in the past. People are literally losing their minds over trying to excuse inappropriate male behaviour because of how the man feels about himself.

And whatever happened to 'I believe her'? This is a teenage girl FFS.

Facts that appear to be undisputed are as follows:

A man approached a 14 year old in the lingerie department.

It doesn’t matter how he was dressed.
It doesn’t matter what he said
it doesn’t matter what his intentions were.

No men should ever be approaching teenage girls in the lingerie department.

There is no possible excuse that makes that ok.

Exactly. You can't compare trans people to people of different colour ffs

There isn't a specific cohort of staff who work in lingerie though. If you mean bra fitters specifically, then yes, there may well be an argument for DBS checking. I'm not aware of any failures of safeguarding in bra fittings in M&S.

But it is entirely irrelevant to this case as the employee was not a bra fitter and did not purport to be. They are a retail assistant, whose job description likely includes a duty to proactively engage with customers, who did so and then withdrew once it was clear that help was not needed or wanted.

DBS checking entirely irrelevant in this situation. Even safeguarding not relevant here. Retail staff aren't involved in intimate care, retail staff of either sex working in or offering help in any Department is not a safeguarding issue.

Of course if their conduct were in some other way nefarious or could be legitimately perceived as such, that could be a safeguarding issue. But again, not the case in this situation.

Well, firstly, we haven't heard from this girl. So there's nothing to believe or disbelieve from her.

As for disbelieving her mother - most of what has been claimed is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the defamatory spin that has been put on those facts.

I can guarantee you that it is not M&S policy to encourage male staff to 'proactively engage' with 14 year old girls shopping for bras in the lingerie department.

You already know that - because you can't be that stupid. So why are you pretending not to?

So you think it is appropriate for a male to approach a teenage girl buying underwear?

Yes, a man is responsible for their own actions. That includes making a teenager uncomfortable. Their actions were inappropriate in this case. Hence why an apology followed.

We can see you.

What defamatory spin?

Again this is premised on the mother's perception being the correct one. She was close enough to both hear and respond. 'Can I help you with anything?' said to two people together can be easily presented as directed at one, the other, or both together.

M&S has a policy of not approaching customers browsing.

So why did he approach a lone teen in the lingerie department when he worked in a different floor in a different department?

If he was regularly approaching customers in his own department then why had no manager spotted it and stopped him approaching customers as per company policy?

If he didn't regularly approach customers, then that asked even bigger questions about why he chose to approach a lone teen in the lingerie department of all places?

It's inappropriate for a man to approach a lone teen and ask if she needed help in the lingerie section because the only way the conversation can go is about details of her underwear if she engages. This is not ok.

In every safeguarding situation it's not ok.

Safeguarding teaches people not to put themselves into risky situations where they could be accused even if someone is acting innocently. If you do you fail safeguarding.

Why?

Because any such engagement can't be allowed because if you let one person off because they 'are a good person' it makes it harder to deal with people who aren't so innocent because of blurred boundaries. This we make boundaries clear so that everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

There are numerous safeguarding fails in this situation.

For claritys sake, (as there seems a lot of mis-reporting on this story.) Go over to X and find Jane Doe, the mother. She states her daughter was not close by to her when the male shop assistant approached the 14yr old and offered assistance with a bra fitting. She quickly intervened. The T brigade and transmaidens leave this bit out. Thankfully JKRs account/page is more accurate.

She wasn't unaccompanied.

And if there was an unaccompanied crying toddler in an M&S store, I would 100% expect a staff member, whether male or female, to intervene and help.

There isn't a specific cohort of staff who work in lingerie though

Of course there are! Stock doesn't replenish itself.

Laugh out loud ignorant of how retail works.

Link for this claim that M&S policy is not to approach customers?

Their job descriptions suggest otherwise.

A man has no business approaching teen girls he does not know. Ever.

Do you think stock is only replenished by people with special magical hands that can touch bras and knickers?

It is common in retail for staff to work across departments depending on where they are needed. And M&S has confirmed that is also their practice. So the notion that this person had a 'designated' zone in which they worked that they should not stray beyond is nonsense.

Have you ever worked in retail? You tend to be assigned a shop floor department. You know your stock. If someone approaches you to ask for a specific size you know your product.

You are making a series of assumptions to excuse a male approaching a teenage girl to talk to about underwear.

No. None of that happened.

A male walks up to a teen girl and offers to help so asks her what size her breasts are.

The employee did not ask her what size her breasts are.

A male walks up to a teen girl and offers to help so asks her what colour material would she like covering her breasts.

The employee did not ask her what colour material would she like covering her breasts.

A male walks up to a teen girl and offers to help by finding someone to measure her breasts.

The employee did not specify what help was available. It was a general 'can I help with anything' type enquiry.

Oh look.

A sea lion.

Anyone who's been in an M&S knows that they don't do this in the main. I've seen M&S staff confirm this on X and on here. The policy is facilitating 'peaceful browsing'.

Regardless, it definitely isn't their policy to encourage male staff to 'proactively engage' with 14 year old girls, shopping for bras in the lingerie department. Trying to argue that makes you sound insane.

There seems to be a discrepancy between what was said to the press about working in departments and what was said to the mother.

It looks like PR got involved to try and make the problem go away doesn't it?

Funny that.

Just on this thread, for example, that this (identifiable) employee is a predator and engaged in sexualised behaviour.

Anyone in retail know the protocol for an unaccompanied crying toddler? I know there will be one. Everyone knows you don’t approach an unaccompanied child without safeguarding precautions.

Of course if their conduct were in some other way nefarious or could be legitimately perceived as such, that could be a safeguarding issue. But again, not the case in this situation

A man, approached a teenaged child, in the lingerie department.

His approach is legitimate cause for concern all by itself.

That’s it.
Just his approach.
In that department.

That’s concerning.

If they’d been in Halfords or B&Q or McDonald’s then no problem at all.

But in M&S lingerie department? He shouldn’t have gone anywhere near her.