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

You are dishonest.

PlanetJannette is a walking red flag.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And it's not like she has any evidence that they don't pose a risk. If anything the evidence points the other way.

I too am flummoxed. Why do this?

sorry i wasn't clear, her assumption is clearly that a class of males do not pose a risk because they've uttered the words 'I am trans'.

There should never be a sacred caste.

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

And we should not hear from the girl in this kind of situation. She has a mother whos job it is to speak up for her.

Her mother has raised the safeguarding issue with M&S

In the same way the jurno should not need to ask her childs opinion when working out if she as a parent would allow a male stranger speak to her child about her underwear.

Its the jurnos job to parent her child and in so far as possible to prevent her child ending up in situations which could result in harm.

My child said
"I dont even like women fitting me for a bra"
is not the child saying
"I will allow a man fit me for a bra"

But its a good click bait revenue generator.

And if the customer had said yes I do need help - what would the conversation have been? Given where they were, it would have been about underwear, unless the next sentence out of his mouth was, I will get someone to come and help you. In which case the interaction was pointless.

and that's what raises suspicion.

Being generous, I suppose he could have been walking through and thought she was a shoplifter.

Retail staff (as a general rule of thumb) do not do security it comes under the "I dont get paid enough for that" contract clause.

But M&S may have a different insurance policy and training attitude to store security and staff welfare.

(But imo its unlikely)

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

bloody hell she is a child so we shouldn’t! @PlanetJanette I think you could do with some safe guarding and child protection training, bit like M&S

Children are encouraged to speak out if they feel unsafe or something inappropriate has happened. Far too many people look the other way which can lead to horrible consequences for children.

And the Independent needs the money.

@PlanetJanette 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.

we don’t know the answer to that either.

When did men in lingerie sections become anything other than weird and creepy?

Yes there are some legitimate reasons for men being there.
And yes times have changed. but

The entirety of the Independent’s output is “woke rage bait”.

It's not a question of whether you'd be happy for a trans employee to fit your daughter's bra. It's a question of whether you'd be happy for a man to do it.

Identity is just a label which doesn't change material reality no matter how much people think it does. You can hold that opinion and still be supportive of trans people.