Big fall out - who is (most) in the wrong?

[Dibrew]

I would welcome opinions on this situation which is currently playing out.

Person A is a masseuse, working part time evenings out of a leisure centre attached to a secondary school.

Person A told Person B that she had terminated a session with the male partner of Person C. Person A doesn’t know Person C, but she knows Person B is friends with them.

Person B tells Person C of what was said by Person A. The session was terminated due to him offering money towards the end of this for sexual services.

Person C’s partner strongly denies this. Person C accuses Person A of breaking data protection rules and says Person B is attempting to shit stir.

I don't see why it matters. If a man sexually harassed me I'll tell whoever I feel like. It's not me who's done anything wrong.

It wasn’t just a sexual advance, he was offering to pay her for a sexual service.

Not kept quiet but reported through proper channels not gossiped.

Because it’s one person’s word. It needs reporting and questions being asked of both parties otherwise it is slander to bad mouth someone.

OP still hasn’t said the relationship between A&B, but if B is another masseuse there she might have said something to her about her experience. And why shouldn’t she?

Maybe he is in the habit of paying for sex, and person C needs to dump him pronto, in which case, she should be grateful.

It's not gossip it's the truth. He did it so he risks her putting an ad about it in the local newsletter or yelling it through a tannoy in the town Square.

Person A was indiscreet and probably broke some sort of rule about nondisclosure of clients.
If person A had a problem with a client, that should be discussed with their supervisor or the owner of the company (if they are the owner well that's something else... Possibly making a report to the police just so that it's on the record that this happened?)
They're 100% absolutely has to be guidelines in place as to what happens when you are a masseuse with a clear expectation of what services are being offered and you are proposition for something that is indecent or illegal, there has to be some thing in place that gives clear guidelines as to what to be done next. Why didn't person A follow these guidelines?

Person B shouldn't have been told at all.
Person B had no legal responsibility to keep quiet / non-disclosure and they gossiped which is s*** but, people gossip

Person C was a scuzzbag to, at the end of the massage, proposition sexual favors. And although they are ethically in the wrong here, with no recordings and no other witnesses, they could claim slander against their character by person A.

I would still count this as a sexual advance, even an unwanted sexual advance.

I just don't know if it is a crime, or would seen as a crime under harassment. She would have to report it to police to find out.

@Dibrew can you clarify the relationship between A and B at all?

Person A should have kept her mouth shut and talked to the centre manager and the police, whether she had proof or not. She can refuse to treat this guy again. By gossiping, she has harmed her own reputation.

I hope his partner realises she's angry with the wrong person.

That's the case if something happens on a date. Not when it happens at work.

Excuse me, what?

If I were nearly sexually assaulted I would be telling all and sundry! Never mind keeping schtum!

well thats conclusive then - he did it, obviously

If I was a self-employed masseuse and I got a “professional reputation” for disclosing sexual harrassment from clients I’d consider myself one up to be honest!

Its important to understand the reason behind confidentiality rules. They are there to protect the client when they are in a vulnerable situation and to build up trust with the therapist.

There is nothing about offering someone money for sexual services that would fall under that.

Having said that, it would be interesting from a slander perspective, but as A will have a record of terminating the service early that would support her claim.

Assuming that Person A is telling the truth then the most unreasonable person is Person C's partner. It is unreasonable to offer cash for sex when getting a massage. Person A is well within their rights to tell person B and Person B can tell Person C.

If Person A is lying then Person A is the most unreasonable for obvious reasons!

Person C accuses Person A of breaking data protection rules and says Person B is attempting to shit stir.

Person C is wrong in their accusation of breaching DPA (2018), because that legislation relates to handling digital personal identifiable information, not the spoken word. If they went to the information commissioner's office about it, they would be deemed ridiculous.

they may be right about the shit stirring though.

i did check DPA (2018) and there is no mention of shit stirring 😂

Person A, shouldn't have disclosed to Person B, who the client is, that was unprofessional. Person A knew that Person B is friends with Person C. Therefore Person A must have known Person B would tell Person C, that her husband is trying to pay for sexual services. Person B, being the messenger got shot down, which invariably happens in these situations. Person C's husband was always going to deny the allegations, it's her word against his.

Sorry, are you claiming there is some kind of law that means if you're sexually propositioned at work you have to keep it quiet/only report in-house?

Do you work at the BBC?

A was unprofessional in publicly naming C's DH as a sexual predator. It's now her word against his and he could sue for defamation if she doesn't have proof. There were ways to deal with this – spreading gossip about a customer was not one of them.

Except the fact that A blabbed to B knowing she'd spread it as gossip instead of reporting him for sexual harassment could indicate she was out for revenge.

In the absence of proof, it's a classic he says, she says.

OP: Are you person A, B, C or the man?

The man is in the wrong and person C is stupid if she believes him.

This. What are people actually advocating here?!

I cannot believe people are going on about GDPR, breaching confidentiality and 'procedures' when it comes to sexual harassment. If A's version is the truth then I can very confidently say that she is in no danger of legal repercussions at all. None.