Misinformation correction: M&S Staff

[BeeSourianteAgain]

M&S have responded to people's enquiries, here's one:

https://bsky.app/profile/dpdormouse.bsky.social/post/3lvuzitrplc2f

As expected the staff member was just doing their job, something that happens thousands of times a day in shops all over the country.

As per normal, the trans panic was manufactured.

I fully expect all the GCs and media pundits who were pushing all sorts of hate to apologise, but as a person on their second LGBTQ moral panic I know very well how it goes.

As to your question. I don’t agree with your characterisation of (c). M&S seems to have sent a generic ‘sorry you had a bad experience’ that would be sent to any complaining customer. Presenting that as being some sort of admission that the employees act was wrong is nonsense. Also I’ve not seen anything from M&S saying the employee should not have been there.

The bits of the email quoted in the Telegraph don’t mention that. And of course the mother in the case has not actually released the full M&S response (which is curious given that she did so in respect of an email from a social worker - who she had no qualms about doxxing). So no, I don’t agree with (c). And (b) doesn’t add up. The mother claims that she could not be seen and yet she could see the employee approaching; she also says that she heard the employee ask the question before she saw her. She was close enough to her daughter to immediately respond when the question was asked. So yes, I think (b) is massively in doubt.

And no, I don’t think someone who has a longstanding axe to grind against trans people and the SNP (based on their twitter posts) and who remains anonymous despite merrily doxxing a social worker and, particularly, an employee who politely asked if help was needed is a particularly reliable source.

Oh I know.

And ignore the point.

Because their intent is to undermine safeguarding and legitimate questions about safeguarding and to create a narrative that a parent asking a question about safeguarding is hysterical/ bigoted/ crazy/ making shit up and should be ignored by smearing them.

Their aim can not be anything but to shut down safeguarding principles.

Strangely since many of us have heard the scorned male who claims their ex is hysterical/ bigoted / crazy / making shit up, it doesn't really work too well as we understand the pattern of Misogyny.

We have probably experienced the gas lighting too.

PlanetJanette So you do think it would be wrong for a staff member to approach a girl and ask if shes looking for a bra?

You believe no M&S staff member would have approached a lone child in the underwear department because it would be a safeguarding issue?

If they are still on her twitter, why didn’t you post them when your misrepresentation was pointed out?

So, do tell where does this specifically say the M&S employee offered bra fitting :

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1953137839769534796?s=46

”Once again, I marvel at how many men think the only issue with a man offering to help a teenage girl with her bra is that the girl refused. They tweet this stuff under their own names and pictures. It's astounding.”

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1952931205055430729?s=46

“It's really quite astounding how many men are willing to state publicly that mothers shouldn't teach their teenage daughters to say 'no' to male strangers offering to help with their bras.”

And this in reply to Willoughby’s whataboutery about lesbians.

https://x.com/jkrowling/status/1952908877265359132?s=46

“Let me make this really easy for you, India. Lesbians belong in the women's changing room because they're women. Cross-dressing men who offer to fit bras on teenage girls belong in a police interview room.”

Or this

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1952498789824033247?s=46

”It's time for women to vote with their wallets. If stores like M&S continue to flout the Supreme Court ruling on women-only spaces, prioritising the wishes of men who want to undress near, or help fit bras on teenage girls, a boycott seems appropriate.”

You see, there is a difference between her responding to discussions that had started around the tasks that male employees might undertake if they are working in bra/lingerie departments/stores and accusing the specific M&S staff member of doing a particular thing.

But apparently, that distinction passed over your head. And even when it was pointed out to you, you doubled down as you have down for years.

Do you understand the difference?

If you had said ‘people on the internet are so focused on male people doing bra fittings. Even billionaire authors.’ You could be said to be writing the equivalent approach she has.

However, you specifically accused her of lying. Over and over.

Here we go:

21.08

“Because a sales assistant of any sex politely checking if customers need help and going about their day if they say no isn’t a safeguarding issue, even if the customers are a mother shopping with her teenage daughter.
Which is why every description of what happened has to outright lie (eg JKR telling her millions of followers that the employee was offering bra fitting, claiming that the girl was ‘accosted’, that the employee was ‘hovering around’), or to use really fucking weird language like the employee ‘made contact’ as if she was an extra terrestrial being bumping into the girl.
The lies are necessary because no one believes that what actually happened is actually some outrageous breach of safeguarding.”

I mean this above is a great example. This below can be debated as to whether you were accusing JK Rowling specifically if it was a single post without the prior context.

21.11

“Or as if those of us who do not want our trans friends to suffer recognise an absolutely abhorrent and dangerous trend of transphobes to identify a specific individual and use a pliant media and celebrity power to actively lie about them.”

Back to a direct accusation.

21.14

“So what’s your explanation as to why so many people talking about how outrageous this all is have to lie about what happened.
If ‘trans sales assistant politely checks if mother and teenage daughter shopping in lingerie department need help and goes about her day when they say no’ is really an outrageous safeguarding risk, why are so many folk like JKR having to lie and embellish?
There’s a very simple answer - none of you actually believe that what actually happened stands up as anything even vaguely worthy of the outrage.”

Back to general

22.59

“So no explanation on why so many people feel the need to lie about what happened?
What a surprise?”

23.03

“We can surely agree that lying about what a trans person did in order to whip up outrage is transphobic though, right?
Since you’re so compassionate and all, I assume you’ll have no problem in recognising that lying about someone from a minority group in order to stoke outrage relating to common tropes about that group is one of the hallmarks of bigotry?”

23.06

“Another one refusing to venture a suggestion on why so many people feel the need to lie about what happened.
Occams razor applies here. If one side needs to spread falsehoods about something that happened, the simplest explanation is that what actually happened didn’t support their arguments.”

And this one to me pointing out the basic fact, ie the safeguarding fail, had not been lied about. So, this is a great example.

And another direct accusation.

23.11

“There have been no lies?
So JK Rowling repeatedly claiming that the employee was offering to do a bra fitting wasn’t a lie?”

I am going to add this c&p of my own post where I am pointing out your dishonest representation of my own post.

/start

Helleofabore · Yesterday 23:22

“There has been no lies that a male person approached a 14 year old girl in the bra section.”

“This is a basic fact that is not a lie”.

“Notice how very specifically I did not say anything about bra fitting? Yet, you have just completely added facts to change what I said. That is dishonest but not unexpected.”

”That is actually you lying though. So it seems hypocritical to discuss alleged lies of others.”

End/

Now back to you, after both Sabrina and I even pointed out you were misrepresenting what JK Rowling had said.

You are still making direct accusations despite people pointing out your error in interpreration.

23.50

“You don’t know who she is, her account is riddled with inconsistencies, but you believe her.
Did you believe JK Rowling when she repeatedly lied and said the employee had offered bra fitting?”

23.56

“Yes she [JK Rowling] did. They are still on her Twitter feed. At least twice - she referred to the employee as a ‘cross-dressing man who wants to help fit bras on teenage girls’ and a ‘cross-dressing man who offer to fit bras on teenage girls’.
Why do you think she lied?”

This is where you start to pick up your error and stopped with the fuckwittery about JK Rowling. Probably because you did go back to her tweets and realised you wanted to avoid posting the evidence to support your numerous and direct claims that she lied.

Because, even after you checked the tweets were still up on her account, you didn’t link them, despite being asked. Or maybe you didn’t even check when posting at 23.56 and you just assumed your post would be true and accurate.

To finally laughably post ….

0.02

“’Oh I never said this employee was hovering around’
’JK Rowling never said this specific employee offered bra fittings’
I hope you folk never have to face a defamation trial because your defences would be hilarious.”

You repeatedly misrepresented what JK Rowling posted, just like others have done. You probably allowed their malignly intended misrepresentations to confirm your own bias.

When it was pointed out to you, and people asked to you post your evidence, you doubled down and did a swerve to insulting other people’s comprehension. I must say though, I would value the posters you insulted’s research feeding into a defamation defence over your contributions and analysis.

And all this makes your post to cosimarama at 00.10 quite outstanding considering it was discussing your personal interpretations and characterisation. Which when you look at your posts about JK Rowling would seem to be rather poorly judged.

All on a thread called ‘Misinformation Correction- M&S Staff’ which hypocritically was spreading Misinformation in the very opening post. Which is of course, not your thread/not your post but is humorous all things considered.

Edited to bold areas to make a long post a bit easier to read.

“A disturbing number of people are using the story as a way to try and undermine safeguarding principles. Many seem to be doing so in a fundamentally dishonest manner. You are one such poster who has raised more red flags than most on this score.”

Nailed it Red.

Why are you claiming that M&S is telling a lie about what happened?

They have said that he contacted a only the girl.

Hellofabore

What really strikes me is how FWR MNetters have almost been trained to see this bullshit by this point and just aren't having it.

The ins and outs of the story are largely irrelevant because it's a matter of public trust in m&s in terms of safeguarding which m&s pr haven't successfully managed to deal with. Indeed all these emails to agitating tra only by m&s are only serving to demonstrate the problem and show they don't understand the problem or concerns.

M&S could have dealt with this easily and said something like 'We are committed to excellent customer service for which we believe we are known for. This includes a commitment to understanding the sensitivities of both vulnerable shoppers and staff alike and taking steps to protect both through adequate training where appropriate. In light of concerns raised recently where we may have failed to maintain this high standard of expectation we will be reviewing our policy and will ensure that all staff have sufficient up to date training to reflect this. We remain an employer who is committed to supporting diversity amongst our staff and understanding the specific needs of our more vulnerable customers in a sensitive manner which reflects the best interests of all parties fairly'.

But no.

Arguments about who said what when are spectacularly poor. They are exercises in trying to control the narrative.

M&S as the company involved has to play a line of referee to a degree. It's like a teacher who has to deal with a he said she said incident. They didn't witness the event themselves but they know
a) there's some problem or the incident wouldn't have occurred
b) their priority is a damage limitation exercise
c) they have a responsibility to take their responsibilities to all parties seriously and to act like a bloody grown up
d) they should reflect the law and act to protect all parties from similar potential future incidents.
e) be seen to be doing all of the above.

They have attempted b succeeding in a Streisand effect because despite acknowledging a, they haven't done c, d and e.

As a result it's turned into an opportunity to challenge and undermine public concerns at safeguarding and rather than emphasising that safeguarding is something for everyone by everyone and creating an environment where it's encouraged to ask questions and challenge behaviours which give red flags.

People who are doing this are either useful idiots (as per Hanlon's Razor) or deliberately opportunistic and deliberately seeking to destroy safeguarding. Unfortunately it is very clear that a number of prominent transactivists fall into this latter category based on their own words and personal history which is demonstrable and can be evidenced. This may not be reflective of all transpeople - the issue here is how much influence these few people have which is disproportionate.

One of the problems here is that key principles underpinning safeguarding is transparency and accountability. Transactivism has a large contingent to whom this is a massive problem because the whole point is that they, to use the words of another poster, want to stealth. That's simply not possible in certain scenarios - it falls under legitimate interest of the exemptions for article 8.

The sooner we get to a point where transactivism is challenged over this legally and it's explicitly laid out that yes, sex is often a matter of public safety and accountability and no you can't just pretend this doesn't apply in certain scenarios especially when it's fucking obvious because we have eyes, the better for everyone.

On FWR we are particularly finely atuned to this - maybe because this is a parenting forum mainly used by women. These principles and knowledge of how to handle a problem of this nature is something many of us have to do professionally or as part of a position of responsibility. Being a parent also means you learn to a tune for similar patterns because safeguarding is particularly important when it comes to children.

What with children being the most vulnerable in society and all that, despite egotistical claims to the contrary.

It is NEVER about deciding the exact nature of events and what actually happened and then making an judgement on that as if it's a court case in these type of situations. It's playground management, where you have to manage the kids AND the parents and be seen to do it fairly.

Just to repeat:

A male person approached a teenaged girl, a 14 year old, in the bra section of the store.

There have been no lies about this.

No male person should be approaching any teenaged girl in the bra section. Staff or not staff. It is inappropriate behaviour.

There is so much sparpling about this incident but it is all meant as a distraction. The bare facts of the incident is

A male person approached a teenaged girl, a 14 year old, in the bra section of the store.

M&S allowed a safeguarding failure due to this person being in their employment. They have also failed to publicly recognise their safeguarding fail, but I doubt I expected them to.

What I would expect though is that safeguarding be treated as a serious issue meaning staff receive significant training and not just repeated CBT modules that can be basically ignored. I would also expect that there would be some safeguard measures added in place around underwear departments being only staffed by the sex the underwear is designed for.

I suspect if M&S were truly inclusive and respectful towards female customers, that clothing departments generally be staffed by people of the sex the clothing is designed for. Particularly in this era of porn where female people in general are ever more objectified because rather than it all being off line, we have this constant on line bombardment also. It is so much to filter out. But I doubt that will happen. However, underwear department staffing needs to be addressed.

But at a bare minimum :

No male person should be approaching a female child in the bra section.

The dishonest posters show themselves up every single time.

None of that holds up.

There was zero suggestion of any male person doing any bra fittings, wanting to do them, offering to do them. I rather suspect this will never come to court since JKR can just use her vast fortune to grind out her right to lie about a trans woman.

But if it did, these posts would clearly be held to be referring to the employee in question since there is no other putative context for the claims to be read as some sort of general commentary.

Still at it Janette?

Still trying to miss the point?

Still demonstrating your red flags?

We aren't interested.

Well, I think we both have pretty much the same overall idea red and were posting at the same time.

I agree the very best thing that M&S could have done was post a statement as you devised. If I was the head of marketing for M&S, I would be pulling my hair out over the completely mistoned response to this.

Those customer service emails are atrocious. They are completely reactive and not assuring anyone except activists who focus on the term inclusive.

M&S need to stop using that term in regards to this incident. It is absolutely the wrong thing to focusing on. All it is doing is pointing out that to M&S this is a tick box audit exercise, and it is all about showing virtue credentials towards one group.

On seeing those responses, what 14 year old female people are going to feel that their needs are being considered?

M&S have fucked this up. They have been completely tone deaf and it has fed into this mess of discussions about details that should not be relevant.

Except, it IS relevant. Because as you, I and others have pointed out, the end goal was to normalise a male person being able to approach a female child in the bra section. Ie. Dismantling safeguarding.

All this attempt to centre the discussion on ‘no, ‘she’ didn’t offer to fit a bra, ‘she’ was just doing her job! This is what any professional member of M&S staff would do.’

It all boils down to attempts of ‘There is nothing to see here, this is normal professional behaviour. You are all bigots.’

The intended effect is both to

-push M&S to not even do a review of their safeguarding policies and investigate what happened with a view to safeguarding.

-to educate people that it should be considered normal to have male people give advice on female underwear to any female, even female children. In fact, they do just good jobs their attentiveness should be celebrated.

ie. To dismantle boundaries. To make anyone who would feel distress and discomfort believe they must suppress that distress and discomfort. All to remove boundaries for male people to have access to female people for whatever motivation that male person has, when female people would reject that access if they had a choice.

All those ‘I’m alright Jack’ posters just add support to this as well. The complete lack of empathy has been just as enlightening as the dishonesty in my view. But all to enable that high value target, access to a group where that group would generally reject access if asked.

Of course, M&S don’t want the financial burden of having to have same sex staff back in clothing. It is a bigger staff investment and they want to be lean. This ultimately has played a part.

So too that legacy of stonewall championship.

There was not just one pathway to this mess.

So out of interest @PlanetJanette do you think it would be wrong for a male to be doing a bra fitting on a 14 year old girl? You seem fixated on that aspect of the misunderstanding of some people, rather then anything else.

I think there are some posters here who lack capacity for basic reading comprehension. Whether that is purposeful or through ignorance is debatable.
I despair.

Good morning Janette.

I doubt anyone reading my post will agree with you that none of it holds up.

And as so many of us have said, the discussion about ‘bra fitting’ is sparple. Who on this thread has directly accused the male staff member of offering to do a bra fitting? Take it up directly with them. I agree - the male staff member did not offer to do a bra fitting. Please point to any post I have made about this topic where I have said they did.

You are again doubling down on this. It is your habit of old. As is your usually misplaced confidence in your legal interpretation ability, if I remember correctly.

“I rather suspect this will never come to court since JKR can just use her vast fortune to grind out her right to lie about a trans woman.”

Please point out the exact post where JK Rowling has said the male staff member offered a bra fitting. If you cannot, then I suggest you stop making the false representation and move on.

“But if it did, these posts would clearly be held to be referring to the employee in question since there is no other putative context for the claims to be read as some sort of general commentary.”

On the contrary, by the time she started to post there already were already posts mentioning ‘bra fitting’ and there were already discussions about about male people doing bra fittings. There are posts replying to the telegraph’s first post at 8.17 pm 04/08/25 before 23.36 when she posted.

Here is her post at that time:

“It's time for women to vote with their wallets. If stores like M&S continue to flout the Supreme Court ruling on women-only spaces, prioritising the wishes of men who want to undress near, or help fit bras on teenage girls, a boycott seems appropriate.”

And again, the wording of this post from her discusses change rooms and bra fittings. Therefore, single sex provisions- services and spaces. Changing rooms and services for women and girl’s safety and dignity were also mentioned in the article. This post at 23.36 was a general post about stores failing to follow the SC ruling on women- only spaces and services.

The other post referring to bra fitting was in response to India Willoughby’s tweet. And again, JK Rowling mentioned lesbians being in changing rooms and that it would be inappropriate for male people to be fitting bras.

No direct accusation and the mention of changing rooms bringing the point back to single sex provisions - spaces and services.

You are over confident in your version of what she has said and done. Shall we move on to discuss why you cannot acknowledge the safeguarding failure the incident highlights?

such good jobs. Not ‘just good jobs’. Autocarrot!!

She’d easily defend a defamation claim though wouldn’t she? She’s not made any of the direct accusations or lies that you originally claimed. I’d have more respect for your observations if you didnt yourself use all sorts of mis direction and obfuscation as you wish to accuse JKR of. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones

Oh well, at least I have learned from @PlanetJanette that JKR tweeted something about this. I'd never have known otherwise, as I don't follow her (she should be writing more and more books for me to read, not wasting her words on X).

I'm interested that some people seem to find it so important that the adult male who made advances to the young teenager standing apparently alone in the underwear section of the shop should not be described as accosting her. Even though that is what he did. Why so scared of accurate words?

If we're talking about context, I'm pretty certain there were threads on here about a transwoman at a London M&S store (Marble Arch?) actually being a bra fitter.

PlanetJanette

As a matter of interest, do you personally disagree that a transwoman should be a bra fitter, in that case?

I also asked this @Datun- lets see.

It's the usual TRA bollocks. Outrage that people are allegedly suggesting this man was a bra fitter. Yet trans ideology would say well he should be a bra fitter.

Please screenshot her posts where she's claiming this

Exactly. Classic TRA logic. This did t happen, so you're a bigot for saying it. But if it did happen it would be fine. 🙄

Why on earth are posters trying to downplay this egregious safeguarding risk? A 14 year old girl in the bra section should not be approached by a man. The fact that he scuttled off when her mum appeared speaks for itself. The incident should be receiving universal condemnation - why are some people making up bizarre scenarios to excuse him? We're going from 1 awful incident to a whole dreadful ethos.