General Chat

Quote: ''I am not for one second suggesting that there is an innocent explanation but please try to keep an open mind - he could have been "up to" any number of things.''....so Errol what could he have been up to legally?


lol shall we talk pubs thats one subject we agree on!

pmsl Taff....totally agree1 x

oh, wait for it!!!

Twinks the smell of a gents loo is enough to make you and I sick!!

Colin, I fully understand that. What I meant was that Deanna seemed to be suggesting that I think he was "innocently" in there and I said nothing of the sort - she was totally misquoting me.

Taff...if I felt sick and needed to get to the toilet I...personally...wouldn't give a damn if it was the ladies or the gents x

Errol - the initial post on the thread makes it clear that the man was in a ladies toilet

hang on a moment, the only reason I can think of for a man being on his knees in a Ladies toilet is......he was sick, and had his head in the pan!!??
still doesnt explain why he was in the the ladies though!

maybe he was ill....maybe the ladies toilets were closer than the gents...just a thought x

Deanna, where did I actually say he was "innocently in a ladies (sic) toilet"? Please read my first post.

Wasn't there a young girl raped in a supermarket loo not so long ago?

that is why i think that BHS should have taken it more seriously Errol. That is common sense not a lynch mob. Granted I agree with what you say about innocent until proven guilty and not publishing his photo. But, whether he was there by mistake, or not he was in a ladies loo and for some reason on his knees. (Maybe saying his prayers??)

Security should have shown more interest in who he was and should have themselves informed the police. The next time it may well be a little girl on her own in there.

Ann
Glos

Under the revised Sexual Offenses Act which was brought in during 2004, he has only committed a criminal act if it was for his own physical/sexual gratification. Watching someone without their knowledge is not a crime.
Although it was correct to alert security, it is wrong to make assumptions based merely on the fact that a person was seen on their knees with no other evidence.

What a shock, I would have reported him as loud as I could but it is not easy to think when something like that has happened
Take care
Janet

I don't think you could have done any different, Linda. It is difficult and there could have been an innocent explanation - I know I've walked into the wrong loo before - and it could have been embarrasment that sent him back into the cubicle. But you were there and your instincts probably tell you what was what.

Does anyone KNOW what he was doing on his hands and knees?...was there anyone in the cubicle with him?

I am not sure that voyerisim is an 'arrestable offence' and supermarket security guards have no more power than you or me as far as detaining people is concerned.
Errol see your point but cant imagine what a man on his hands and knees in a ladies toilet cubicle would be anything other than illegal...unless you have other ideas

You did the right thing Linda.... a pity that those being paid for the job were not so efficient.
Deanna X

So ~Errol... you think he was 'innocently' in a ladies toilet?
Lets accept that he couldn't read.

The signs are all in pictures these days.. little men and little women.
Sorry, but I think the surprise was, that he THOUGHT Linda had gone.

Just an idea... and I am not a fiercely judgmental person... I am the one who would be offering a hand. AND probably have it 'bitten'.

Deanna X

Linda, that is called voyerism(sp) and is a criminal offence, why didnt the security guards, pull him into their office and call the police?
on saying that, you done the correct thing, cos the bloke is obviously disturbed, or he wouldnt be in a womans loo in the 1st place!!
Errol, correct me if I'me wrong please?xx

I see the lynch mob are back in town again!
I'm sorry but the only shred of evidence put forward is that a man was on his knees - within a matter of a few posts it is being insinuated that he is a sex offender!
He quite obviously wasn't, as seems to be suggested, "looking" into the next cubicle, otherwise why would he be surprised to see you there when he came out?
I am not for one second suggesting that there is an innocent explanation but please try to keep an open mind - he could have been "up to" any number of things.
As for the suggestion that his picture from CCTV be posted all over the place - that is not only preposterous but also illegal. And what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Hi linda
you must have had a real fright
and thank goodness a young girl was'nt in there

I wonder why he did'nt use the mens loo
or am i being thick
Jen x