AIBU to say that if you work in child protection you shouldn't post pictures of yourself wanking at work in fetish gear?

[ArcheryAnnie]

People do all kinds of things in their private life, and - as long as it's all consensual, and involving adults, in private - that's absolutely fine with me. Even if it involves fetish stuff that I find deeply unsexy. It's your private time and your business.

But if you bring your fetish into work, that's really inappropriate. Involving other people in your kink without their consent is not OK.

If you bring your fetish into work and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, that's way, way beyond really inappropriate.

If you work in child protection campaigning, and bring your fetish into work, and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, and take a photo of yourself while doing it, and upload that photo onto the internet, then you probably need to consider whether a career in child protection is really for you.

(And if you are doing this while working on campaigns about abused and neglected children, you should not be surprised when people ask what made you so aroused.)

And dear NSPCC - who I used to have a direct debit to, and who used to be in my will - people objecting to this are not being homophobic or "bullying". Many of who are objecting to your staff member's actions are ourselves gay. We just seem to have a better grasp of safeguarding than you do.

Who are you talking about?

Absolutely.

I cannot believe that the condemnation of this person's actions is being characterised as homophobic, in what world is this acceptable behaviour for ANY sexual orientation.

Kink to your hearts content on your own time and don't link your professional online profile to the photographic evidence of your hobby.

I absolutely agree with you.

YANBU

if this guy could be booted, I really don’t see the problem

www.lccsa.org.uk/l-pay-v-lancashire-probation-service-2003/

Oh. Munroe. Just read the ceo’s Apology for how he fired Munroe. Not once mentioning what he fired them for.

Wtf??

WTF??

👏👏👏

tenlittlecygnets An NSPCC employee is in trouble for wanking in the loose at work, wearing fetish gear under his work clothes and posting video footage online of said toilet activities. He had created a link between his LinkedIn profile and the images. He happens to be gay and anyone criticising the behaviour is being labelled homophobic.
I think that's the general gist.

So what we have is

Oxfam employing rapists
Amnesty International with a pimp agenda
NSPCC with an organisation culture where fetishists feel really comfortable. More comfortable than is normal in a workplace.

Water Aid's still OK isn't it? I give money to Water Aid.

This is separate from the MB issue.

YANBU.

Looking up Twitter - NSPCC staff fetish - should bring up results sufficient to explain this particular, urm, piss poor shower.

Jesus Christ and the NSPCC are defending him? Is this for real? Why is this not headline news?

This person saw fit to link his fetish to his LinkedIn profile so not exactly keeping it separate from his professional life. He has no business working with a children's charity.

tenlittlecygnets the NSPCC's "celeb and talent officer" posted a vid of himself wanking in the loos at his workplace, wearing his rubber fetish gear under his work clothes.

He's also posted pics of himself wanking in hotel rooms on work trips.

The NSPCC has responded to the tide of people going EEEEEUUUURGH NOOOOOOOOOO at this by describing it as "bullying".

I saw this on FB earlier and there was an argument raging, how dare people say he’s a peado etc. Other posts simply stating that he should not be working for a children’s charity after posting stuff like that online.

What he does in his own free time is up to him but doing it in the office and posting it online just has to be —literally— gross misconduct!

He should be sacked and the same would apply to anyone no matter what his sexuality is, gay, straight, whatever.

Strange thing to do. It is clearly not homophobic to criticise this sort of behaviour, so I am wondering if there is more to it than that. I mean in terms of way some people criticised it?

TurboTeddy: This is separate from the MB issue.

It is, but the fetish guy is the one who recruited MB for NSPCC, I believe.

YANBU

FleetsumNJetsum yes, I realised after I posted that saying it was separate failed to acknowledge that he recruited MB, which is also what I'd read. So either we're both right or both wrong on that 😊

I am amazed that celeb and talent officer is an actual job.

myhamster
It's frustrating isn't it when people confuse paedophilia with any sexual orientation distinguished by attraction to consenting adults.

Hope the discussion doesn't get derailed by conflating the two things or by the persons sexuality. The issue for me is that it is inappropriate for his fetish to be linked in anyway to his professional life in a children's charity.

Well, I'd be sacked from my job if I posted that. And rightly so.

The issue isn't that he has a fetish or two, or his sexual orientation. The issue is about professional boundaries. Not caring about his sexual preferences and identity being easily connected to his employer, the fact that his employer is largely funded by the government and public donations, that the organisation he works for is supposed to be about protecting vulnerable young people and helping them establish their own safe boundaries.

Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries.

He's both highly unprofessional in general and showing a distinct lack of understanding about the significance and necessity for boundaries. He shouldn't be working in child protection or with any vulnerable group.

This strikes me as another object lesson on the vital importance of keeping a very tight boundary between your personal and professional online activities. I have seperate email, twitter and facebook, because my private life is not an employer's business. Linked In, however, is the work of the devil because it has a nasty habit of sharing information without your consent.

YANBU. That is deeply troubling.