GirlDownUnder This makes it much worse. Worse than it appeared at first.
After a string of failed appointments, due to previous public utterances or actions, many others seeking a public role would be desperate, too, to be held in high regard. Bergdorf had a chance here to support one of the UK's most prominent child safeguarding charities. All that was required was to keep the ego in check, see it through and prove one's reliability to the charity which could have led to a supportive role that was much more in the public eye.
Bergdorf is not the first and won't be the last of those striving for public roles to be felled by their own checkered history (cf political candidates and decades-past drug use or writers with damaging tweets from five years ago). But right about now an expert in PR may well be a recommended course of action for Bergdorf. Of course, as the end goal is queering society, I'm not sure that would help. Society is not ready to give up on safeguarding our children and no amount of PR and marketing expertise can make that palatable.
As for the porn model comment.
Yes, it is more significant that Bergdorf has repeatedly and publicly demonstrated complete and utter ignorance on the principles of safeguarding (I refer you back to LangCleg's excellent post) and the specifics of safeguarding (cf the lack of understanding that a ten-year-old boy performing sexually suggestive dance moves in sexualized outfits in sex-on-premises night clubs is a safeguarding failure of the highest order) and the necessity of safeguarding (Bergdorf's stated belief that this is a harmless act of self-realisation for the child shows complete ignorance also of how fragile children's minds are, how highly suggestible, how damaging it is to immerse a child in these kinds of adult spheres of life. If you do not recognise when a child is exploited for adult entertainment, I would suggest you should stay as far away from a safeguarding organisation as possible.)
But I agree with Janice that posing for an admittedly soft porn mag is hugely relevant for a person's suitability in being involved with a safeguarding charity, eespecially when that person has paid thousands of pounds to look like a pornified version of a woman and especially when the person in question has also demonstrated all of the above.
Yes, others have posed for porn mags and been involved with safeguarding campaigns, but AFAIK none of them were openly dismissive of safeguarding failures and therefore of the wellbeing of children and none of them had demonstrated such a comprehensive lack of understanding of the safeguarding of children.
And soft porn is still porn btw.