Whatever happened to...loose ends, not forgotten

Anyway - just updating this - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4291382-ico-fine-mermaids

They've been fined 25k.

I agree there are several untruths. And, this probably isn't a nice thing to say, but he just doesn't come across as very bright. E.g. all the guff at the beginning about how the NSPCC gig was just a job to him and he didn't really care about its mission.

No doubt true, and he didn't care, but considering you're talking about the most vulnerable children in truly awful situations you'd think he'd have a bit more sense than to bloody say the quiet part out loud.

I am also very concerned by what he writes about being groomed online. He doesn't even realize he was being groomed (again huge red flag in terms of this man's understanding of safeguarding).

And it's true, you'd think Stonewall or another charity could help out someone like him in need. Here is a proudly kink-loving gay man struggling to find a job. They should be all over him. I suppose they're too busy secretly lobbying MPs to further erode women's spaces than actually helping out one of their own though.

I wouldn't wish anyone to be 'unemployable for life'.

However, I strongly suspect that there are plenty of employers that wouldn't be bothered by this history. So I take that claim with a pinch of salt.

There are several out and out lies in the account - had he been more truthful overall, his other claims might have had more credibility.

I'm sure there are people out there so woke they'll employ him specifically because they're against "kink shaming". Lots of them out there.

He's lying about the LinkedIn (from that thread R0wantrees linked to)

I'm guessing if you don't want your Nan to see photos of you indulging in your fetish, don't put your name and face to the videos?

I'm sure Makings could get another job but possibly not in the sector he'd like to work in

Also
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3611447-Potential-Systemic-Safeguarding-failures-in-NSPCC-Childline-illustrated-by-appointment-ending-of-relationship-with-Munroe-Bergdorf-Thread-2

However he claims his rubber fetishist persona wasn't linked to his LinkedIn and he has 'no idea' how people found it. From what I recall it was absolutely linked to his LinkedIn.

See from page 16 onwards:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3605120-Munroe-Childline-s-first-LGBT-campaigner?pg=16&messages=25

Hmmm I'm still not convinced FightingtheFoo that it would immediately put off every possible employer.

Anyway if you are reading James, I wish you well in finding other employment.

Presumably because if you Google him the first thing that comes up is about him wanking at work at a children's charity. Understandably no employer - even in a completely different industry - would want to touch that kind of controversy with a barge pole.

But to render him unemployable for life is too much

I don't understand why he would be unemployable. I agree he's unlikely to get a similar role and his post tells me that he wasn't suitable for that line of work, but there must be other types of employment. Thousands of people make mistakes, they get sacked, steal from their employers or maybe even serve time in prison but the majority do manage to get back on their feet, particularly if they are relatively young.

And O'Donnell lost their case against the Times I see. And has in the last 19 months raised £1,520 of the £25,000 target to appeal the judegment.

Was represented in that case by one Robin Moira White, incidentally.

And O'Donnell lost their case against the Times I see. And has in the last 19 months raised £1,520 of the £25,000 target to appeal the judegment.

ODFOD

• that was in response to Makings' blogpost, btw.

What a lot of shite. Self-pitying, inaccurate, and some of it outright lies.

I actually think far less of him after reading that.

They were included on the list of signatories on the open letter organised by GLAAD.
www.glaad.org/tdovletter

"and perviously a twitter account"

Oh come on, he's doing it on purpose now...

Thing is, he knows it was an "error of judgement" because of what would've happened (when he put that video online with that caption).

He can't genuinely think it's that surprising that when he did it, that happened.

Out of curiosity I just googled James Makings (the NSPCC rubber fetishist) and it turned out he wrote an (admittedly self serving) blogpost about what happened: https://james-makings.com/2020/06/14/what-happened-last-summer/

I do feel a bit sorry for him - he says he's basically unemployable now - and at the end of the day while what he did* meant he should not work at a children's charity it does seem unduly harsh he should not work anywhere else.

*He also claims the masturbating videos he made, although captioned "at work", weren't actually made at work. If true, it does put things in a slightly different light (I.e. catastrophic error of judgment rather than sexual misconduct).

However he claims his rubber fetishist persona wasn't linked to his LinkedIn and he has 'no idea' how people found it. From what I recall it was absolutely linked to his LinkedIn.

What a mess.

THIS THREAD WAS STARTED IN 2019

That said - any of this updated? Good to have a record of it all. Last time I checked some time ago there was still nothing on the Mermaids data breach.

VinandVigour that’s still rumbling on. Last update was fairly vague but did say they would hopefully bring the case soon. The borrowed funds were returned straight away and an apology was eventually issued.

Wasn’t there going to be a legal challenge to The Labour Party regarding all women shortlists? It was so long ago and I remember there was some consternation regarding borrowed funds but I can’t recall much else.