Sacked by the NSPCC on 12th August,

I just scrolled back and read the whole thread to remind myself of the details. (Quite the emotional jolt to see LangCleg's post!) As always, MN is rigorous in its recording of events and the inclusion of links and photos . Such a useful resource.

I'm not saying this is whats happening and I'm not expert, but exhibitionism is a kink that demands attention.

I remember when this was all happening and I saw the screenshots shared. He's being a bit creative with the truth there iirc.

I remember a really disturbing discussion around this where some people were arguing that it was unfair, and that everyone wanks at work

Yes, I think LOJ was one of the prime proponents of this view. He was very indignant about it.

I couldn't get past the first paragraph. What boring drivel.

"98% of men, and 73% on woman watch porn regularly according topsychologytoday.com)"

Don't believe this for a second.

Didn’t the NSPCC call everyone hateful meanies and bullies for saying ‘errrr there’s a person online posting videos of themselves masturbating in what they are saying is your offices... not good!’ (also I knew you can have a cigarette/lunch/loo break but this is taking the Mickey)

Yes they did. A significant number of employees 'came out' in support of Makings, against the 'kink shamers'.

It would be interesting to know if the monthly direct debits dropped off around that time, if the kink shamers took their money elsewhere.

This just seems like another form of exhibitionism, telling everyone more and more details about your fetish.

He fails to acknowledge that for many of his followers what was 'sexy and dangerous' was someone making porn while supposedly at work for a charity that deals with vulnerable children. That was the boundary violation that gave them the thrill. He also doesn't connect the dots between porn culture, child sex abuse and the environment in which children, especially girls, are being raised. He also admits to exhibitionism as a thrill but fails to acknowledge that violating boundaries of non-consenting people is a risk (perhaps an aim) of exhibitionism. Anyone who seeks to present perpetrators of inappropriate sexual behaviour as marginalised victims immediately sets my alarm bells going. He'd fit right in at Oxfam, poor dear.

No he’s not. I don’t believe he is anyway. I guess if he says he is, then...

He'ss proud feminist for ALL women, apparently.

Thanks mate, we'll manage without you.

He seems surprised that the caption "me wanking at work" led people to the conclusion that he was wanking at work.

I remember a really disturbing discussion around this where some people were arguing that it was unfair, and that everyone wanks at work

Wtf did they employ him?

This is another mystery. I remember reading his LinkedIn profile and being astonished that he didn't have relevant experience or qualifications for such an important role.

I think his LinkedIn bio referenced and linked to something which talked about his fetish and his online pseudonym for his fetish stuff, IIRC, and from there the "here's me wanking at work in my rubber fetish suit I wear under my office clothes" video was easily found.

Yes. I saw it myself. It was really easy to find.

He seems surprised that the caption "me wanking at work" led people to the conclusion that he was wanking at work.

(there are false claims that it was linked to my LinkedIn – it wasn’t

Doubt.

He even says below that he doesn’t know how the “TERF trolls” found his videos. Maybe they found his videos because they were on his LinkedIn?

And given his misrepresentation of the Bergdorf situation it’s difficult to believe a single word this person says.

I also appreciated the part where he says he didn’t care about preventing cruelty to children when he started working there and for several years afterwards. I know it’s true that a lot of people working in charity head offices don’t give a fuck about the cause but I mean... it’s preventing cruelty to children.

Oh and the bit drumming up sympathy for the gay men “leading closeted heterosexual lives” needing to have sex clubs. Excuse me if there are other people in that scenario I feel much more sympathy for.

What an awful person, who has no idea how awful he is.

It was

Wasn't it Munroe bergdorf? Apologies if I've misremembered

I found it telling that he said in that lengthy blog post he’d had no interest in working for a children’s charity when he got the job. Wtf did they employ him? There’s lots of people who want to work for charities and it’s not easy getting a job with high profile charity like that.

I see he’s currently employed by Hearst publishers as some sort of influencer, frankly I’m bewildered but the magazines seems to like promoting kinks so maybe he fits right in. The whole Teen Elle dodgy attitude to teen girls stopped me buying any Hearst magazines anyway

I think his LinkedIn bio referenced and linked to something which talked about his fetish and his online pseudonym for his fetish stuff, IIRC, and from there the "here's me wanking at work in my rubber fetish suit I wear under my office clothes" video was easily found.

That's my memory of how it went.

Wasn’t he responsible for getting someone onboard as an ambassador who has been online saying for young people to contact them (among other faux pas which had cost them jobs/positions) - safeguarding 101 - and genuinely didn’t see an issue ?

Didn’t the NSPCC call everyone hateful meanies and bullies for saying ‘errrr there’s a person online posting videos of themselves masturbating in what they are saying is your offices... not good!’ (also I knew you can have a cigarette/lunch/loo break but this is taking the Mickey)

He doesn't appear to understand that a celebrity encouraging children to contact them privately, doesn't have to be motivated by anything sinister, for it to be a safeguarding hazard. Especially when that person is representing the NSPCC.

I'm sure I remember another public figure who encouraged children to contact them privately for support. One may well imagine that they intended only the very best. However the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and their housemate has since been charged with offences involving children.

Such risks are exactly why it was inappropriate behaviour.

Full of inconsistencies, excuses, half-truths and actual lies. Also spelling and grammatical errors. If could be bothered, I'd go through with colour-coded highlighter to distinguish each of the above, but it's a sunny Saturday afternoon and frankly, what's the point? He uploaded rubber fetish wank videos supposedly filmed at work in a children's protection charity and lost his job. For which 'error of judgement' he is now, quite rightly, unemployable. It'll take more than slinging around a few misogynist slurs and pointing the finger at nasty busybody feminists to change any of that.

Now, who's for a Magnum?

That was very boring.

I mean, where was the training at the NSPCC? Surely its bog standard

I think people probably avoid the bogs where he works - I know I would.