Sacked by the NSPCC on 12th August,

But clearly there were others who thought it was acceptable, notably the person in charge of tweeting their support for him.

Do we have their names too? Always handy for future background checks if they're all nicely collated in one thread

A comparison, if he worked for HJ Heinz, who assure their customers, 'At no stage did he piss or wank into the baked beans.'

Excellent news.

It's odd how all those people who were screaming about homophobic bullying when the video of Makings went viral have been so very quiet when he got sacked for (presumably) gross misconduct. Why aren't they up in arms defending their pal?

The defence still seems to be, "But he didn't do it in front of any children, so that's (sort of) alright, then."

Maybe they will be sent off for re-education...

No not all NSPCC employees. But clearly there were others who thought it was acceptable, notably the person in charge of tweeting their support for him. So has anything happened to them, or do people who oppose calling out unprofessional behaviour and raising safeguarding concerns still work there?

To be clear, we're not tarnishing all NSPCC employees with the description of "wanky pup rubber man". It was very specifically James Makings.

uncommongroundmedia.com/nspcc-employee-films-himself-masturbating-at-work/

Not that I care about the happiness of the man who was sacked, because he should have been imo, but if I did care about him, as presumably the people who were all over the media defending his actions at the time do, then I don't think I'd be too happy to hear that he'd quietly been sacked the moment no one was paying attention after a big public display of support. So really the NSPCC have pleased nobody here, they've just made themselves look like untrustworthy hypocrites.

What happened with jess Bradley in the end?and the online pics with wanking at work and talking about wanking at bus stops etc?

Remember this?

So: NSPCC tweets supported wanky rubber pup man wanking at work and putting the footage online. Railed against "bullies", when people objected to an employee of a children's welfare and wellbeing charity, filming himself pissing and wanking, and putting the footage online, himself.

They have sacked him so quietly, this wanky rubber pup man wanking at work and putting the footage online, whom they supported at the time.
Talk about a fucked-up organisation.

Missing Rowantrees

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?pg=1

Has anyone asked them the questions above on Twitter? I don't do Twitter but the NSPCC is an organization that's important enough and focused enough on a vulnerable group that they really ought to be accountable to the public, and for that reason I feel like this is a case where the public pushback should be hard and shouldn't stop until they publicly acknowledge that they messed up and commit to not doing so in the future.

People trust the NSPCC to keep their children safe, and in return the NSPCC has a responsibility to take public concerns seriously and not just brush them off on the assumption that the public are idiots.

Wait, didn't the NSPCC initially insist that the only possible reason anyone could think the person in question's behavior was inappropriate was homophobia? Is that still their view as an organization, and if so why has the man in question been sacked? If they changed their minds after actually listening to the public's concerns, then where is the apology for their initial, dismissive and downright condescending response? If that's not and never was their view as an organization then what are their plans going forward to ensure that their social media team behave in a way that's in keeping with the values of the organization?

Have they been reported?
I mean they sacked him quietly, how long after the event?

What is becoming clear is that all the protocols, laws, procedures we had around, stuff. Aren't really worth the paper they're written on. And worked mainly because people just abided by them. There is no automatic thing to shut down people who breach. There has to be complaints, court cases etc which takes time and money etc. It shows how weak it all is tbh.

I’m looking forward to the NSPCC explaining their original support of this individual to the Charity Commission.

Xposts

It is not ok to expect people esp women to conduct meetings etc with a man who they know has his pissy comey fetish pants on.

Yet nspcc, Owen Jones, penis news etc said women who were wtf were homiphobic bigots.

It's a sexual rights movement for men no more no less.

Mockers he posted it on the net
Attached to his linked in profile or something iirc
That was how randoms found out in first place
And talked about it
So yes his colleagues would have known sooner or later
And iirc again, he was planning on wearing the fluids, as it were
Maybe sometime has the original tweets

His employer backed him.

Wtf.

@terfsandwich from what I've seen 🤢 his rubber suit has a cunning space so that fluids can escape. He just filmed himself performing the actions. And then pulled up his clothes over his rubber suit having posted himself wanking and pissing online, and then attended a nspcc meeting about child protection.

The V&A museum of Childhood a bare arse with self luv on it not envy obvs They planning a show of Rolf Harris paintings next? And maybe a retrospective of Top of the pops?

DuMonde well you could say, at least he practises what he preaches

Or maybe they wouldn't. And the thought of them not knowing while the pee sloshes his bits must fair make him hard
Eeeeewwwwww

Did he actually wee into the suit? I thought he just went to the toilet while wearing it.

Surely that would have smelt.

this man would be going around at work having meetings interacting with colleagues like this, and that they would know.

Or maybe they wouldn't. And the thought of them not knowing while the pee sloshes his bits must fair make him hard.

Is there a work context anywhere this would be acceptable?

(Apart from the obvious.)