A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

I'd quite like Debbie Hayton's views at this point, since Debbie appears to have managed a responsible job for decades without being sexually inappropriate all over social media and taking pictures of themselves in dramatic poses with weapons for efficient killing. I suspect GG's implication that this is just part of including trans people would be something Debbie would vehemently object to.

Utter freakshow.

Dear lord….

I'm confused.

Do they or do they not have a gun policy? A very strict one?

A social media policy that's clearly been breached?

Are they inappropriate sexual sharing and gun picture inclusive?

Are they implying that inappropriate sexual sharing and gun pictures are a normal part of being trans and there's a safeguarding kind of white card involved with trans volunteers for this? Because that seems really quite fantastically transphobic and offensive, to imply that this kind of inappropriate behaviour while in a position of trust is just expected of a trans person? And if that is what they are saying, then doesn't the clash between safeguarding and trans people need explicitly addressing by them ASAP?

Has anyone there at any point had any safeguarding training? Were they conscious and awake at the time? Have any of them ever heard of Dunblane?

Ffs, this lot aren't competent to run a bloody stall at the village fete never mind be responsible for children.

“We have been looking after girls and young women for over 100 years” is their response to everything. How could we possibly have got anything wrong, we’ve been doing it for 100 years. We’re perfect and beyond reproach.

Totally agree that they’ve missed the point. The fact this woman was born male is not the issue. What did you say in your email? Did it mention she was trans? I suspect this is, however, a generic response that is going to everyone regardless of what is in their email.

The red flags are the guns and the BDSM- not being trans.

That's actually a clear letter. I wonder what they mean when they say that under the Equality Act they are allowed to be trans inclusive?

I've just had a reply to my email:

"Thanks for your email.

Girlguiding is aware of concerns raised. We are looking into this as a matter of urgency and will provide the necessary support and action in line with our compliance procedures.

A lot of care and attention to detail goes into making guiding happen safely, and ensuring that all our young members’ needs are balanced and considered in everything we do. Our rigorous recruitment and vetting policies help keep our member safe. Our Safeguarding policy must be followed by all volunteers.

Our exemption under article 16 of the Equality Act 2010 allows us to be a single-sex charity. But under the Equality Act 2010, we are also allows to be trans-inclusive. We have a trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy to ensure that all our members are supported. Our trans-inclusive Equality & Diversity policy is grounded in the Equality Act 2010, and we're proud to be an inclusive organisation.

We have been looking after girls and young women for over 100 years and we will always have their needs, their safety and their enjoyment at the heart of everything that we do.

Kind regards,

Volunteer Support."

It's a pity the opening post mentioned trans.

BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding was enough on its own.

Anyone who argues that normal safeguarding should not apply for any ‘scared caste’ should not be surprised that those who are concerned about safeguarding asks why they are exempt and cites reasons why they shouldn’t be exempt

The Girlguiding Nottinghamshire “About us” page that was taken down when this came to light, with Monica on it, is now back up.

Presumably this means Girlguiding has concluded that Monica’s conduct isn’t a problem. That really does not surprise me.

Quite! A DBS is only part of a safeguarding system

If Monica thinks posting about their tits, BDSM & photos with guns publicly on social media is appropriate behaviour then Monica has odd ideas about appropriate behaviour & an inability to see beyond their own wants

It's nothing to do with being trans, it's to do with breaking the GG gun policy, and extremely questionable SM behaviour which is going to trigger safeguarding concerns if you're stupid enough to behave like that while working in a responsible position with children.

All a DSB shows is that there are no criminal convictions.

I think Monica doth protest rather too much.

It's OK because Monica has multiple DBS checks according to Monica.
Monica knows exactly what Monica is doing.
I wouldn't trust a male person who pretends to be a woman with my children... and after listening to the State Media interview with Monica's vehement description of that 'nasty woman' I'm not sure Monica isn't a raging misogynist.

I think you should tell their superiors if that's possible? Or anonymously whistleblow?

I’ll bet my arse that if a woman (or a man) posted BDSM kink pics on social media they’d be out of there faster than a stream of lightning.

Do you remember a good few years ago in the early days of Big Brother there was a woman who was a primary school teacher? She lost her job for being on that and being seen naked.

1. Read The Damn GG Policy Mention of Guns.

2. Read the Bloody Safeguarding Policy

3. To NOT be aware of the history of a number of people who liked playing dress up with guns and it's involvement with safeguarding you'd have to be really quite dangerously naiive and really should not be in a position of responsibility.

4. Someone being Trans does not exempt them from all usual rules and policies and should not trigger an 'off' switch in your critical thought. This is phenomenally transphobic, and I can only imagine how most T people would feel at the implication that this whopping lack of judgement, safeguarding awareness and appropriate behaviour when working with children is just a normal part of being T. It's outrageously discriminatory.

I keep imagining the serious case review and cringing. Really bloody cringing.

she is just playing dress up, and it really isn't an issue because a GG Leader is never left alone with a girl.

Dress up in S&M gear is tickety boo, is it?

And what does being left alone have to do with bloody anything? What about role model, responsibility, good judgement, sensitivity, decorum?

What of the offer to show 'more' to the person who called themselves a 'baby trans'? That is just 'playing', too, is it?

God this has all the hallmarks of one of those situations where in 10, 20 years’ time people will be saying “how did they let that happen?”

I’ll bet my arse that if a woman (or a man) posted BDSM kink pics on social media they’d be out of there faster than a stream of lightning.

“Just dress up” WTF? That’s kind of worse than I expected from GG, and just sounds like complete and total sucking in to the whole ideology so far that their judgment is totally compromised. (Much like the individual concerned.)

On an organisational level, their board members must be deliberately ignoring the obvious. Literally every charity’s lawyers have been on at trustee boards for the last five years about learning lessons from the Kids’ Company debacle, and the dangers of not risk assessing properly, or getting caught up in institutional blindness. (Or if they aren’t, they need to be getting themselves some better lawyers.) The Charity Commission has been explicitly tightening up conflict of interest and regulatory guidelines specifically to guard against this. As a trustee, you’re supposed to put ideology aside to look absolutely objectively at risks to the organisation, including reputational risk and legal compliance. The very thing you aren’t meant to do is allow ideological beliefs or personal interest or opinions to influence your judgment.

I don’t know what on Earth their trustee board is doing with itself if it doesn’t think this situation is a problem. It makes me think I can’t trust anything about the organisation any more ☹️

never left alone with a child

But that is not how it works. How it works is as a leader you make sure you are never alone with a child. If you had nefarious purposes you would probably find it quite easy to engineer this.

It isn’t really an issue because a Leader is never left alone with a [child] worked so well for the scouts in the past

Makes me wonder why they bother giving even lip service to safeguarding if thats the case

I would think those pics probably breach the bus company's social media policy, never mind GG.

I wouldn't want to be a passenger in a bus driven by a gun nut with boundary issues.