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

yes you're right @averylongtimeago

@FindTheTruth Much as I don't like what this represents, that particular photo doesn't show a guide uniform.
Monica is a bus driver- that looks more like a work uniform if you zoom in on the logo.

The 160 odd page DFE document 'keeping children safe in education' does not contain a requirement to do SM checks during a recruitment process under its safer recruitment section.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

Neither does the charity commission, which girl guides are governed by.

www.gov.uk/guidance/safeguarding-duties-for-charity-trustees

NSPCC also used to have guidance on their website and it ha s either disappeared or I can't find it. They do have safer recruitment online learning and I would hazard an educated guess that it doesn't include doing SM searches during a recruitment process.

I am not saying that this is right or wrong, I am just saying that it is the guidance that organisations such as GGs follow.

The argument that those arguing against usungvSM checks as part of safer recruitment, is that the lack of boundaries should have been picked up in interview. We will never know how the interview was conducted because it is internal.

I keep my own SM fairly locked down, but I think checking SM could become a really tricky part of the formal safer recruitment process with grey areas, I.e what is hateful and what isn't?

Clearly a person holding a gun in a girl guides uniform is not a grey area.

Holding a gun in guiding uniform

Words matter: The press must stop misreporting a person’s sex
fairplayforwomen.com/stop-misreporting-sex/

Taking stock of complaints to IPSO about inaccurate reporting of sex
Comms between FPFW and IPSO
fairplayforwomen.com/ipso_complaints/

Inaccurate reporting of sex and gender identity by the press: IPSO must improve its transgender guidance
fairplayforwomen.com/ipso/

submission: Editors code consultation
UK Equality law prohibits unfair discrimination on the grounds of both sex and selfdeclared gender identity. However, sometimes these two rights conflict so the law sets out circumstances where a person's sex is considered uniquely relevant and important. It is reasonable to expect IPSO to apply the same principles when making judgements about the accuracy of press reporting regarding sex or self-declared gender identity.
(See 8.0 Appendix 1 for a summary of UK Equality law).
fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Fair-Play-For-Women-Submission-to-Editors-Code-Consultation-270320.pdf

I suspect there are guidelines somewhere that tells them they can't.

There were pictures on the sun article so it was probably obvious. However I just think the reporting was disingenuous. Essentially the story wasnt "transwoman guide leader posts inappropriate content on social media". It was "woman guide leader posts inappropriate content on social media". I think its misleading in the same way that not recording sex properly on surveys etc risk ending up with very misleading data such as it suddenly looking like more women are committing violent offences. It was highly relevant to this article that the person involved was a trans woman so why didn't they feel they could say so.

I find it absolutely mind boggling that an organisation which has a Code of Conduct that explicitly states that volunteers' social media shouldn't bring GG into disrepute doesn't do a cursory check of volunteers' social media.

thecritic.co.uk/jeepers-creepers/

Also does that person look like the sort of person you would have no concerns about if you volunteered alongside them? I don't believe that no-one knew about these photos. I think everyone did know they couldn't say/think anything about that person because 'transphobia'.

Amazing for safeguarding

Regarding employment checks. I agree with TheBeardedVulture, under safer recruitment guidelines there is no requirement to check SM.

From memory, safer recruitment guidelines became more stringent after the terrible Soham murders and SM was in its infacy.

I would say that interviewing is also part of the safer recruitment questions and interviews should ask specific interview questions regarding safeguarding.

I am not commenting on this case but broadly speaking that is why it is so important for organisations to have a safeguarding culture where individuals can express safeguarding concerns following an interview, during probation etc.

If MN posters can do this and scroll through a few old posts to find this in what way do you think GG can’t?

I found all this person's profiles in seconds, even though they're not in the name they currently use.

Incidentally, Monica features in a HuffPo article from earlier this year about women on the front line.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/survivors-women-on-covid-front-lineukk_603e5bfac5b68297150372d2

Monica was a scout leader in March and is mother to two apparently.

When a basic google however will turn up highly questionable pictures, it's the kind of finding any parent or service user may find looking up the person they are putting trust in. Not doing that basic check is a bit daft to put it mildly.

I’m a volunteer at Brownies and I also have some knowledge about screening people’s social media footprint from an employment perspective.

Basically if you want a proper check run on someone’s social media you’d need to pay for a professional company who specifically offer this service to do it. This will cost £x per check and will only check publicly available social media on the day the check is run. GG don’t have the resources or money to do this for all their volunteers and they aren’t legally obliged to do so (unlike DBS checks).

Also DBS will only flag up crimes and relevant information held by the police. If someone hasn’t committed an offence (or they’ve never been caught) it will not return a result.

I can't work out the setting in those photos posted by @averylongtimeago. Is it a bathroom? A spa?

The responses to the latter show the readers fully understand what is going on.

The rest of the comments don't refer to the person's sex. They don't need to. The Daily Mail readers aren't stupid. The article and photos are clear.

One of the responses to the "leave her alone" comment made the very valid point that a man who "identified as a man" or a woman who "identified as a woman" would get hauled over the coals for this so why defend this person?.

In one sense it doesn't actually matter what sex or gender this person is- the behaviour is unacceptable.

I've also just scanned The Sun Twitter page and they don't seem to have posted the article there.

The comments on the DM article show that the majority of commenters have no idea that this is a male person.