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

I don't believe you saw the original and it was different. All of the pics from her social media have been widely published by gender critical activists and are all over the internet. It's clearly a facebook profile pic, it is in no way explicit and it's impossible to tell whether she's in a bath.

As a GG parent, afraid I couldn’t care less.

Good luck explaining teabagging.

Anything and everything excused when 'trans', the sacred caste syndrome and history tells us just how well that has worked out.

I know of two local groups that have not had the numbers to start again after covid.

Why are you so sure she is in the bath in that image. It's not very clear to me.

Because I saw the original before it got locked down. There was a larger version that I saw within the thread.

And does it even matter if it was a different photo? You are missing the entire point. The tweet thread had a series of sexualised images and messages, the name referenced teabagging, the weapon handling - all with a line up of young girls in their party dresses?

And more ‘prude’ references? Please do persist. We will keep going. You have not convinced anyone.

The amount of scaremongering and silt was about this is quite incredible.

As a GG parent, afraid I couldn’t care less.

And if people cannot draw the connection between an ‘in the bath’ shot in the profile and other posts of a sexual nature with the banner of a line up of small girls in their party dresses (and identifiable little girls too), then you are either very naive or simply determined to not see how that works. With a profile name referencing teabagging.

Mmmm… other males looking at sexually proactive images and messages on a profile with a sexual name….. and little girls….

Nothing to see here. We are all pearl clutching prudes.

Absolutely a one off single photo that is the issue.

Again, please continue. Because those reading along can see the degree to which you are determined to minimise.

And this person would not be losing their ‘career’. They are a bus driver. They would be losing a position of authority over both young girls and other leaders of young girls.

And to repeat. If this person has such low sexual boundaries and cannot show that they know to not post images of young girls amongst their sexualised images, how are they going to lead others to recognise what is appropriate and what is not?

Or is having sexualised content along side pictures of young girls acceptable now because kink and festish is good and everyday. ….

- and girls are now signing up to join the Scouts in greater numbers than boys.

Interesting. A 4% drop in numbers. It's seems they're choosing Scouts rather than Guides. I wonder why...

Frankly, just the image of the ‘in the bath’ in front of the line up of small girls showing faces should have been enough.

Why are you so sure she is in the bath in that image. It's not very clear to me. All it shows is her neck, and a tiny bit of shoulder (the rampant hussey!!!). Oh well I expect Baden Powell would approve of this thread even if the rest of the organisations he influenced have moved on.

Little wonder that the numbers of members of girl guides has plummeted.

Hardly plummeted, fell by about 4% according to the most recent pre-covid annual report. There's still nearly half a million of them. That's not bad considering the Scouts now admits girls and has attracted over 65,000 - and girls are now signing up to join the Scouts in greater numbers than boys.

Of course, it is not about just ‘one photo’. It is about intention of posting a series of photos of a sexual nature. Including an ‘in the bath’ shot as a profile shot in front of a line of identifiable little girls in their party dresses. And a series of photos depicting not careful and controlled handling of weapons.

This is about a series of images and messages posted that depicts that this person has little concept of responsibility towards children and weapons.

Frankly, just the image of the ‘in the bath’ in front of the line up of small girls showing faces should have been enough.

I doubt that this will go away despite GG lack of action.

I would take this line regardless of if this person was male or female. Lowered boundaries are not negotiable in a group where my teen might be involved.

barleybadminton
I think the boob photo is more inappropriate

Which photo/tweet do you think was inappropriate? there were loads of tweets referring to boobs so I can’t think which specific one you might be referring to.

If the account had been private originally they wouldn’t have been visible and definitely wouldn’t have been visible to girl guides idly googling a leaders name.

I am just glad I have removed my dd from this organisation when such red flags are so clearly being ignored.
The safety of children must always come first.

It's not just a benign fetish. It's very benign.

These are not just M&S red flags ...

And almost no one here thinks otherwise. The attempts to minimise red flags are so obvious they might as well come with a klaxon and spotlight.

Fetish gear, photographs in the bath, asking people if they want to see their breasts, and underpinning an ideology that says gender identity is more important than biological sex, in an organisation that is meant to be catering to girls and supporting them on the basis of their biological sex?

Little wonder that the numbers of members of girl guides has plummeted.

It's a crying shame.

Oh please give the quiet word a rest, barleybadminton , you must think all the silly women are screeching and you hold some precious, quiet wisdom.

A male who gets sexual kicks out of posting pics dressed as a dominatrix has no business being a girls' leader. It's not just naff, it's grossly inappropriate.

The interesting thing is, there is no way to tell if you too are just another man getting their kicks out of chastising women. But it's old, and it's boring.

After all, the careers of male individuals are more important than child safeguarding.

In relation to inappropriate photos, the questions that needs to be asked are whether this adult's behaviour demonstrates an understanding of the needs of children to have a safe, age appropriate environment? Is their behaviour in line with workplace guidance about social media and being an appropriate role model? Or does their behaviour demonstrate a clueless disregard for children's needs and they are therefore an unsuitable and possibly damaging role model.
You answer those questions using your collective safeguarding policies, knowledge and experience - along with relevant employment policies. Safeguarding trumps all the other policies.

Of course, and as I said upthread I think this could be dealt with by a quiet word, perhaps be logged, and additional training or supervision if Girl Guides thinks it meets that threshold. I don't think the Mistress photo does as it happens, it is very benign and no child would have ever been likely to see it had it not been dredged up by gender critical campaigners. I think the boob photo is more inappropriate, but a quiet word and a bit of social media training inappropriate, not the destruction of someone's career.

Final point - when someone tries to frame people raising safeguarding concerns as judgemental prudes and dismisses concerns as spurious that's a massive red flag right there.
It's what predators use to silence professionals, parents, communities and children from spotting and disclosing abuse. It's bloody dangerous.

Afraid I'm with @barleybadminton here - GG has safeguarding that I'm sure has been applied here and all I see is a bunch of people absolutely barrel-scraping to find a handful of photos they can frame as negatively as possible because the person in question is trans. Because they'd never have gone looking for it otherwise.

I am not some 'every woman who questions anything about trans people is an evil TERF bigot' type, I hate that shit, but this is clutching at such straws to discredit someone purely because they are trans and undermines proper safeguarding. People say 'no smoke without fire', but I don't even see smoke here.

This thread has gone on for 500 pages and it doesn't look to me like anyone's dug up a single shred of evidence to prove this woman has done anything so inappropriate that she shouldn't have a role with GG.

Responding for any lurkers:
badminton, If you've worked in social care then you should know that safeguarding policies and guidance don't contain simplistic advice, ie "this photo makes someone unsuitable to work with children but that photo is OK". That's not what safeguarding looks like

There's a range of safeguarding policies and processes designed to ensure children's safety in voluntary and statutory organisations.

From the initial safer recruitment process (that presumably GG don't follow) which is designed deter unsuitable applicants from applying for roles with vulnerable groups, through to the safeguarding policies, protocols, understanding, training and ethos that applies to each organisation.

In relation to inappropriate photos, the questions that needs to be asked are whether this adult's behaviour demonstrates an understanding of the needs of children to have a safe, age appropriate environment? Is their behaviour in line with workplace guidance about social media and being an appropriate role model? Or does their behaviour demonstrate a clueless disregard for children's needs and they are therefore an unsuitable and possibly damaging role model.
You answer those questions using your collective safeguarding policies, knowledge and experience - along with relevant employment policies. Safeguarding trumps all the other policies.

No matter how much you like someone or feel sorry for them, child safeguarding always comes first.

[quote Bearyhumcrack]@barleybadminton can you just give it a rest? Dozens of gatekeepers on here tell you it's a red flag for them, you're saying it shouldn't be because [reasons]. Cool. You turn up to an empty GG evening because the grown ups have voted with their feet.

FWIW, I wouldn't let a public fetishist look at my dog through a frosted window. If you want to entrust your vulnerable to them then that's on you and unfortunately those people will reap the rewards of your utter naïveté.[/quote]
You have every right to object to the legal and consensual sexual interests of other adults just as they have every right to consider you a judgemental prude.

What you do not have the right to do is to try and destroy someone's career on spurious safeguarding grounds when the incidents in question do not even come close to a safeguarding risk which warrants such a sanction under current guidelines.

@barleybadminton can you just give it a rest? Dozens of gatekeepers on here tell you it's a red flag for them, you're saying it shouldn't be because [reasons]. Cool. You turn up to an empty GG evening because the grown ups have voted with their feet.

FWIW, I wouldn't let a public fetishist look at my dog through a frosted window. If you want to entrust your vulnerable to them then that's on you and unfortunately those people will reap the rewards of your utter naïveté.