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

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

If she has made comments about sexual activity with under age children then she should have the exact same safeguarding applied to her.

Why should she be any different?

Because she is famous? Is that another group of people you feel should be exempt from safeguarding processes.

And like everyone in life, some things I agree with her on, and other things I do not.

But safeguarding should be solid and robust and NOT one person should be exempt.

If someone is honestly not able to understand the difference between a group picture of children participating at an organised sport event, and a lone adult posing at home with guns taking pictures of themselves for their own reasons, (with interesting commentry), then really there's no point in continuing the conversation. I am not surprised that person is not able to understand the concepts around safeguarding.

They are however demonstrating, very clearly, why safeguarding and positions of responsibility must be limited to those with the capacity to understand and follow rules.

[quote barleybadminton]GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14134583.rangers-from-urmston-girl-guides-take-aim-at-altrincham-target-sports-centre/[/quote]
These are girls posing with guns at a sporting centre. They are not posing with guns in a hap hazard fashion in their lounge room to show off their latest find.

Your comparators continue to be off. You are still to come up with something compelling.

Just own that you are seeking to make accommodations for a subset of people who should be exempt from safeguarding.

Do you think someone like Germaine Greer, given her public comments on adolescent boys, should be prevented from working with children out of interest?

YES. Not because she's any danger, she was clearly being deliberately provocative, but standards are standards. Boundaries are boundaries. Greer is an extremely intelligent person and would have known perfectly that she was ruling herself out of a late in life career change to teacher.

Oh don't be so silly.

Go and look up the policy and rules and for goodness sakes give your head a wobble.

GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

www.messengernewspapers.co.uk/news/14134583.rangers-from-urmston-girl-guides-take-aim-at-altrincham-target-sports-centre/

It's the fundamental issue of 'I don't like no'.

Shouting queer theory does not permit an individual to do whatever they like without consequences or respect for others. Inability to take responsibility for one's behaviour or to cope with boundaries would be a social or behavioural disorder.

GG have been really quite staggeringly stupid about this, and they have seriously damaged LGBT+ people in the process. A responsible adult competent to work with children is a responsible adult competent to work with children, regardless of whether they're straight or trans or gay or black or white or vegan or anything else.

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now they they are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

should be

As did many of his friends as we are discovering now that the victims are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh

You want to see more of my breasts? A slightly saucy comment? A bit of a laugh?

And this person would be in a role making sure that other leaders do not break the posts of a sexual nature rule?

And GG are supposed to be making sure our girls are well armed to deal with sexual objectification they have already and will continue to encounter?

The female primary school teacher who was exposed as a dominatrix by the Daily Mail was not struck off and privacy laws meant the story largely vanished from the internet. It does happen to all women, but thankfully it happens less and there are increasingly laws in place to protect people's privacy. But it's still a problem such as this man who exposed his ex wife and forced her out of a teaching career for having an onlyfans page. Guess he's a feminist hero eh?

You think a teacher, teaching children should be able to be a sex worker?

Are you really saying this?

It has little to do with queer theory though, or any other theory or secrets plots or Foucault but simply capitalism. Porn makes a lot of money and the technology which underpins the internet is very dfficult to control.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.

Sure it is capitalism. Only a fool would say it is not capitalistic in nature. Look at the DVD market origins.

But I disagree with you completely that it has nothing to do with queer theory.

And posting a picture of yourself in bondage gear, or half naked in the bath, or offering to show someone your tits on social media has everything to do with the lowering of sexual boundaries on what is acceptable to post to the general public. And lowering of sexual boundaries is driven by the destabilisation of sexual norms. And you know, Foucault had a HUGE motivation for lowering the age of consent to suit his sexual habits. As did many of his friends as we are discovering now they they are in their 40s and starting to speak out because those people are no longer able to harm them.

Please explain to us again how lowering sexual boundaries of women and children is of benefit to them, particularly children.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.
Posting pictures of yourself with guns is hardly a bit of s laugh. Twitter is a public platform so this person might has well have rocked up to their next guide meeting in full dominatrix outfit.

Deep sigh.

When you are in a position of responsibility, particularly one involving children, you have to take training in safeguarding. And you have to be competent to understand it with sufficient braincells to apply it in your line of work and follow the rules.

Even if you are a very special person. The rules apply to all. Because safeguarding.

When you take a job involving safeguarding you sign up to that.

GG has a clear social media policy. Staff are not allowed to breach it and continue working for them.

Apparently unless they are male and very special, and then safeguarding is a secondary thing that oddly stops applying. This is supposed to be ok. It's actually a red flag the size of Belgium.

GG has a clear policy about guns. Taking photos of yourself with guns is a weird and disturbing thing to do, and is behaviour observed in several people prior to some very, very serious incidents in which people were murdered. It's a big safeguarding red flag. This one's about the size of the entire EU.

For some reason, being male and special, makes that safeguarding rule for others not apply. This is just now beyond irresponsible.

I'll say it very slowly: what adults do behind closed doors with consenting adults is their business.

They cannot exhibit their personal fetishes on social media for anyone to find and still expect to remain in a responsible job. Not least because they have demonstrated utter incompetence of judgement and ability to safeguard children or even basically consider the needs of their role and children above their own whims.

And anyone taking pictures of themselves posing with guns should not be anywhere near children, or employed in a role responsible for them. Because again, utter incompetence of judgement and insight now alongside highly risky behaviour.

Anyone with a brain can follow this. Really.

How the individual chooses to identify should have no bearing whatsoever upon standards applied.

And when idiots come forth to make a whole lot of enabling excuses to keep highly dodgy, obviously very unsuitable male people in positions of responsibility over children purely because that male identifies as a woman?

It does not make anyone with a brain feel any safer about permitting male born people into female roles and spaces.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/teacher-claims-quit-job-after-24396320

And again way to go including thing that are not an issue with things that are. It is your way of normalising some actions by making them the same on the hierachy as other things.

see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger?

What as 'made a slightly sexual joke on twitter' got to do with lowered sexual boundaries? ah.... yes... prudishness.

You are not very convincing here.

Porn however, which is the explicit portrayal of sexual activity with the aim of causing sexual arousal in the viewer, is very different to someone posting a fully clothed picture of themselves on social media with a slightly saucy comment as a bit of a laugh.

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger?

Do you believe this doesn't already happen to women who work with children? Teachers can get sacked for photos of themselves having a drink in a pub, let alone any of the stuff you mentioned, let alone any of the stuff this person actually did. The double standard is insane; you'd almost think transwomen aren't women.

And I've agreed, if it was an explicit photo it would be a different matter. But it's not, it's not something that would be out of place in a family comedy, it's quite possibly fancy dress and a bit of a joke.

Your interpretation of 'explicit' lacks credibility at this point. You have persisted in telling us that lowered boundaries around children is ok.

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger? I can tell you right now the careers of several women I know would be destroyed if that were the case. And for what? Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless

And again. Posting something of this nature on social media is an indicator that this person has lowered sexual boundaries.

But crack on.

Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless

Again, you are the only person here who seems to be stuck on the fact that this person is same sex attracted. Why?

And are you honestly saying that no other male commits sexual abuse? Really? That safeguarding should simply ignore all other males?

How did creating an untouchable subset of males work out in the past barley?

I am going to repeat myself again. Do you actually read what you write?

Barley, would you consider it acceptable for someone to post a picture on social media of themselves having a poo?

Everyone poos, right? There’s nothing wrong with having a poo.

But it’s not the kind of thing you put on social media, and if someone did you can bet I would judge them for it. I wouldn’t be judging the action, but rather the decision to post.

Sorry for lowering the tone!

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

Shall we look at the numbers of child on child sexual abuse and rape that is occurring in our schools? Shall we then look at the changes to school policies over the past decade? Shall we also then look at the degree of acceptability of viewing porn and the lowering of sexual boundaries?

And you continue to tell us that we are all just behind the times. And it has nothing to do with any theories...

Are we going to see people pouring through the social media of other women working with children now to see if they've ever posted a pic of themselves in a rubber dress or on their way to a fetish event? Or made a slightly sexual joke on twitter? Or gets exposed as being a swinger? I can tell you right now the careers of several women I know would be destroyed if that were the case. And for what? Mean minded prudishness whilst the vanilla, straight, cis men who commit most sexual abuse carry on regardless.

I didn't write it. It's the results of a large study, and there are several others which show the same thing. No kidding. I don't believe I have a comprehension problem.

I was referring to this, which you DID write as a defence for this individual being in a leadership role with GG.

You really think people should be prevented from workig with children due to private consensual sexual activity with other adults? Wow. You're talking about a substantial section of the population, almost half of them basedon the published evidence.

"Overall, nearly half (45.6%) of the sample subjects were interested in at least one type of sexual behaviour that is considered anomalous, whereas one third (33%) had experienced the behaviour at least once," Professor Christian Joyal, one of the study's authors, explained.

"These facts suggest that we need to know what normal sexual practices are before we label a legal sexual interest as anomalous.

"Some paraphilic interests are more common than people might think, not only in terms of fantasies but also in terms of desire and behavior."

"Of the sample, 35 per cent said they were interested in voyeurism, 26 per cent in fetishism, another 26 per cent in frotteurism and 19 per cent in masochism.

They also found levels of fetishism and masochism were not significantly different between men and women."