Girl Guiding latest

adults have the right to a private life outside of their professional life.

Their "private life" was very public.

As an aside,
Paraphilias overwhelmingly affect men.

Paraphilias include, not limited to: exhibitionism, voyeurism, cross dressing, engaging in non-consensual sexual activity, sexual interest in inanimate objects.

Victims of men's paraphilias are overwhelmingly women and children.

Men who have one paraphilia will usually have another.

Nonetheless, not saying anything directly about this GG/Scouts person but people with a penis aren't women. They can be transwomen yes but not women because sex matters.

averylongtime

There was a photo taken in what looked like a bathroom - of head, shoulders and a cleavage, this was used as a profile picture.
But no, it didn't show the whole chest.

You’re right I’d forgotten about the ‘bath’ head and shoulders shot. It was weird af, the sort of pic an attention seeking teenager (or z list celeb) might post

I think we have a semantic misunderstanding. In that semantic context 'proved' does not mean as if a court or inquiry reached a verdict. In this context, 'proved' means 'turned out to be', 'was demonstrated as'. The on paper policy was obviously not followed on the ground; the photographs, utter inappropriacy and lack of any awareness of safeguarding was evidenced in the photographs and SM posts.

"Which in this case, proved to be a massive failure on multiple fronts"

How was it "proved"? The leader left, but I understand they left voluntarily?

[quote MargaritaPie]Re safeguarding the Girl Guides has a vetting policy linked here:

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/recruitment-and-vetting-policy/[/quote]
Anyone can have pretty policies.

What matters is whether or not those policies are actually followed and reflect actual practice. Which in this case, proved to be a massive failure on multiple fronts.

In a serious case review 'but we have a really pretty policy' will cut zero ice.

I don't see what that has to do with her professional life as long as they are kept separate.

Indeed. If Monica had kept them private and not on public SM then there wouldn't have been an issue.

Glad to know you agree they shouldn't have been public.

Re safeguarding the Girl Guides has a vetting policy linked here:

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/recruitment-and-vetting-policy/

"a willy waving, gun waving open paraphilic"

That description IMO is a bit derogatory. The gun she poses with is a (legal) airsoft gun that fires plastic BBs (shooting is also in fact one of the activities offered by the Girl Guides), and if she's an adult who wants to wear a leather corset in her own private time or whatever then I don't see what that has to do with her professional life as long as they are kept separate.

It is not harassment or personal attacks to draw attention to safeguarding concerns.

100% agree

averylongtimeago

If I posed on public social media with my top off making sexual innuendo and with guns I would be out on my ear without a doubt.

Tbf to Sulley afaik there were no pictures with their top off, it’s more that low cut dress pics mentioned boobs and they mentioned boobs a lot. The BDSM mistress shot in itself (aside from the whip) was not too bad either it’s the caption and whip in that photo that were the problem. And each if it was isolated it would be a warning, the whole lot put together felt like red flag bunting.

I'm a guide leader, and I complained about Sully- not harassing just stating the truth.

I have also done the guiding safe space training and know the social media policy.
If I posed on public social media with my top off making sexual innuendo and with guns I would be out on my ear without a doubt.

It is not harassment or personal attacks to draw attention to safeguarding concerns.

It is almost like Pie can’t admit when there is a safeguarding issue.

No, no! Nothing to see here!

Just a BDSM, ‘look at my breasts’ posting GG leader, just like any other GG leader.

Some posters really don’t think about what they are supporting in their need of admonishing women disagreeing.

It suits you!

Weren’t they always with scouts? I thought they had already been involved in scouts for a long time.

If people doing safeguarding checks are not reviewing social media, that is a major issue. In any organisation. And if you don’t declare all social media accounts, that should be viewed as a bright red flag. Plus it is obvious there needs to be a regular enough review of checks to catch any new social media presence too.

Personal beliefs definitely don't get vetted out in Scouts. Those beliefs can be at odds with Scouting ethos. I know we have freedom to believe what we want..but...a very good (Scouting wise) and committed scout leader I know also posts a lot of the racist kind of 'white lives matter' stuff on Facebook. Some of it is pretty bad. He is a little bit dim and I can see some is just shared but that's no excuse. This doesn't sit well with me because my dc go to camp and other things with him so he is an influencer. He also told me he 'doesn't mind gays because he like the Pet Shop Boys'. This man is a commissioner level.
So I doubt they check Facebook.
They are very strict on safeguarding though in my area and have expelled numerous leaders in recent years. Most for poor behaviour towards children. Of the bullying kind rather than sexual/violent.

@MargaritaPie if it didn’t break their code of conduct, don’t you think that’s a big problem in itself as it absolutely should have? Instead of the get out of jail free card you seem to think it might be. It breaks the australian gg code of conduct, and no teacher would get away with such a social media presence.

And at the same time is claiming parents that object to the GG about this are participating in "non stop harassment".

It's unforgivable.

So was the volunteer suspended because she broke the GG terms of agreement? Or did she choose to leave because she was hounded out by non-stop harassment?