AIBU to say that if you work in child protection you shouldn't post pictures of yourself wanking at work in fetish gear?

[ArcheryAnnie]

People do all kinds of things in their private life, and - as long as it's all consensual, and involving adults, in private - that's absolutely fine with me. Even if it involves fetish stuff that I find deeply unsexy. It's your private time and your business.

But if you bring your fetish into work, that's really inappropriate. Involving other people in your kink without their consent is not OK.

If you bring your fetish into work and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, that's way, way beyond really inappropriate.

If you work in child protection campaigning, and bring your fetish into work, and take time to entertain yourself in the loos with it, and take a photo of yourself while doing it, and upload that photo onto the internet, then you probably need to consider whether a career in child protection is really for you.

(And if you are doing this while working on campaigns about abused and neglected children, you should not be surprised when people ask what made you so aroused.)

And dear NSPCC - who I used to have a direct debit to, and who used to be in my will - people objecting to this are not being homophobic or "bullying". Many of who are objecting to your staff member's actions are ourselves gay. We just seem to have a better grasp of safeguarding than you do.

Desmond was also filmed performing a stripping routine at an adult club whilst men threw money.

There are additional aspects to Safeguarding concerns about him.

This Object! article is worth reading:
www.objectnow.org/news/2019/1/15/trans-kids-paedophilia-in-drag?

I have been on the BDSM scene for about 30 years and I cannot imagine anyone saying and meaning that it's unethical to buy a cucumber.

What about buying condoms? You're going to use them for sex, aren't you? Isn't that 'involving' the shop assistant in your sex life?

(OK now someone's going to come along and insist that they only ever buy condoms to... um.... Oh hang on, I've heard of them being used to keep the dressing on a wounded finger dry while you take a bath.)

There is a difference between going to the supermarket and picking up condoms (or cucumbers), putting them in your trolley and sticking them on the checkout belt along with your eggs, bogroll, naice ham and all the rest of it and going through the checkout with a basket containing only a large cucumber and some KY jelly (and a packet of condoms), and smirking and panting at the assistant while you fumble for your money, of course.

I once saw someone buy 4 chocolate Swiss rolls and 4 blocks of lard.

Nothing else.

Just going to leave this screen shot here for people who say there isn't a safeguarding issue here and he was 'just' wanking in the work toilets.

those who say there isn't a safeguarding issue here and he was 'just' wanking

Are apologists, plain and simple.

There is a difference between going to the supermarket and picking up condoms (or cucumbers), putting them in your trolley and sticking them on the checkout belt along with your eggs, bogroll, naice ham and all the rest of it and going through the checkout with a basket containing only a large cucumber and some KY jelly (and a packet of condoms), and smirking and panting at the assistant while you fumble for your money, of course.

This.
We all know people have sex. We don't need to know when and how.

*I once saw someone buy 4 chocolate Swiss rolls and 4 blocks of lard.

Nothing else.*

Deep fried choc swiss rolls?

RedToothBrush that’s very clear.

The only person I’ve seen making a fuss about this bloke being gay is Owen Jones, with his cries of homophobia.

Christ on a bike. This has to be picked by somebody doesn't it?

There is a difference between going to the supermarket and picking up condoms (or cucumbers), putting them in your trolley and sticking them on the checkout belt along with your eggs, bogroll, naice ham and all the rest of it and going through the checkout with a basket containing only a large cucumber and some KY jelly (and a packet of condoms), and smirking and panting at the assistant while you fumble for your money, of course.

But we are being encouraged to pretend that the latter is the same as the former and if you notice anything untoward about the latter, it's because you're a pearl-clutcher, because what's going on is actually the former. It's gaslighting. And who does it benefit?

Can someone tweet this to Jeremy Vine? (don't do twitter)

I cannot understand the number of posters here saying
“🤷🏻‍♀️ It’s basically fine, but he shouldn’t have uploaded it”.

He got up in the morning, thought about how to dress and put a full rubber outfit on - his sexual fetish - in order to get sexual gratification at work. Then he put on his work clothes and off he went. All the while, able to feel his outfit under his clothes. Rubber costumes aren’t the sort of thing you’d forget you were wearing. All the time he was talking to colleagues, calling up celebrities to see if they’d support the safeguarding work of the nspcc - all that time, he’s in his outfit. Wearing the outfit that he specifically puts on to get sexual gratification.

That is SO far from being ok that it’s ridiculous.

He has a shitty grasp on work/private life boundaries and zero respect for anyone else’s boundaries- those are qualities I want nowhere near safeguarding work.

I said it before but are there people out there who honestly cannot get through a day at work without having a wank?

I don't know that we are being encouraged to think that being overtly sexual at passers by is OK. I think that might even been what WWJ's acquaintance was getting at - the difference between just purchasing your sex stuff and making a big deal out of it at the checkout.

As for Desmond... Yeah, I would say I have concerns about that kid, as I would have concerns about any kid becoming 'famous' that young. Childhood fame tends not to do the kid much good in the long run (Lena Zavaroni, River Phoenix, even Michael Jackson; yes he became a bad guy but his childhood fame probably contributed to that in quite a big way.) But I can also see why some LGBTQ adults might applaud him - it's not that they have predatory intentions, more that what they like is what they would have wished for when they were young and unhappy about themselves. If you spent your tween/teen days being bullied, feeling misunderstood and treated as bad and wrong and disgusting, seeing another kid be celebrated for the sort of things you dreamed about probably makes you feel better. (And yes, of course, some of his 'admirers' are going to be bad people, just like some of the fans of any other child star.)

Just to stress my screen shot above is section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/71

Which states:

71 Sexual activity in a public lavatory
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,
(b)he intentionally engages in an activity, and,
(c)the activity is sexual.

(2)For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

Now we can argue about whether a work toilet constutes a 'public toilet' if we want (spoiler we shouldn't)

And if we do go down that particular apologists bullshit we definitely should reflect that this was posted online - and this would still be problematic even with privacy settings enabled.

Merely because this is the NSPCC and this is a member of staff sailing very very close to the text of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

“If you spent your tween/teen days being bullied, feeling misunderstood and treated as bad and wrong and disgusting, seeing another kid be celebrated for the sort of things you dreamed about probably makes you feel better.”

Yeah well. If you think it is the role of children to make adults feel better then that’s a point of view. A vile point of view, but a point of view.....

Why are the news outlets silent?

It's been 24 hours (thereabouts) and not a peep? Have I missed something? Let's see...BBC News main page says Jo Brand made a tasteless joke, yup she's there...nope, nope, no NSPCC wanker in a gimp suit posting porn online, after making poor safeguarding choices in his celeb talent position...

I guess everything's fine, then. Yes it is.

All Bergdorf needed was some proper training as to why that was inappropriate. It's a general problem when you get celebrities to be 'ambassadors' for a charity: they quite often say and do stuff which is well-intentioned but stupid.

That's a touching level of faith you're showing in MBs ability to take on board any correction SGB, or anything at all that conflicts with their ideology.

“Why are the news outlets silent?”

I have spent many years now refusing to believe the conspiracy theories about paedophile rings in high places, the stuff about Edward Heath and other celebrities. It’s starting to look as if there might have been some truth in among all the batshittery.

As for Desmond... Yeah, I would say I have concerns about that kid, as I would have concerns about any kid becoming 'famous' that young

Desmond's 'fame' is specific to being immersed in the adult Queer scene. The context & its additional risks represent Safeguarding issues.

This guy gets off on violating boundaries and making people uncomfortable. Utter creep.

Thank you RedToothBrush - that's illuminating that the behaviour is a criminal act.

The NSPCC will take complaints from the public about the charity including:
"Criminality within or involving the NSPCC;
The NSPCC being deliberately used for significant private
advantage;
Non-compliance with the NSPCC’s own policies/procedures;
Non-compliance with relevant laws and regulations."

Link: www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/about-us/compliments-comments-complaints-policy.pdf

“Why are the news outlets silent?”

Cos there are no journalists left anymore.

Just opinion pieces by celebrities or articles written by propagandists.

Journalists are an endangered species and as such, they are particularly selective in their subject matter thus to ensure they aren't in the next wave of redundancies.

There are few with real freedom to really get their teeth into a subject. They exist, and they tend to win awards, but they are limited to the column inches they produce in comparison to the rest of the stuff that parades and passes itself off as 'news'.

That compliments/complaints policy gives a Salford (Manchester) address for supporter care, who presumably man the twitter account?