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.

Being gay is irrelevant. Wanking at work, filming it and uploading to the internet is relevant. 100% sackable offence.

People can do what they want in their own time so long as it’s all consenting adults.

Don’t bring it into work.
Don’t wank in work toilets.

Doesn’t matter you job, sexual orientation or fetish.

I'd sack any of my employees that did this. And be well within my rights to do so. I'd have some very upset members of staff and my duty as an employer would be to protect them.

And that's exactly what these loons are fighting - your right to sack them and protect your other staff. Already, women are being told in equality policies, that if they object to a man with an autogynephile fetish being allowed to use the next cubicle to them in the women's loos, they are guilty of transphobia and they need to be re-educated.

How long before it becomes taboo for us to not want a bloke revealing his latex vest under his shirt, sloping off to the women's loos for a wank? How long before you no longer have the legal right to protect your staff from this behaviour?

Ten years ago when feminists on here were warning about the trans agenda, we were called hysterical, haters, bigots etc. Making extreme connections was silly, that would be a common sense outrage, it would never get past first base etc. Everything we said would happen, has happened.

Happy Thursday fellow Cassandras. Here we go again.

It's got nothing to do with the fetish gear or being gay. It's making pornogrphy at work.

The actual fetishistic behaviour hasn't Fibke, no.

But the defence of it? Oh yes it does.

It's part of the agenda to inhibit right-thinking people from thinking they have the right to be offended, uncomfortable or just dubious about men with no boundaries inflicting their shit on us.

I mean in terms of way some people criticised it?

Why are you always worried about the way people criticise things?

Be nice to the man who actually called himself a pervert in his links to his perversions being carried out at work, in his linked in bio stating he works for the NSPCC?

Why should we always be 'nice' to these utter contemptuous creeps and pervs?

It is deeply disturbing that the NSPCC haven't acted on this immediately and fired him.

What is their reason for not doing so?

Gay rights is being hijacked by people with a very different agenda than LGB rights

You are damn right it is.

I haven't got a link but one mumsnetter braved a conference where they [the speakers] were blatant about the strategy - get yourself into positions on committees, into charities, into decision making groups, into positions of influence and you have the power to push these boundaries, change the definitions, and infiltrate.

Did anyone mention that NSPCC have changed the definition of child abuse as well?

A point to note that the NSPCC isn't just a charity - it is a statutory body that has powers to take kids out of the family if they deem it necessary.

Well, he isn’t a paedo (unless he was doing it to images of children), but it is highly unprofessional and would be regardless of where he worked. I work in a field where likely lots of my colleagues have similar tastes and interests outside of work and it would not be unusual for others to know about their sexuality and sexual interests as it’s a very open industry and our work revolves around sex. It would still be highly unprofessional to be doing this at work or linking anything about your personal sexual behaviour to your professional social media accounts.

What is their reason for not doing so?

They want to protect him from the meanies bullying him?

He should surely be sacked for wanking at work or bringing the charity into disripute. Everything else is irrelevant.

This might help fill in the some gaps for people that are asking. News items on the subject are failing to give the relevant details about the fetish/work link.

mobile.twitter.com/HollyJohnsonfan/status/1138878025876103174

Another very good reason not to have “gender neutral” toilets.

I don’t want anyone wanking in the cubicle next to me, thank you very much!

The reason it’s got linked to homophobia is that at first, people on Twitter complained about the fact the employee who was responsible for bringing in Bergdorf had pictures of himself as ‘Rubbercub’ linked to his public profile. Owen Jones et all vigorously defended this man’s right to fetishise rubber and said it was homophobia to complain about this.

Subsequently, the video that this guy made at work has come out and Owen Jones suddenly has nothing to say about it anymore, having been extremely vocal in his condemnation of the critics as bigots and homophobes. Funny that!

To attribute it to homophobia before the video was revealed is blinkered enough but it is now indefensible to say that only homophobes would be horrified at a man wearing rubber to work and wanking in the toilets (and who watches these videos????)

The phrase ‘kink shaming’ is just an attack on women’s boundaries. You should be ashamed of filming something like that at work! It absolutely should be seen as a shameful thing to do!

I would completely sympathise if the NSPCC sacked him - I'm assuming most workplaces, regardless of whether you worked with children/ vulnerable adults or not, would sack you for posting videos of wanking at work. But the guy doesn't have any contact with children in his job. He works in their head office, presumably with no employees/ vulnerable adults under 18, where he is employed to smchooze adult celebrities into donating/ giving money. I think I'd feel much more strongly about this if he was employed by them on their childline helpline to talk to actual children, or as a project worker working with children. At the moment he strikes me as grubby and horrible; but as he doesn't have any access to children, I couldn't really call it a safeguarding risk.

I think you could make the argument that using the description of his work place on the video as a childrens charity it would encourage paedophiles to at least watch, if not apply to work at a childrens charity themselves as clearly safe guarding is lax.

Also think anybody saying objection to this is homophobic is riddiclulous - be just as grubby and horrible if a heterxsexual adult did this at work.

But if you are a peadophile why would you be interested in watching a video of a solo adult man wanking over adult material ? And it's the NSPCC head office; so it's not as of, ( thankfully) there would be a risk of children walking and seeing him. He's posted these videos on LinkedIn, so not a website most children would be using.

I think he's grubby and disgusting and should be fired. I would fire him if he were to behave like that in my workplace; which has no connection to children whatsoever. I just don't see a safeguarding risk.

Id feel very differently if he was filing these videos in NSPCC buildings children had access to; or he had even the remotest chance of engaging with children as part of his role.

I would also be surprised if he neede da DBS for his role tbh.

It is the fact that the man obviously has no understanding of boundaries and safeguarding - rather like the Challenor gang (is there a link with Balloo and the NSPCC - I understand they defended the Girl guiding trans policy as 'nothing to see here')
And as such they shouldnt really be considered to have the necessary skills in working in an organisation that deals with childre's boundaries.

If I accessed pornography at work - simply ACCESSED it, I would face the sack. And that is absolutely spot on and correct. Sex should not be brought into the workplace in any way or form, to keep everyone safe.

But they are defending the right of this man to make his own rubber wank porn in the toilets at a childrens charity, and then let people see WHICH charity. FFS. Thought they'd covered this with Jess Bradley.

Is this where we are now?

OK, this does seem a little bit unprofessional of this bloke (and his emphasis in his tweet of working for a children's charity is unfortunate to say the least.)
But, as PP have said, his job doesn't seem to involve any direct contact with vulnerable children. There is no suggestion that he directly involved, or attempted to involve, any unwilling colleagues in his behaviour.
And loads of people wank at work. (Link is to an article in Metro, SFW.) Is inadvertently overhearing what you think is someone having a bit of solo fun in the next cubicle really any worse than overhearing someone having a very noisy shit, or doing some meditative chanting?

and surely in his celebrity and talent role he WILL have contact with children. Children who will be in awe of the celebrities he can give them access to

This is from the NSPCC charter.

But do you think the people watching his videos know there are no children in the building? And why post the word “children” in the video title if not to attract people who would get off on imagining children being somewhere nearby and unaware what was going on?