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.

No one on this thread is saying that being caught uploading porn during work time isn't a sackable offence.

It's the comparison to Saville, the issue of him being a safe guarding risk with regards to children and his right to wear what he wants under his clothes that I think is debatable.

No one on this thread is saying that being caught uploading porn during work time isn't a sackable offence has he been sacked?

And i think the questions about children and safeguarding need to be considered and asked as he referenced a childrens charity in the title of his film. Legally he may not have committed a safeguarding offence but it needs to be looked in to.

Wear what you want in your own time, but to behave like he did in his place of work, film it and then boast about what you've done online is unacceptable. The fact that he was the one who thought Munroe Bergdorf would be a good representative for the NSPCC is also very telling.

People have contacted the NSPCC with their concerns and have been vocal about how shocked they are by this behaviour. This is the NSPCC's response for those that haven't seen it.

As pp said, making porn at work (wanking, even filming for own use in private unsavoury but hey)

See I think this is an example of how we've all been groomed to be so non-judgemental, that we have difficulty justifying why we have decided that certain things in the public sphere, are unacceptable.

I'll be honest, I would have agreed with this sentiment twenty years ago. But I've done a lot more thinking since then and a lot more has been brought to light, about how grooming happens (in all areas), how predators infiltrate institutions so that they can structure them in a way that facilitates their abuse, #metoo etc. BDSM has been mainstreamed, but not in the way that people like @Magenta82 describe, that whole element of ethical behaviour and consent, seems to have been ditched in the recent past.

One of the big taboos in BDSM, was that you didn't carry it over into normal ordinary life; you didn't involve others in your kink unknowingly; it was considered unethical and dangerous and there's a reason for that: sex is powerful, it has its own momentum and that's partly why every single developed society on earth has ringed it round with sometimes frankly batshit taboos. But some taboos are necessary, in order to ensure no crossing any lines toward abuse. The boundaries need to be really clear, because once you've crossed them it's easy to drift.

Wanking in a workplace loo, is a boundary crossed. Filming that wanking, is another boundary crossed. Uploading it is the boundary that I think most of us would agree is a cross too far.

But the grooming process for us to accept the uploading eventually, starts further back along the chain. And we need to be aware of that.

Fibbke
It's got nothing to do with the fetish gear or being gay. It's making pornogrphy at work
This is all that you need to know!
Anyone in a regular job should and would probably be sacked for doing this.

Bloody hell.

Is it any wonder the NSPCC cancelled a webchat on here after people asked them questions about safeguarding if this is the kind of thing they find acceptable?

I can't think of any job where this wouldn't fall under gross misconduct.

Context is everything here. Yes, he is entitled to do whatever he wants in his private life. But to allow his own sexual fetishes to be played out in the workplace is overstepping all bounderies.

If it is true that the video was explicit in having been made in a CHILDREN'S charities toilet - then the semiotic of this is about people getting sexually aroused and kicks off that. This is bringing adult sexual behaviour into the very heart of a place that is supposed to be about protecting children.

If the adults at the NSPCC cannot see this, then I cannot see how they are fit for purpose as an organisation.

I am utterly at a loss as to how anyone can see this and call 'homophobia" - it would be the same whatever the sexual orientation or gender of the protagonist. It would be the same even if the person didn't have a rubber fetish. Or was a woman who wore kinky underwear to work.

This was linked explicitly with the word 'children', was done in a space supposedly dedicated to the safeguarding and protection of children and by someone employed by that organisation.

Utterly disgusting.

I don't believe he's the next Jimmy Savile. I doubt he's a paedophile. He probably isn't a safeguarding risk in the sense of being about to groom or otherwise harm a child himself. However I do believe that by openly linking his activity to his workplace he has knowingly offered titillation to those who do have such predilections. I also believe he has shown a spectacular lack of judgement in his endorsement of Bergdorf. I'd like to say this act is another such lack of judgement but I feel it's more calculated than that, a deliberate pushing of boundaries. I think he feels untouchable and the NSPCC's defence of him has shown that he is correct in that regard.

I couldn't a tiny shiny shit about his sexual orientation. Choosing to have a wank on company time while dressed in fetish gear and uploading it to the net is a transgression of every workplace conduct policy I've ever worked under. He neglected the work he was being paid to do in order to get his rocks off and in publicising his activities, he has caused serious reputational harm to his employer. In what world is that NOT a disciplinary offence?

WeWantJustice

All your posts in this thread are excellent. I very much agree.

Wanking at work might be surprisingly common, but that doesn’t make it OK.

How do we know he was in the toilets at work? Where has that come from?

He said so, MumUndone

“How do we know he was in the toilets at work? Where has that come from?”

Him.

NSPCC tweet
“We’re focused on the LGBTQ+ community internally and externally, and that’s our priority, so that we can be there to support and protect children.”
I don’t know what that even means....

I think the behaviour is unacceptable in the workplace but for me it's the title of the uploaded video which raises worrying questions and I cannot understand why the NSPCC doesn't see this as an issue.
Wearing fetish gear under your works clothes, wanking in staff toilets, filming it and uploading it onto the internet are all transgressive enough, why was it necessary to mention the nature of your employers business.

"Amateur Fetish Porn at Childrens Charity premises"

Whilst I am not even remotely suggesting that this man has an unhealthy interest in children I think it is worth posting the following link so that people are aware that this sort of behaviour does the work for people who would like to normalise adult/child relationships.

mobile.twitter.com/pankhurstem/status/991258041038368768?lang=en

Why are they focused on the LGBTIAQPRSWKSH community?

Why aren't they focused on children?

Am I Being Very Unreasonable?

Why aren't they focused on children?

Because they are broken.

WeWantJustice

Charities are always full of self-serving wankers (quite literally in this case boom boom).

Every caring profession always is, some people just love the power over people they see as beneath them.

Jesus, I hadn't even clocked that.

"Amateur Fetish Porn at Childrens Charity premises"

#HidingInPlainSight

So easy to miss. The title alone, even if it were a couple of blokes just having a nice cup of tea, would raise red flags in people whose judgement hadn't been completely confounded.

Even now if you look at his instagram, there are photos of him naked with just his hands covering his genitals.

This guy is either not very bright or just does not give a shit.

WHY would you link to that when children could easily look it up? You're supposed to be in a position of responsibility.

FUCKING MADNESS.

Just for clarity it appears that Amateur Fetish Porn at Childrens Charity premises was the title the twitter person making the screenshot gave it. The rubber guy making the video titled it wanking and pissing at work or words to that effect.

It's still gross misconduct regardless but I think it's important to be accurate about the details.

I agree that the uploadiing of the video and particularly the mention of working for a children's charity is thoroughly wrong. He's either utterly thoughtless in that it didn't occur to him that such a post would be appealing to people who are a danger to children, or he knows and doesn't care.

But I'm slightly surprised at the objections to 'wearing fetish clothing underneath your work clothes' when the wearing of 'naughty underwear' is such a staple of the kind of 'spice-up-your-marriage' advice given to heterosexual couples.
And this stuff about 'involving other people in your kink without their consent' - if they have no idea what you are thinking or that you are wearing something unusual, then how can they possibly be 'involved'? It's not at all uncommon for a person to have a crush on a co-worker or client and think about having sex with them, but (again) what happens inside your own head is your business and no one else's.

Again, this silly man's misconduct was in making too clear and public a connection between his workplace and his private life. Not having a private life which involves some less usual preferences. Not even wearing odd underwear and having an unscheduled wank break.
And I do think that a nice middleclass heterosexual couple who filmed themselves shagging in the workplace toilet and put the footage online with a caption that stated they work for a children's charity would - and should - face disciplinary proceedings, too.

The NSPCC should sack him and whoever is in charge of their PR. What an absolute shit show.

Are there any bloody charities you can actually donate to anymore?

I hope people are aware of NSPCC’s definition of abuse-which to me puts the emphasis on the child’s reaction rather than the adult action.

All very Peter Tatchell.

BertrandRussell Isn't it just.