Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To suggest that safeguarding should be paramount when dealing with children?

132 replies

KatieAlcock · 05/08/2019 15:02

Because it was on these grounds that I was expelled from Girlguiding.

My story was in the Mail on Sunday yesterday and in the Telegraph today.

I'm taking them to court over my dismissal - they investigated me for talking about their policies on social media, but ultimately decided that I was OK to talk to a small group of people about the ins and outs of GG policy.

But they also decided that it is NOT OK for a leader to put safeguarding above policies - they specifically state trans policies, but frankly, wouldn't you rather your girl's Brownie leader put safeguarding ahead of any policy?

Also, AIBU to say that Mumnetters and other women are INCREDIBLY generous and helpful and that I've now managed to achieve something with their help? But that I'm not supposed to say what I've achieved? Or that I still need help?

OP posts:
JAPAB · 05/08/2019 15:33

Because it was on these grounds that I was expelled from Girlguiding.

If the article is accurate, then it went a bit further than that. One can point out risks of allowing trans girls access to certain spaces without, for example, calling them boys or men.

Balancing an employee's free speech with wanting to operate within a zeitgeist of equality and non-discrimination is always going to be tricky. Imagine someone advocating a prohibition on male teachers in schools, or a scoutmaster advocating a prohibition on homosexual scout leaders. Even if they come up with all the stats to show these are higher risk groups, well...

And in the latter case, if the scout master then throws in more general stuff that will be seen to be offensive to homosexuals, well again, tricky.

I don't know what the answer is. On one hand people should be allowed to question policies, highlight the risks of them etc. On the other, these organisations work in a zeitgeist that will baulk.

Since I believe in free speech I would support someone speaking out. But would prefer it if they stick to statistical or other objective facts. Most pragmatic thing anyone can do.

Butters83 · 05/08/2019 15:42

I think to help your argument around logistics and safeguarding you need to make sure that your army of followers do not completely erase the valid identity of a group of people. It really does you no favours.

Original poster
KatieAlcock · 05/08/2019 15:48

If the article is accurate, then it went a bit further than that

I was investigated - rather than all the other Guiders who complain ad nauseam about Guiding - because of my beliefs. But I've not broken any policies at all, given that they said I didn't breach social media policy, they just complained that I said safeguarding came first i.e. I MIGHT breach a policy.

OP posts:
Original poster
KatieAlcock · 05/08/2019 15:49

Thanks @Butters83 for your, er, helpful contribution, once again.

OP posts:
GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 15:51

I think to help your argument around logistics and safeguarding you need to make sure that your army of followers do not completely erase the valid identity of a group of people.

Do you think that validating someone's gender identity is more important than informing parents that when they send their daughters on single sex trips they are not actually single sex? And not telling these parents that their daughters may be sharing sleeping accommodation with male bodied young people?

Butters83 · 05/08/2019 15:54

GlitchStitch Absolutely not what I am talking about, at all?

Saucery · 05/08/2019 15:55

Safeguarding should underpin all policies. If it does then equality for anyone is not compromised, as you’re not discriminating against a person or group of people, you are merely considering all eventualities and putting in place robust risk assessments to make safeguarding work.

I would expect all Guiding leaders, volunteers and participants to place safeguarding at the top of any list. I would not trust the current set up to do so and would not encourage any girl to join the organisation until this happens.

HarrietSchulenberg · 05/08/2019 15:55

Safeguarding does indeed come first, but I think you'd need to identify specific risks and produce a robust risk assessment to back you up. I agree with you but a blanket approach to safeguarding and risk is less compelling than something that is specific to an individual.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 15:56

Well that is the issue with Girl Guides, basic safeguarding is being ignored and parents are not being informed.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 15:56

That was to Butters.

Butters83 · 05/08/2019 15:59

GlitchStitch Right, but you cannot erase people while you argue for these points and work out the detail to make sure all children (INCLUDING tran children) are in a safe environment.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 16:02

Who is 'erasing' people?

TeenTimesTwo · 05/08/2019 16:08

Safeguarding should come first.

Something that Girl Guides failed to do when they decided to allow male born & bodied guides share tents and shower facilities without knowledge or consent of the parents of the guides.

Their basic safeguarding doesn't allow sons of leaders to do this, so why should they let any other child just because they 'feel' they are a girl. (Given you cannot get a GRC prior to 18).

Furthermore, when they have a policy re females doing certain care, also again allowing male born people to do this without knowledge or consent of the parents of the children.

Girl Guides has not been honest to parents. Without being honest to parents, how can they and their daughters trust them?

Greeve · 05/08/2019 16:10

I find your assumptions that men are inherently dangerous to children to be both baseless and offensive. So on both sides, I agree with their decision.

peachgreen · 05/08/2019 16:13

Oh good Christ, can't we keep this nonsense to the feminist boards where the rest of us can avoid it? You've got your money.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 16:14

Do you think teenagers should be allowed to sleep/ shower in mixed sex accommodation Greeve? Would you let your 14 year old daughter have a sleepover with a boy?

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 16:16

Yes, the safeguarding of children and especially girls is nonsense. Tell that to a parent when their daughter gets pregnant at a single sex camp.

Butters83 · 05/08/2019 16:22

GlitchStitch May as well wrap all the girls in cotton wool until they are 18....

Greeve · 05/08/2019 16:26

Do you think teenagers should be allowed to sleep/ shower in mixed sex accommodation Greeve? Would you let your 14 year old daughter have a sleepover with a boy?

Yes.

Yes.

If the idea is that sexual attraction will cause someone to rape another person, how we ensure that the other girls who attend are not homosexual? There could be girls there who take the opportunity in the showers to look at their peers for sexual gratification. Your make no sense whatsoever.

You just have a problem with trans people.

Greeve · 05/08/2019 16:29

If I was that concerned about what might happen to a daughter of mine during her interactions with males, I certainly wouldn't send her to school unless it was single sexed and I picked her up and dropped her in case the scary boys see her and she gets pregnant.

I have no plans to do that.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 16:33

If the idea is that sexual attraction will cause someone to rape another person, how we ensure that the other girls who attend are not homosexual?

Well lesbians aren't male, nor are they responsible for 98% of all sexual violence. Girls also can't get each other pregnant. The constant using lesbians as some kind of bogeyman to compare to males is grim homophobia.

And I didn't mention rape, teenagers have consensual sex too. You may be happy for your child to share intimate space with members of the opposite sex but plenty of parents wouldn't and they deserve the right to make an informed choice instead of being lied to.

GlitchStitch · 05/08/2019 16:36

You just have a problem with trans people

No, I would have a problem with my daughter sharing intimate space with male bodied people. Their gender identity is irrelevant to me. The only difference is, that this wouldn't happen with boys who identify as such. But say trans and everybody's brain falls out.

minisoksmakehardwork · 05/08/2019 16:41

@Greeve - what would you do, how would you feel, if you were told your daughter was attending a single sex event, say a sleepover with her friends. Yet after the event were told that 'Jo' was actually 'Joe' and had shared the same sleeping accommodation?

Most parents would be furious with their children lying to them that a boy was at the sleepover as well.

What GGUK have done is removed informed consent of their members and parents.

Whatthingsexactly · 05/08/2019 16:41

Crikey OP. That last paragraph is shameless.

Tin rattling on AIBU is not a good look.

Butters83 · 05/08/2019 16:44

minisoksmakehardwork

Jo is JO not Joe.

Jo is a girl, no matter what is between her legs.

Respect trans people and be sensible about your arguments, this is why you will always come undone.

I mean at least GlitchStitch uses the correct terminology.....

Swipe left for the next trending thread