To ask you to see who girl guides support.

[RedCarpetRebellion]

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10235539/amp/Girlguides-launch-probe-trans-Commissioner-58-saucy-dominatrix-style-picture.html

A woman sacked for speaking up for girls safety was replaced by this person.

Girl guides are not safe for girls. AIBU?

Hellofabore

My goodness that thread.

I thought nothing else would shock me.

The 10% who think I’m being unreasonable to think parents need to know about this care to explain why?

Other posters have asked you to engage and explain your reasoning and as it’s my AIBU? I’d like to hear why you think I’m being unreasonable to think safeguarding is something that matters to all parents? Or should at least.

www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201809/large-966251-last-skintwo1.jpg

Can I just confirm that this is the individual in charge of advising the Girl Guides on SAFEGUARDING? You couldn’t make this shit up!

I think a picture still says 1000 words…
Not so very different from the pictures released today of the Commissioner Monica Sulley in their underwear - only Monica is glorifying weapons and encouraging SM users to interact with her …

Between that and the disability info that @Eggybrains mentioned, I’ve seen enough - no Guides for us. But I’ll still be telling everyone else I know about this because it stinks.

The person in the picture is advising on safeguarding at girl guides? OMG, I feel sick

It’s shocking, completely predictable though.
I hope that more people are going to peaked by this kind of encroaching nonsense.

@brighousepres

www.mumsnet.com/uploads/talk/201809/large-966251-last-skintwo1.jpg

Can I just confirm that this is the individual in charge of advising the Girl Guides on SAFEGUARDING? You couldn’t make this shit up!

I think a picture still says 1000 words…
Not so very different from the pictures released today of the Commissioner Monica Sulley in their underwear - only Monica is glorifying weapons and encouraging SM users to interact with her …

Between that and the disability info that @Eggybrains mentioned, I’ve seen enough - no Guides for us. But I’ll still be telling everyone else I know about this because it stinks.

I believe they were the contributor not the picture on the front. The person who we are discussing does not look like that at all. And favours twin sets.

But this is some of their work as per that thread.

Thanks @Helleofabore - I'm now not sure how the image is linked to the safeguarding person who undermines the seriousness of DV ‘women have egg shell skulls’ and has dangerous views on children and extreme porn?

Sorry if I’m being dim I’m alternating between this thread and work etc

I went through GG and was a young leader but haven't been involved for over 20 years now. I loved it, our unit was really outdoorsy, and looking back, our Guider gave us the confidence to do so many things - lighting fires, building obstacle courses, making trails, learning about the night sky and so much more.

Thinking about previous posters who have said

99% of local guiders, leaders and helpers would agree that current GG safe-guarding policies are unsafe for girls

and also

that they have taken/would take otheir daughter out of GG, or not let her go in the first place, or not let her go to camps

Couldn't there be a grassroots movement from the leaders themselves, all of them who agree that this policy is demonstrably unsafe? A legal action, a refusal to carry out their duties, parents stop the subs? I don't know really, it's just that if we know there's such a strong grassroots feeling about this, from leaders and parents, then perhaps something can be done?
An advantage is that GG is an existing network, so 'finding recruits' should be easier (especially when we are aware that many of them agree!)
Doing it 'together' would also make it easier for leaders who are afraid to speak out on their own.

Just thinking out loud.

One of the contributors (From the Skin Two Fetish yearbook, 2009 (Skin Two Issue 60), by John Ozimek, edited in 2012 by 'Jane Fae') was also an advisor to the GGs. Note the change of name in 2012!

This author is a known extreme porn activist. They also tweeted that tweet about 'eggshell skulls' and other rather misogynistic statements.

That author was listed as one of Diva's top 100 lesbians last year.

You know I can't vouch for this woman and I take no particular view on her suitability for the role, but I am very irritated by some assumptions being made here, people seem to be lumping an awful lot of concerns they have about GG onto her on some tenuous evidence.

I am sick and tired, in this whole discussion of seeing both sides pick up on what appear to be at least partially misleading articles and not think about the context/check the facts because It Proves Their Point. I am really tired of seeing things and thinking 'OK, but I can see a massive Trans Rights bias here or a massive GC/trans-exclusionary one that's actually obscuring what's really going on'.

BDSM photo: yes, she has a sex life. BDSM doesn't mean 'into every perversion there including paedophelia'. The fact that people had to poke around her social media to find this suggest it's probably not a major part of her life anyway. The vast majority of BDSM enthusiasts are not paedophiles and regard them with the same disgust as everyone else.

Gun photo: There's a photo of my mate on holiday in Cambodia holding a loaded bazooka, but he's never blown anyone up, nor is he a 'gun nut'. So, she had a photo taken with a replica gun - that doesn't seem to be evidence of being a 'gun nut'

Signed Challenor letter: That one 1000+ people signed? www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/over-1000-people-have-signed-an-open-letter-condemning-pride-in-london-for-letting-an-anti-trans-group-lead-the-march-94296/ I actually used to be supportive of Glinner's stand for women initially, but really, trying to imply this woman is some best chum of Challenor for signing an open letter signed by 1000s is just barrel scraping and unfair. He writes about the vileness of Challenor's father in detail as though Sulley was his best mate or something. Not one of 1000s who signed an open letter that happen to have been created by his daughter, at a time it appears the Challenor scandal was not even known about, so I'm not sure how Sulley, who doesn't appear to be linked in any other way to Challenor, was to know about it. And to imply as much is plain cruel, however righteous you feel your cause is.

Who knows, maybe something truly dreadful will appear about her, because I don't know her and neither do you. Campaign against trans women being in these positions if that's how you feel, but digging up the slightest thing discredit an individual by extrapolating very thin evidence does not do your argument any credit.

@PumpkinGin

The person in the picture is advising on safeguarding at girl guides? OMG, I feel sick

www.theguardian.com/profile/jane-fae

www.independent.co.uk/author/jane-fae

Nope this is.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3710570-Astonishing-thread-from-Jane-Fae-Darvo-at-its-finest

The above egg shell skulls thread.

www.mailplus.co.uk/tv/60-second-sound-off/9125/jane-fae-jk-rowlings-comments-on-trans-people-like-me-are-painful-and-pernicious

Have you read JKR essay? It’s incredibly kind and supportive of trans people and not the least big transphobic. Yet she received enough death and rape threats to paper her huge house with them and JF thought how they felt mattered most.

@MoveAhoy

There's something about someone being unsuitable for roles involving children who is found out to have volunteered to multiple children involved organisations.

I don't like it.

Have we reached the NATWALT stage yet?

Wasnt there someone else recently like this? Baloo challoner or am I thinking of the wrong man?

@Echobelly

You know I can't vouch for this woman and I take no particular view on her suitability for the role, but I am very irritated by some assumptions being made here, people seem to be lumping an awful lot of concerns they have about GG onto her on some tenuous evidence.

I am sick and tired, in this whole discussion of seeing both sides pick up on what appear to be at least partially misleading articles and not think about the context/check the facts because It Proves Their Point. I am really tired of seeing things and thinking 'OK, but I can see a massive Trans Rights bias here or a massive GC/trans-exclusionary one that's actually obscuring what's really going on'.

BDSM photo: yes, she has a sex life. BDSM doesn't mean 'into every perversion there including paedophelia'. The fact that people had to poke around her social media to find this suggest it's probably not a major part of her life anyway. The vast majority of BDSM enthusiasts are not paedophiles and regard them with the same disgust as everyone else.

Gun photo: There's a photo of my mate on holiday in Cambodia holding a loaded bazooka, but he's never blown anyone up, nor is he a 'gun nut'. So, she had a photo taken with a replica gun - that doesn't seem to be evidence of being a 'gun nut'

Signed Challenor letter: That one 1000+ people signed? www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/over-1000-people-have-signed-an-open-letter-condemning-pride-in-london-for-letting-an-anti-trans-group-lead-the-march-94296/ I actually used to be supportive of Glinner's stand for women initially, but really, trying to imply this woman is some best chum of Challenor for signing an open letter signed by 1000s is just barrel scraping and unfair. He writes about the vileness of Challenor's father in detail as though Sulley was his best mate or something. Not one of 1000s who signed an open letter that happen to have been created by his daughter, at a time it appears the Challenor scandal was not even known about, so I'm not sure how Sulley, who doesn't appear to be linked in any other way to Challenor, was to know about it. And to imply as much is plain cruel, however righteous you feel your cause is.

Who knows, maybe something truly dreadful will appear about her, because I don't know her and neither do you. Campaign against trans women being in these positions if that's how you feel, but digging up the slightest thing discredit an individual by extrapolating very thin evidence does not do your argument any credit.

What anyone does in their private life should be private.

This persons public posts breach the GG social media policy.

They are very poor safeguarding practice. Insta is 13+ and many, if not all, job roles that involve safeguarding children have rules about unsuitable social media that children can access. It shows very poor understanding of boundaries which is a safeguarding risk. Thinking sexualised comments and photos on a public platform children can access is a problem.

Have you read all the research on paraphillias? Me neither, but I’ve waded through a fair bit of it and I know they tend to present in clusters. Paedophilla being the most common. Head over to fwr and ask them to explain the risks with paraphillias and you’ll get a very comprehensive answer from many much better versed than me.

Then there’s the risk from GG policies themselves. Male ‘women’ leaders and guides sharing tents, shower/changing blocks and toilets on camps is fine for safeguarding according to the GG policies.

And the GG policies encourage leaders to distribute contraception to 13+ children and to allow them to keep it a secret.

The one place girls were supposed to be free from sexualisation and they get handed condoms and told shhhh we won’t tell mummy if you don’t want us too. Adults teaching children to keep secrets is called grooming.

@Echobelly

You know I can't vouch for this woman and I take no particular view on her suitability for the role, but I am very irritated by some assumptions being made here, people seem to be lumping an awful lot of concerns they have about GG onto her on some tenuous evidence.

I am sick and tired, in this whole discussion of seeing both sides pick up on what appear to be at least partially misleading articles and not think about the context/check the facts because It Proves Their Point. I am really tired of seeing things and thinking 'OK, but I can see a massive Trans Rights bias here or a massive GC/trans-exclusionary one that's actually obscuring what's really going on'.

BDSM photo: yes, she has a sex life. BDSM doesn't mean 'into every perversion there including paedophelia'. The fact that people had to poke around her social media to find this suggest it's probably not a major part of her life anyway. The vast majority of BDSM enthusiasts are not paedophiles and regard them with the same disgust as everyone else.

Gun photo: There's a photo of my mate on holiday in Cambodia holding a loaded bazooka, but he's never blown anyone up, nor is he a 'gun nut'. So, she had a photo taken with a replica gun - that doesn't seem to be evidence of being a 'gun nut'

Signed Challenor letter: That one 1000+ people signed? www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/over-1000-people-have-signed-an-open-letter-condemning-pride-in-london-for-letting-an-anti-trans-group-lead-the-march-94296/ I actually used to be supportive of Glinner's stand for women initially, but really, trying to imply this woman is some best chum of Challenor for signing an open letter signed by 1000s is just barrel scraping and unfair. He writes about the vileness of Challenor's father in detail as though Sulley was his best mate or something. Not one of 1000s who signed an open letter that happen to have been created by his daughter, at a time it appears the Challenor scandal was not even known about, so I'm not sure how Sulley, who doesn't appear to be linked in any other way to Challenor, was to know about it. And to imply as much is plain cruel, however righteous you feel your cause is.

Who knows, maybe something truly dreadful will appear about her, because I don't know her and neither do you. Campaign against trans women being in these positions if that's how you feel, but digging up the slightest thing discredit an individual by extrapolating very thin evidence does not do your argument any credit.

@Echobelly I agree with you that some things on here lack balance, and I don't think are fair.

The photos. You can do what you like (within the law) in your bedroom. But the issue is that she put them on SM for the world to see. I think a cis-woman or man would also be criticised if she/he was a leader in a youth organisation or teacher etc. and did this.

I'm interested to see how Girlguiding responds to this. On previous experience of me and others raising concerns (and I'm not talking exclusively about their Diversity and Inclusion policy), I would not be surprised if they did nothing or did nothing quickly. Monica may be vindicated. None of us know yet. But I actually think the most important thing is how Girlguiding as an organisation responds, and if there have been failures, such as they failed to obtain references of Monica on recruitment as a volunteer (that wouldn't surprise me either), what they need to learn from this. Girlguiding don't seem to like admitting that they got things wrong.

I actually think the world needs to leave Monica alone. I'm not sure if they are, but they should be leaving her alone. If they want to take aim at anyone it should be Girlguiding. Questions need answered by Girlguiding, but I agree we don't necessarily know the outcome yet.

*male guides

As in sharing with the girls also.

You don't take 'a particular view' on whether a person who has a photo on themselves on their Instagram profile in their real name in bondage gear is suitable for a role as a guide leader @Echobelly?

Does your mate with a bazooka photo also have a soft porn Twitter profile in their own name and is a guide leader?

At the very least, it's deeply deeply inappropriate.

@Echobelly

You know I can't vouch for this woman and I take no particular view on her suitability for the role, but I am very irritated by some assumptions being made here, people seem to be lumping an awful lot of concerns they have about GG onto her on some tenuous evidence.

I am sick and tired, in this whole discussion of seeing both sides pick up on what appear to be at least partially misleading articles and not think about the context/check the facts because It Proves Their Point. I am really tired of seeing things and thinking 'OK, but I can see a massive Trans Rights bias here or a massive GC/trans-exclusionary one that's actually obscuring what's really going on'.

BDSM photo: yes, she has a sex life. BDSM doesn't mean 'into every perversion there including paedophelia'. The fact that people had to poke around her social media to find this suggest it's probably not a major part of her life anyway. The vast majority of BDSM enthusiasts are not paedophiles and regard them with the same disgust as everyone else.

Gun photo: There's a photo of my mate on holiday in Cambodia holding a loaded bazooka, but he's never blown anyone up, nor is he a 'gun nut'. So, she had a photo taken with a replica gun - that doesn't seem to be evidence of being a 'gun nut'

Signed Challenor letter: That one 1000+ people signed? www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/over-1000-people-have-signed-an-open-letter-condemning-pride-in-london-for-letting-an-anti-trans-group-lead-the-march-94296/ I actually used to be supportive of Glinner's stand for women initially, but really, trying to imply this woman is some best chum of Challenor for signing an open letter signed by 1000s is just barrel scraping and unfair. He writes about the vileness of Challenor's father in detail as though Sulley was his best mate or something. Not one of 1000s who signed an open letter that happen to have been created by his daughter, at a time it appears the Challenor scandal was not even known about, so I'm not sure how Sulley, who doesn't appear to be linked in any other way to Challenor, was to know about it. And to imply as much is plain cruel, however righteous you feel your cause is.

Who knows, maybe something truly dreadful will appear about her, because I don't know her and neither do you. Campaign against trans women being in these positions if that's how you feel, but digging up the slightest thing discredit an individual by extrapolating very thin evidence does not do your argument any credit.

Maybe you should read the thread if you have not.

It is the fact that this person has published these images and captions of themselves means that this is no longer their 'private life'.

It directly contravenes the GG code of conduct for volunteers. And it presents a safeguarding risk.

As does the poses with guns in a way that is not in anyway controlled or in an appropriate way to handle weapons.

NOBODY should be doing this. That is the entire point. Why wasn't it picked up before they were appointed.

Frankly, if you don't see it as a risk to safeguarding, that is on you.

I would like you to tell me why someone who seeks to lower sexual boundaries by publishing these images (because it is exhibitionism and is directly about lowering sexual boundaries of others), should ever be in a position of responsibility of children. Regardless of sex.

Please tell me why it is ok?

@Clymene

You don't take 'a particular view' on whether a person who has a photo on themselves on their Instagram profile in their real name in bondage gear is suitable for a role as a guide leader *@Echobelly*?

Does your mate with a bazooka photo also have a soft porn Twitter profile in their own name and is a guide leader?

At the very least, it's deeply deeply inappropriate.

I don’t care if my kids teacher is into all that in private. As long as he keeps it off of social media. By keeping it private he shows he knows it should be kept away from kids, which is good safeguarding.

The GG concerned is demonstrating they think it’s fine to demonstrate and indulge in their sexuality publicly, on platforms that children access. So is demonstrating that they are aware it must be kept separate from children.

If the GG was a teenager, very early 20s I’d say it’s possible that’s just naivety or lack of understanding, but this person is in 50s? No way any adult that age doesn’t know your sex life should be entirely kept away from children. Which begs the question what’s their motivation of posting?

• so is not demonstrating they are well aware it must be kept away from children.

Eggy

I think posting these images on your social media while in a position where you know full well what the GG volunteer rules on conduct and on safeguarding or leaving them up after your appointment is actually rather indicative of their intention.

We are constantly told by activists that we should accept people for who they say they are. Leaving these images on two social media platforms is 'telling us who this person is'.

Why do you think this particular person should not be named?

Very true GG needs to take responsibility, but this is a 58 year old adult.

Their actions can only be taken as deliberate or else, they simply have no concept of what is required for the safety of children and should never have been appointed to that position. I look at their decisions across TWO social media platforms and I can only draw the conclusion it was deliberate choices here. GG allowed this to happen but they are jointly responsible with this particular person .

I haven't seen the Twitter account, and can't find it so can't say whether it's soft porn or not. If it's inappropriate I would say most of all I'm in agreement with @Eggybrains - take your concerns to Guides, don't smear this person on speculation based on a few pictures. It just gives ammo to people who say 'Oh you're just looking for an excuse to be transphobic' - NB not saying 'Oooh be nice and kind', but certainly saying, don't mudsling on individuals who have not been proved to have done anything wrong, nor even had any allegations made against them.

I do wish sometimes there was a verb/word to say 'I am not necessarily defending a person or standpoint, but I think the argument used undermines itself with speculation/inaccuracy!' (I don't think 'devil's advocate' is the same thing, for example)

@daringdoris

I went through GG and was a young leader but haven't been involved for over 20 years now. I loved it, our unit was really outdoorsy, and looking back, our Guider gave us the confidence to do so many things - lighting fires, building obstacle courses, making trails, learning about the night sky and so much more.

Thinking about previous posters who have said

99% of local guiders, leaders and helpers would agree that current GG safe-guarding policies are unsafe for girls

and also

that they have taken/would take otheir daughter out of GG, or not let her go in the first place, or not let her go to camps

Couldn't there be a grassroots movement from the leaders themselves, all of them who agree that this policy is demonstrably unsafe? A legal action, a refusal to carry out their duties, parents stop the subs? I don't know really, it's just that if we know there's such a strong grassroots feeling about this, from leaders and parents, then perhaps something can be done?
An advantage is that GG is an existing network, so 'finding recruits' should be easier (especially when we are aware that many of them agree!)
Doing it 'together' would also make it easier for leaders who are afraid to speak out on their own.

Just thinking out loud.

This is such a good idea. Sadly a number of senior guiders were sacked for raising issues about removing the single sex nature of the Guides and safeguarding. Those who remain are under strict instructions to keep quiet or they're out.

This mirrors what's happened to women everywhere who raise concerns about the removal of women and girl's rights to safe single sex spaces when vulnerable (hospital wards, intimate care, refuges, showers and changing rooms, even sport). No matter how respectful they are, they're bullied, their employment is threatened, they get death and rape threats.

You're right that there's safety in numbers and over issues like this, it's essential that parents and all responsible adults stand up for the safety of children.

It defies belief that someone who reaches such a senior position in the guides had no clue that displaying their fetishes / weapons on social media would be a problem. That person has no idea of appropriate boundaries and that's dangerous when working with the young and impressionable.

I’m another one who’s horrified and disgusted by the whole thing.

I’d already decided not to enrol my daughter at Rainbows given my safeguarding concerns and now this absolute shitshow has come out.

Firing women for raising genuine concerns and instead hiring men who get their kicks from dressing up as women, BDSM and guns and happily showcase this across social media. NO.

What is going on. They’ve all lost their minds at HQ.

I went to rainbows, brownies and guides as a youngster and loved them all. I’m so angry that my daughter now will lose out on these experiences because GG thinks it’s better to prioritise men than focus on the girls their organisation was created for.

It’s a DISGRACE