Male volunteer - Guides & Rainbows - arrested on suspicion of grooming

[Oldstyle]

Not clear if this person is trans or simply male but I thought that men who identify as men were not allowed to volunteer with these 'female-only' groups? Worrying either way.
www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/17207657.north-kent-girlguiding-volunteer-arrested-on-suspicion-of-grooming/?ref=twtrec

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

What total, arrogant shite! I wouldn’t leave any child with someone who had the stupidity to think they can sniff out a pervert. I’m rarely shocked by anything on Mumsnet, but I was truly stunned by that comment.

I've had to comment again just to vent about the utter stupidity of pp's comment- urgh, totally agree with you PostivelyPerf, I wouldn't want them anywhere near my kids with that attitude.

I've had to tell my daughter that not every person with bad intent will be easy to spot, because they will do their best to hide it.
Trusting your instincts is good, but shouldn't be your only tactic for keeping yourself safe, let alone children you have responsibility for.
I am a Leader (in training) and have seen how decisively GG can act when a safeguarding issue arises. But this does depend on volunteer Leaders flagging up concerns.

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

Sorry, but I am still agog at this comment!

Sorry, but I am still agog at this comment!

Me too. Just as you think you've seen it all, someone wades in with a comment that makes your jaw drop.

Threads and threads and threads about safeguarding hereabouts. Then someone who is supposed to understand and apply safeguarding frameworks comes in with a comment like that.

"This isn’t a trans issue, but it IS a predatory Male issue, which is what we’ve been saying all along. Paedophiles will go to great lengths to access children. We know this. So why would putting on a dress and declaring themselves a woman for the purpose such a stretch of the imagination? Why aren’t trans people and supporters acknowledging this and standing up with us? Why are they denying it would ever happen?

^This.

And isn't it interesting that when you scratch the surface of a pro-self ID activist you get child safeguarding concerns come up and slap you in the face way sooner than you expected.

Edward Lord -mayor wants all women's single sex spaces in the City of London to be mixed sex, sings the praises of a well-known member of PIE.

Aimee Challenor- Stonewall spokesperson and campaigner, former Green Party activist and now Lib Dem who liaised with Girl Guiding to get them to change their safeguarding around sex segregation, had a close relationship with his election agent dad who got 22 years for raping and torturing a girl in the attic of their home.

Jane Fae who oddly is able to speak to senior figures at Girl Guides, who even long standing leaders can't get an audience with, refers to child abuse images as 'child porn' and writes for The Register on how to clean up your hard drive if you are suspected by the police of having illegal images.

Mayor Anderson of Liverpool allegedly tipped off a teacher, at the school he had a paid advisory role at, that the police were going to raid him and seize his computer so he was able to delete thousands of images before the police arrived.

Jess Bradley, founder of TELI, ATH, government advisor on Self ID and first NUS transfer officer had a blog on flashing where Bradley shared pictures of a children's cartoon character was being anally raped, pornography of 'father abusing son' theme which Bradley thought was 'hot as fuck', and a post daring a possible minor to masturbate in public.

This isn’t a trans issue, but it IS a predatory Male issue, which is what we’ve been saying all along.

^^This.

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

I apparently grew with up, in a samll community,and had classes with someone who grew up to be a paedophile - I don't remember him at all.

He went to profession working heavily with children apparently loved by parents and colleagues.

He was brought down by child rape images in that joint US/UK credit card thing which went first after men in sensitive jobs first.

There was utter shock he pinged no one radar not the community he grew up in, not the schools or university he went to and nothing in the communities he worked in.

Later emerged that while there weren’t concerns with his day job one of his volunteering posts there had been but the family and child had been vulnerable and he was a well-respected member of the community it went nowhere,

We only know now because he was caught and jailed.

“Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?”

The article posted quite clearly shows that Leaders are not able to do this.

And if leaders did have a "spidey sense" that someone is not right and reject their application then that person would immediately sue the GG for discrimination. As sure as eggs is eggs. There are plenty of so-called equality lawyers who actively pushing people to sue for discrimination right now.

And GG of course will want to hush any hint of a public legal case. They will cave immediately, chuck out the leader who rejected the application and authorise the person's application.

That's what will happen. We know this because of how GG have acted thus far.

Even if a man doesn't actually want to join GG, then it is a way to earn money, isn't it? Apply, get turned down, sue. Like the bloke who is suing waxing salons in Canada; he is telling the salon owners that they can avoid litigation by paying him thousands of dollars. GG will probably settle out of court every single time so it is a good moneyspinner for a certain type of person.

GG have brought this entirely upon themselves of course.

Can I urge people not to assume that all transwomen wear "dresses"?

Girl Guiding UK has really lost it. They sack a brilliant, committed, caring volunteer like Helen Watts - but they employ people who imagine they can sniff out paedophiles wearing dresses. And in the news story linked to by the OP, it seems that they can't implement their own safeguarding procedures properly. What a shower.

I don't think that's fair hackmum They don't employ anyone except in head office I think CentrifugalBumblePuppy, could be following safeguarding to the letter while still believing in her intuition. If she does then the risk is as limited as it can be.

I might have been similar and had faith in intuition too until I worked with a man jailed for images of child abuse. That really opened my eyes because like everyone always says, he was the last person you'd expect to do something like that.

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

In your head what does that person look like? Bad applied lipstick, and a lascivious smirk?

Because firstly no they won't. And secondly even if they did, you can't do anything about it.

They would have your arse in court so quickly you'd gasp. TELI, the organisation mentioned upthread, whose founder has been caught exposing their penis in public, exhorting boys to do the same, and showing anal rape of cartoon characters, promotes what they call 'strategic litigation'.

Tactical prosecutions. You turning someone down because you thought they were 'dodgy bloke in a dress', would be a gift.

And yes how bloody dangerous is it to decide that people's spidey senses is sufficient as a safeguarding tool.

Because it, automatically, begs the question of, in that case how has any paedophile ever got away with it?

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

Predatory males who are intent on gaining access to children will use sophisticated methods to do so. It was ever thus.

Underestimating this is incredibly dangerous.

see: Lisa Muggeridge, 'Social work training: Ever present risk of predatory behaviour'

They don't employ anyone except in head office
There are paid employees at Regional and National (Wales, Scotland, NI) offices too, and at residential centres.

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

No. With the best will in the world, no.

I consider myself an astute judge of character - I have a nose for lying and ‘bad’ people and I’ve been right countless times about it but I’d NEVER assume I could filter out anyone with bad intent on my own - everyone is fallible.

So two points. 1. Everyone is fallible, no one gets it right all the time and that’s why the system itself HAS to be set up to be human proof as much as possible. And 2. - if self ID comes in, you won’t be ABLE to filter out that ‘dodgy bloke in a dress’ because they sue the arse off you and everyone will be too scared to say no to anyone fitting that description.

Don't you think as Leaders, we don't have the ability to sniff out a dodgy bloke in a dress & say no to their help?

CentrifugalBumblePuppy

Anyone who works with children or vulnerable adults and makes such a claim needs additional supervision as it identifies a Safeguarding training need.

Anyone who is arrogant enough to think, There's nothing to fear. I, with my superhuman spidey senses, could spot an abuser at fifty paces, shouldn't be in charge of any children

This. Larry Nassar, Rolf Harris. Sure, Jimmy Savile pinged my spidey senses but those two didn't. And despite being creepy, Savile got away with crimes against hundreds of children. Hundreds of lives ruined. Safeguarding procedures, including sex segregation, are necessary and should be strengthened not weakened. Trans policies are weakening safeguarding. It's disgraceful.

Very hard to understand why trans people (with a few notable exceptions) aren't standing up and saying 'not in my name'

Lisa as always, spot on

Because it, automatically, begs the question of, in that case how has any paedophile ever got away with it?

That is indeed the big question. One in certainly leaving towards the answer being "they know but they don't care"

All these institutions, ones that can spot seemingly minor things on a daily basis, being 2 minutes late, using wrong parking spot, sending a quick text message. Ones who can pick, dress, and instruct on the slightest of movements to make sure body language doesn't get them in trouble, when giving public presentations. Seemingly miss worrying clues on the way which often even on an.individual basis would seem dodgy as fuck, let alone as part of a collection.....

Funny how a "memory shared" picture on face book of you in a bikini on holiday 6 years ago can cost you even getting a phone call if you hand in a cv.

But a Twitter history of advocating for extreme porn. A back.history of allegations, a.prison sentence, etc you can still be listened to and given the task of drafting policies. They know. They have to know.

GG still claim that AC/JF haven't advised them, while AC/JF still claim they did.

I don't think there's a single organisation that would advise they act in the ways that they have that doesn't have links to one if that lot is there?

I don't really want to pile in on the poster who said they'd spot a wrong 'un. But it does really highlight the weakness in the system here. I've been on the GG safeguarding training. It was incredibly thorough in some ways but very woolly in others. There are protocols (which work very well when instigated) but depend on the discernment of individual volunteers. Within a framework that relies a lot on trust and goodwill.
My DD is Guide (and loves it) but I don't think I'd be happy with her going on residential without me. I feel very protective of the girls in our unit - as do most of the Leaders, but you can't spot a bad person easily.
A colleague of mine is currently suspended for suspected child grooming, it's incredibly shocking - nice chap, married, kids, respectable, smartly dressed etc - invisible on my 'radar'. There was nothing 'off' about him.

There are protocols (which work very well when instigated) but depend on the discernment of individual volunteers. Within a framework that relies a lot on trust and goodwill.

This is the issue.
Safeguarding doesn't start with policies and protocols. It is rooted in a sophisticated understanding of identifying and managing risk which requires reflective practice.
The framework includes policy and legislation.

Lisa Muggeridge's video above provides the context.

As a Leader in charge of others people's children I don't want to be relying on my judgement. I want a system that has already considered the risks - as you say ROwantrees the unit I volunteer in has other more experienced Leaders, whose professional jobs actually involve a lot of safeguarding, but all units are different.