Munroe - Childline 's first LGBT+ campaigner.

[HandsOffMyRights]

Words fail me today

Dear "Isabelle-waver" - your mind is so open your brain has fallen out.

I think the cub thing is because he's quite young. Bears are a subset of gay men who are hairy/beardy. I don't think it's any more dodgy than that.

Filming himself wanking in the toilets and titling it as children's charity toilets is quite another matter. To be clear, I don't think James is a paedophile. But I do think he's making it clear that he's massively transgressing boundaries to get other men off. And a lot of men who will find that enormously exciting will be paedophiles

I'm agog at some of the stuff I'm reading on Twitter right now - how can people be so naive? This is in reply to a tweet about the fact Munroe encouraged minors to message them, defending Munroe...

Mens Sexual rights and enabling them to do anything they like at any time is the most important thing it seems.

Including during working hours when being paid by public donations for the benefit of vulnerable children.

I can't stop reading this thread. I find the NSPCC's changing definition of child abuse incredibly sinister; agree there seems to be some intent of breaking down barriers.

The rubber-guy?! I have no words.

We can only hope there is a huge investigation into the shower of shit which is unfolding right now.

Christ, don’t use terms like ‘shower of shit.’ You’ll just give them ideas for their next video.

Blooming heck Always, I’ve got another image to add to The Rubber Man now.

Sweet dreams everyone.

I do like RoseofDawn's reassuringly sensible take on the woke bros:

@RoseOfDawn

The
@NSPCC
do not have to make an apology to the “LGBTQ+” community just for sacking Munroe Bergdorf. Sacking an individual because of their comments on public record is nothing to be sorry for. Munroe being fired is NOT an attack on LGBT people. Don’t pretend otherwise.

Just to be clear, this is the government definition of child sexual abuse:

"Forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities, not necessarily involving a high level of violence, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening."

My bold. Nothing to do with how it makes them feel. Whether or not they are aware.

That is what CSA is.

Are you reading this Peter Wanless? Why have you changed the definition? What the fuck has gone wrong with the NSPCC ?

I can't believe that after Operation Yewtree, all the 'Me Too' revelations of the last couple of years and 'Leaving Neverland' , the NSPCC aren't more careful about 'identifying celebrity talent'.

Leaving aside the particular details of the people involved in this incident, it's very clear that there was no policy of doing even basic checks or safe guarding training in the communications department.

Obviously all celebrities aren't abusers, but haven't we all learned that celebrity creates an uneven power balance that can enable abuse, particularly when abusers can hide behind the shield of charity work?

This really seems to be an institutional problem.

(And I don't know where to start with that video?!)

What is so hard to understand about the importance of boundaries in child protection?

We teach children appropriate boundaries so that they are as least vulnerable to grooming as possible.

To do that, everyone involved with the organisation must demonstrate that their boundaries are themselves appropriate.

This means - and for fucks sake, I can't believe I have to say it - you don't go about wanking at work and you don't go about inviting children to contact you in private.

And you don't call it bullying when this basic, basic fucking information is pointed out to you.

NSPCC needs a course correction, stat. Otherwise it's going to continue being fertile territory for infiltration and an Oxfam-scale scandal.

Would all those defending this be ok for teachers to do this in their school toilets? For carers to do this in the homes of those they are caring for? For a surgeon to do in a children’s hospital toilet?

I mean if it’s in the workplace but children are not actively present then what’s the difference?

Filming himself wanking in the toilets and titling it as children's charity toilets is quite another matter.

If you’re reading, James, involving unwitting coworkers in your kink is a bit fucking much, mate.

Daytime telly for the forseeable. Best of luck with the jobsearch.

Video Title: Amateur Fetish Porn at Childrens Charity premises

I find that title very chilling and sinister. It's as though the words are designed for a particular audience.

Fetish. Porn. Children.

And then there are a group of words that are so reminiscent of Jess Bradley's excitment at masturbating in risky, off-limit places

Children's Charity Premises

There seems to be so much overlap between aspects of gay culture, the 'sex without boundaries' Q Men, and the fetishistic T.

I am actually confident that a number of LGB people will recoil with horror at what they are being asked to defend and support. More will peak Queer as well as peak Trans.

Filming himself wanking in the toilets and titling it as children's charity toilets is quite another matter.

I was shocked by the title, but it turns out that was added along with the mouse. The original is titled "Cub Pisses and Wanks in Rubber.
Wearing my rubber under my clothes to work, decided to film myself.."

Still shocking behaviour, of course.

Could’ve been a previous workplace (someone mentioned Ann Summers upthread) then?

Did his LinkedIn say how long he’s been at the NSPCC?

For once I really hope there are lots of journalists reading this.

I think the cub thing is because he's quite young. Bears are a subset of gay men who are hairy/beardy. I don't think it's any more dodgy than that.

Im not saying this guy himself is dodgy himself, but should someone who has such a gross lack of boundaries (including the use of the word 'cub' in the context of a children's charity workplace) be working for the NSPCC (the answer is of course not obviously!)

Do we know for sure that this was filmed whilst he was working for the NSPCC? Not that it particularly matters?

Someone said four years.

But did he perhaps use that title in an instagram post? Now I am confused.

Sorry but did I read that right? Is that right that the NSPCC’s official social media account is blocking people who are simply asking the NSPCC some questions that they don’t agree with?

That is highly inappropriate. You can’t be all #nodebate if you are the NSPCC, for goodness sake. They’re not a political campaign, or a celebrity with an image to maintain, so why are the NSPCC behaving like that and blocking people that question their political views?

Will they also be binning and ignoring the letters from any members of the public who ask them difficult questions? Will they be hanging up and refusing to answer phone calls from anyone who asks them difficult questions? What on earth.

Charities- especially major, child protection charities who are supposed to understand safeguarding and appropriate boundaries need to work transparently and openly online, never behaving corporately like thin-skinned individual narcissists do. They need to be robust and be able to respond to questions.

There seems to be something very odd going on with apparently not really seeing the difference between the public sphere and the private sphere.

He’s been at the NSPCC for 4 years (3 roles):

Sophie, Countess of Wessex is their royal patron. I wonder if alerting their patrons and major donors (listed on their site, many of which are family trusts) would help the NSPCC decide how much they really really REALLY prioritise the actions of staff above all else.

Society also does not take too kindly to the public expression of paraphilias

Women cant even bloody breastfeed in public without society losing its collective mind, but this we're supposed to be OK with.

And this is what women are worried about.

Yup. When the people who tell us our concerns are unfounded are also telling us this is OK, you'll forgive me for never ever ever trusting their judgement.

Ever.

Will they also be binning and ignoring the letters from any members of the public who ask them difficult questions?

Well they didn't do a MN webchat....