A trans-Identified BDSM fan/gun nut is now a senior leader at Girlguiding

[Scraggythang]

Via Glinner’s sub stack. Sorry if this has already been posted!

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/wtf-are-girlguiding-thinking

barleybadminton
As has been tediously repeatedly explained to you, most places that work with children also have a social media policy to take account of this (excepting the GG obv)

@MrsOvertonsWindow

barleybadminton As has been tediously repeatedly explained to you, most places that work with children also have a social media policy to take account of this (excepting the GG obv)

But surely a guide leader who lives in a small town would be more likely to be seen by one of the guides if she was out and about wearing a corset than she would on an instagram account under a false name. I think an out of work dress code is really the only way to be sure we can protect kids from seeing women wearing leather dresses.

You crack on making ignorant comments and showing contempt for child safeguarding badminton. It's always useful for lurkers to see which posters are careless about children's welfare

How do you know? There's lot of goths on the kink scene. Perhaps we could have an agreed dress code that those who work with children must adhere to in public, lest their fashion choices corrupt young minds.

Condescension is really your middle name. Forgive us mere mortals for thinking that safeguarding our children is more important than allowing adults to flaunt their exhibitionism all over the internet.

Haha, try telling that to the entertainment companies who have
spent billions and successfully lobbied for ever more draconian
laws in an effort to shut down torrent sites. In over two decades they've barely made a dent in online piracy and most of that's not
even on the dark web

You probably should do some research before making yourself look foolish.
I currently cannot be bothered writing a whole screed that you will not read and may even passively aggressively comment on with more patronising words. I can guarantee though that if the will to shut down websites was there for whatever reason was deemed correct, those websites would be shut down.

barleybadminton my concerns are more about the sexualised comments online. The dress by itself is tacky and I cannot imagine a situation where GG would not express concerns about a female leader wearing it but it’s not the dress by itself and focussing on dress code is missing the more serious point.

Wearing that dress whilst holding a whip and saying they wanted to be called mistress is a 🚩

The obsession with breasts online is also a 🚩

And grim af, my personal experience from when I was a teenager, males with an obsession with breasts behave in a sexualised inappropriate creepy manner with teenage girls as they develop breasts, especially those who develop breasts quickly (obligatory NAMALT). And they didn’t even need to say anything inappropriate for teenage me to know which were obsessed with breasts 🤢

Any leader behaving in such a publicly sexualised manner would also be regarded as a 🚩

Anyone male, female, trans or nb posing with guns like that on social media would be a whole set of 🚩 🚩 🚩 many people have an interest in shooting but they don’t pose like that on publicly visible social media

And you've not had safeguarding training?

I have had safeguarding training as it happens. The key question in this case is whether they "behaved or may have behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children."

The example given in government guidance on this is someone being involved in an incident of domestic violence. The key point here is does the incident represent a 'transferable risk' that is is there a liklihood of this activity taking place in a setting with children. In this case that seems unlikely, it was a fairly benign post on an instagram account under a false name. She doesnt seem very likely to be about to turn up at a Girl Guide meeting brandishing a crop and wearing a corset. I verymuch dout any tribunal or safeguarding expert would consider that photo meets the threshold.

There is also provision to report a 'low level concern'. This is much more likely in this case and would not usually lead to loss of job, although it would be recorded and depending on the incident may invoke disciplinary action. There is certainly nothing in typical safeguarding policies or practice that would suggest this person should be fired and prevented from working with children again. Mostly likely, if the Girl Guides felt this met the threshold of a low level concern it would be recorded confidentially and dealt with by additional training, increased supervision or low level sanction.

A quick google about safeguarding and referring to random irrelevant points taken from whatever document you've looked at does not constitute safeguarding training.
You're out of your depth, conflating different policies and protocols (that you don't know or understand) in a desperate attempt to prove that this person's behaviour is appropriate when working with children.
You're wrong and so are they.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

A quick google about safeguarding and referring to random irrelevant points taken from whatever document you've looked at does not constitute safeguarding training. You're out of your depth, conflating different policies and protocols (that you don't know or understand) in a desperate attempt to prove that this person's behaviour is appropriate when working with children. You're wrong and so are they.

So perhaps you can point to some formal safeguarding guidance that suggests this photo meets the threshold for someone to be prevented from working with children ever again.

And I worked in social care for over a decade and a half thanks, including working with vulnerable adults and young people with high support needs. Safeguarding was a pretty important part of that.

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog

@barleybadminton can you just give it a rest? Dozens of gatekeepers on here tell you it's a red flag for them, you're saying it shouldn't be because [reasons]. Cool. You turn up to an empty GG evening because the grown ups have voted with their feet.

FWIW, I wouldn't let a public fetishist look at my dog through a frosted window. If you want to entrust your vulnerable to them then that's on you and unfortunately those people will reap the rewards of your utter naïveté.

@barleybadminton

And you've not had safeguarding training?

I have had safeguarding training as it happens. The key question in this case is whether they "behaved or may have behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children."

The example given in government guidance on this is someone being involved in an incident of domestic violence. The key point here is does the incident represent a 'transferable risk' that is is there a liklihood of this activity taking place in a setting with children. In this case that seems unlikely, it was a fairly benign post on an instagram account under a false name. She doesnt seem very likely to be about to turn up at a Girl Guide meeting brandishing a crop and wearing a corset. I verymuch dout any tribunal or safeguarding expert would consider that photo meets the threshold.

There is also provision to report a 'low level concern'. This is much more likely in this case and would not usually lead to loss of job, although it would be recorded and depending on the incident may invoke disciplinary action. There is certainly nothing in typical safeguarding policies or practice that would suggest this person should be fired and prevented from working with children again. Mostly likely, if the Girl Guides felt this met the threshold of a low level concern it would be recorded confidentially and dealt with by additional training, increased supervision or low level sanction.

Good grief.

[quote Bearyhumcrack]@barleybadminton can you just give it a rest? Dozens of gatekeepers on here tell you it's a red flag for them, you're saying it shouldn't be because [reasons]. Cool. You turn up to an empty GG evening because the grown ups have voted with their feet.

FWIW, I wouldn't let a public fetishist look at my dog through a frosted window. If you want to entrust your vulnerable to them then that's on you and unfortunately those people will reap the rewards of your utter naïveté.[/quote]
You have every right to object to the legal and consensual sexual interests of other adults just as they have every right to consider you a judgemental prude.

What you do not have the right to do is to try and destroy someone's career on spurious safeguarding grounds when the incidents in question do not even come close to a safeguarding risk which warrants such a sanction under current guidelines.

Responding for any lurkers:
badminton, If you've worked in social care then you should know that safeguarding policies and guidance don't contain simplistic advice, ie "this photo makes someone unsuitable to work with children but that photo is OK". That's not what safeguarding looks like

There's a range of safeguarding policies and processes designed to ensure children's safety in voluntary and statutory organisations.

From the initial safer recruitment process (that presumably GG don't follow) which is designed deter unsuitable applicants from applying for roles with vulnerable groups, through to the safeguarding policies, protocols, understanding, training and ethos that applies to each organisation.

In relation to inappropriate photos, the questions that needs to be asked are whether this adult's behaviour demonstrates an understanding of the needs of children to have a safe, age appropriate environment? Is their behaviour in line with workplace guidance about social media and being an appropriate role model? Or does their behaviour demonstrate a clueless disregard for children's needs and they are therefore an unsuitable and possibly damaging role model.
You answer those questions using your collective safeguarding policies, knowledge and experience - along with relevant employment policies. Safeguarding trumps all the other policies.

No matter how much you like someone or feel sorry for them, child safeguarding always comes first.

Afraid I'm with @barleybadminton here - GG has safeguarding that I'm sure has been applied here and all I see is a bunch of people absolutely barrel-scraping to find a handful of photos they can frame as negatively as possible because the person in question is trans. Because they'd never have gone looking for it otherwise.

I am not some 'every woman who questions anything about trans people is an evil TERF bigot' type, I hate that shit, but this is clutching at such straws to discredit someone purely because they are trans and undermines proper safeguarding. People say 'no smoke without fire', but I don't even see smoke here.

This thread has gone on for 500 pages and it doesn't look to me like anyone's dug up a single shred of evidence to prove this woman has done anything so inappropriate that she shouldn't have a role with GG.

Final point - when someone tries to frame people raising safeguarding concerns as judgemental prudes and dismisses concerns as spurious that's a massive red flag right there.
It's what predators use to silence professionals, parents, communities and children from spotting and disclosing abuse. It's bloody dangerous.

In relation to inappropriate photos, the questions that needs to be asked are whether this adult's behaviour demonstrates an understanding of the needs of children to have a safe, age appropriate environment? Is their behaviour in line with workplace guidance about social media and being an appropriate role model? Or does their behaviour demonstrate a clueless disregard for children's needs and they are therefore an unsuitable and possibly damaging role model.
You answer those questions using your collective safeguarding policies, knowledge and experience - along with relevant employment policies. Safeguarding trumps all the other policies.

Of course, and as I said upthread I think this could be dealt with by a quiet word, perhaps be logged, and additional training or supervision if Girl Guides thinks it meets that threshold. I don't think the Mistress photo does as it happens, it is very benign and no child would have ever been likely to see it had it not been dredged up by gender critical campaigners. I think the boob photo is more inappropriate, but a quiet word and a bit of social media training inappropriate, not the destruction of someone's career.

After all, the careers of male individuals are more important than child safeguarding.

Oh please give the quiet word a rest, barleybadminton , you must think all the silly women are screeching and you hold some precious, quiet wisdom.

A male who gets sexual kicks out of posting pics dressed as a dominatrix has no business being a girls' leader. It's not just naff, it's grossly inappropriate.

The interesting thing is, there is no way to tell if you too are just another man getting their kicks out of chastising women. But it's old, and it's boring.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Final point - when someone tries to frame people raising safeguarding concerns as judgemental prudes and dismisses concerns as spurious that's a massive red flag right there. It's what predators use to silence professionals, parents, communities and children from spotting and disclosing abuse. It's bloody dangerous.

This.

And almost no one here thinks otherwise. The attempts to minimise red flags are so obvious they might as well come with a klaxon and spotlight.

Fetish gear, photographs in the bath, asking people if they want to see their breasts, and underpinning an ideology that says gender identity is more important than biological sex, in an organisation that is meant to be catering to girls and supporting them on the basis of their biological sex?

Little wonder that the numbers of members of girl guides has plummeted.

It's a crying shame.

It's not just a benign fetish. It's very benign.

These are not just M&S red flags ...

I am just glad I have removed my dd from this organisation when such red flags are so clearly being ignored.
The safety of children must always come first.

barleybadminton
I think the boob photo is more inappropriate

Which photo/tweet do you think was inappropriate? there were loads of tweets referring to boobs so I can’t think which specific one you might be referring to.

If the account had been private originally they wouldn’t have been visible and definitely wouldn’t have been visible to girl guides idly googling a leaders name.

Of course, it is not about just ‘one photo’. It is about intention of posting a series of photos of a sexual nature. Including an ‘in the bath’ shot as a profile shot in front of a line of identifiable little girls in their party dresses. And a series of photos depicting not careful and controlled handling of weapons.

This is about a series of images and messages posted that depicts that this person has little concept of responsibility towards children and weapons.

Frankly, just the image of the ‘in the bath’ in front of the line up of small girls showing faces should have been enough.

I doubt that this will go away despite GG lack of action.

I would take this line regardless of if this person was male or female. Lowered boundaries are not negotiable in a group where my teen might be involved.