Girl Guides: Nottingham - senders of objection emails referred to Police

[mammajustkilledagnat]

Anyone else seen this on Twitter? I mean, what the bloody hell?

twitter.com/MDayCassandra/status/1483731590232657922

I expect in a large organisation it will be a mix. How many volunteers/leaders does GG employ? It'll be thousands, won't it?

Yes. But I marvel at just how gullible you'd have to be to ignore someone who couldn't be more of a red flag if they draped themselves in the Red Flag, carried a red flag 100ft x 100ft above their head and had "This is a red flag" tattooed on their forehead.

This is one of the most frightening things I have seen so far.

@ChristinaXYZ

This is one of the most frightening things I have seen so far.

Why? Genuine question.

Of all the things "that would never happen" have happened, why is this particular thing so frightening.

It is particularly frightening that police are questioning/threatening people for raising safeguarding concerns.

As I said (I think) earlier in the thread: how many women here, posting and reading, will never again risk reporting a safeguarding concern if anyone TQ+ is involved? In fear of getting a knock on the door from the police, arrested, a mark on their DBS for a 'hate incident'?

This will have an incredibly effective chilling effect on people's willingness to get involved in safeguarding children and to report, naturally. They will look the other way. They will leave it to someone else. They will keep their head down and say it's none of their business. That hurls safeguarding back decades to prior Victoria Climbe. And that's before you start looking at times in history where the police and a political group trained people with scary consequences to say nothing, to look away, to not risk speaking out in case someone comes for you.

That's seriously frightening. If this is the 'right side of history' I'll take the past please. Please.

@Lovelyricepudding

It is particularly frightening that police are questioning/threatening people for raising safeguarding concerns.

Raising a safeguarding concern would be quietly contacting Girl Guides letting them know about what you've seen and allowing them to use their internal policies to respond in the way they deem appropriate. And not expecting then to give you details of any confidential investigative and disciplinary matters that might be pursued.

Bombarding Girl Guides with emails and encouraging others to do the same demanding this person be sacked and making innuendo about them being a risk to children is not raising a safeguarding concern - not least because as the GC teacher on this thread posted, this would probably merit a warning (at most I'd argue). And it is quite possible she has been warned. What is now taking place now is a campaign of harassment. Imagine how you would feel if hundreds of people were writing to your employer demanding you were sacked and making horrifying unevidenced comments about you on social media for making a mistake at work. She's probably scared to leave the house and with good reason. Whatever you think of her pics, they are not a sackable offence, they do not represent a safeguarding risk to children - as the teaching tribunal found when reprimanding the dominatrix, consensual and legal adult sexual behaviour does not constitute a safeguarding risk to children - and there is simply no reason for her to be the target of this onslaught of harassment.

It's only a matter of time before the GC movement has a Lucy Meadows on their hands - we've seen what this kind of harassment can do to people especially when it involves their employment. Not that I expect many of you would care.

I'll add too: this does TQ+ people no favours either, since the chilling effect will also extend to employers and a concern that if any issues arise, it will be dangerous to notice or respond to them. This is not going to do TQ+ people any favours in employment. I don't honestly know what GG are thinking.

Barley do you have evidence no one else here does about the specific content and number of emails sent from the women who are being pursued by the police in this matter?

I must say, I've never noticed concerns like this being raised when the activist lobby bombards (and really does bombard) and campaign to get someone out of post that they object to. Which happened several times last year. Are you concerned that JKRowling may be driven to suicide? Maya? Keira?

@Artichokeleaves

Barley do you have evidence no one else here does about the specific content and number of emails sent from the women who are being pursued by the police in this matter?

I must say, I've never noticed concerns like this being raised when the activist lobby bombards (and really does bombard) and campaign to get someone out of post that they object to. Which happened several times last year. Are you concerned that JKRowling may be driven to suicide? Maya? Keira?

Rowling is a near billionaire who lives in a castle. Maya was a consultant whose behaviour caused her colleagues to raise grievances. Neither have had deeply personal aspects of their lives trawled over with every possible utterance used to falsely attack them as some kind of sexual predator.

I do worry about Keira as it happens, She strikes me as deeply troubled and I hope she has some real support around her rather than people who just seem desperate to exploit her as they do other detransitioners as an ideological prop and weapon against trans people.

So, @barleybadminton, that's a "no" to @Artichokeleaves? You don't have any evidence to support the claims in your 14.47 post?

Rowling is a near billionaire who lives in a castle. Maya was a consultant whose behaviour caused her colleagues to raise grievances. Neither have had deeply personal aspects of their lives trawled over with every possible utterance used to falsely attack them as some kind of sexual predator

Perhaps thats because theres no chance that they are Barley.

Maya was a consultant whose behaviour caused her colleagues to raise grievances.

This is a lie. It's defamatory.

You resort to lies because you know that your sick ideology hasn't got a single leg to stand on.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So, *@barleybadminton, that's a "no" to @Artichokeleaves*? You don't have any evidence to support the claims in your 14.47 post?

Given the tone of the comments on here and social media, the ludicrous speculation including attempts to imply her name is some kind of sexual reference and the fact that despite being bombarded with complaints for two years over various issues Girl Guides have allegedly felt the need to involve the police on this occassion then I think it's quiteclear what the ature of many of those emails is likely to be,

And Rowling and Maya entered this debate voluntarily. Monica didn't. She's a working class trans woman, giving her time for free to volunteer for a cause she obviously cares about, and there seem to be those who want to see her life utterly destroyed because she posted some daft and not particularly explicit pics on social media. This isn't NSPCC wanking man, it's a leather dress and a daft joke and a stupid comment about boobs that could easily be dealt with and probably has been by Girl Guides.

Please stop with all this talk of suicides and linking them to specific people. For anyone who has experienced the aftermath of suicide of a close relative it is a death leaving a destruction like no other. Money and fame or what your house is like/worth don’t prevent it. How stupid.

Rowling is a near billionaire who lives in a castle

Oh, that's alright then! Being successful means abuse doesn't bother you and you become immune to suicidal feelings. Who knew?

Neither have had deeply personal aspects of their lives trawled over with every possible utterance used to falsely attack them as some kind of sexual predator.

JKR has. She's been called 'a danger to children'.

When sickos posted porn at children during an art competition on her thread, and JKR said she ignored it (as in, didn't respond to the sick fucks posting in the hope that the children sending her their art wouldn't notice it), she was again accused of being a danger to children

And a certain 'troll GP' (that was a splendid description of him in the headline) had to make an apology after likening her to Jimmy Savile.

@barleybadminton, that's a lot of words to say "no, I've not got any evidence"

I think it's quiteclear what the ature of many of those emails is likely to be that's an opinion. Not evidence.

Sarah Phillimore has seen one of the letters.

She says there's no inciting violence and no abuse in the letter. Trust me, she's not afraid to 'call out' (hate that phrase) 'GC' people if they're being twats. If there was any abuse or anything that crossed the line in the letter, she'd say so. I trust her.

it's a leather dress and a daft joke and a stupid comment about boobs

Yeah... still no

Barley I can't believe you are so dim that you don't understand why those pictures posted by Sulley are a massive red flag. Few people are that thick.

You know perfectly well what's going on here and you're defending the indefensible. I don't think I can even begin to convey the depth of the contempt I have for people like you who will attack women for daring to stand up for the safety of young girls.

I can't believe you are so dim that you don't understand why those pictures posted by Sulley are a massive red flag.

Imagine if a man (who didn't think he was a woman) who was a Scout or Cubs leader posted those images? Just imagine ....

This isn't NSPCC wanking man, it's a leather dress and a daft joke and a stupid comment about boobs

consensual and legal adult sexual behaviour does not constitute a safeguarding risk to children

Posting it on social media is the problem. Either the person posting is so hugely unaware of very basic propriety they shouldn't be in a position of responsibility, or they are doing it on purpose.

This isn't NSPCC wanking man, it's a leather dress and a daft joke and a stupid comment about boobs that could easily be dealt with and probably has been by Girl Guides.

No. Stop minimising it.

It is a posting history that shows either poor judgement or ill intent. Either way, it shows a lack of knowledge about safeguarding.

You are attempting emotional manipulation to make these breaches in safeguarding acceptable.

They are not. And fuck off with the ‘quiet word’. If this person didn’t know safeguarding requirements for their looking after the interests of young girls before, they are not likely to have an appropriate grasp now. And certainly not in a leadership position.

Your pleas for looking the other way are not appropriate.

Can someone help me out here?

I've read here that [r]aising a safeguarding concern would be quietly contacting Girl Guides letting them know about what you've seen and allowing them to use their internal policies to respond in the way they deem appropriate. And not expecting then to give you details of any confidential investigative and disciplinary matters that might be pursued.

But after that, Barley characterises the people who have contacted Girl Guides as "[b]ombarding Girl Guides with emails".

Barley, are you saying emailing isn't an appropriate avenue to follow the course of action you advise? If so, what method do you recommend instead? Fax? Phone call? Carrier pigeon?

Or are you saying you've seen the emails yourself and they were inappropriately structured and phrased?

@yourhairiswinterfire

Rowling is a near billionaire who lives in a castle

Oh, that's alright then! Being successful means abuse doesn't bother you and you become immune to suicidal feelings. Who knew?

Neither have had deeply personal aspects of their lives trawled over with every possible utterance used to falsely attack them as some kind of sexual predator.

JKR has. She's been called 'a danger to children'.

When sickos posted porn at children during an art competition on her thread, and JKR said she ignored it (as in, didn't respond to the sick fucks posting in the hope that the children sending her their art wouldn't notice it), she was again accused of being a danger to children

And a certain 'troll GP' (that was a splendid description of him in the headline) had to make an apology after likening her to Jimmy Savile.

Rowling is a public figure who chose to enter into this debate. And she has not had hundreds of people speculating about her sexuality, or what paraphilias people have decided she may or may not have. It is deeply personal, more than a bit creepy and frankly verging on sexual abuse.