This is a real time demonstration of a safeguarding framework failure.
GGs used to have a particularly rigorous sex-based safeguarding framework (particularly with regard to male volunteers/sons of guiders) which meant that historically GGs have had an excellent safeguarding record.
All statistics show that girls are at low (but not no) risk from women, which is why there are still DBS checks etc.
GGs as an organisation have now moved away from a sex-based model to a gender-based model (possibly under guidance from Amy "incapable of understanding safeguarding" Challenor and Jane "extreme porn advocate" Fae) which massively increases the risk profile they are exposing girls to, because males are just statistically more violent/more likely to be sexual offenders etc than females.
There is no evidence that transition changes that risk profile from a male to a female one.
I don't want my guide-aged daughter's school teachers, religious leader, youth group worker, dance teacher, sports club leader, swimming coach, doctor, school nurse etc, (irrespective of whether they are men or women) to have a social media public profile with them dressed in fetish wear or pointing a weapon.
I do not share those values.
I believe it shows a serious lack of judgement.
I think carefully about how and where my daughter spends her time and the calibre of individual she spends it with. And I would rather she spend her time with decent adults who have a deep understanding of boundaries and consent and safeguarding, when she does need to engage with them. And in organisations which understand that if I raise a safeguarding concern it is because I am concerned about keeping children safe not because my views on sex are too 'vanilla' or because I don't precisely know what type of gun is being brandished...
Things are tough enough for young teenage girls without this crap.
We have learnt several new things.
GGs claimed to have a 'rigorous' vetting procedure.
But now we know that GGs aren't bothered by pictures of their guiders in fetish wear or brandishing a gun and they are no bar to becoming a relatively senior leader.
One of the basic tenets of child safeguarding is that everyone has a responsibility to report any concerns to the appropriate DSL. This is assumed to be a confidential exchange.
Now we know that GGs feel that an appropriate response to a safeguarding concern being raised is to report the concerned individuals to the police. This is mind boggling.
And if, as spero says, the correspondence she saw was not extreme, what on earth were the police thinking to question people raising safeguarding concerns?
Whichever way you look at it, this is a safeguarding framework failure, the consequence of which is that Girl Guides are currently unable to carry out their duty to safeguard girls in their care.