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

@ArabellaScott

'This isn't just NSPCC wanking, this is M&S wanking'

And urgh.

Can never go in M&S changing rooms again. Not without a hazmat suit. And never, never buying underwear that's not in a sealed packet. (shudder)

The joys of living in a culture where men wank everywhere they feel like it and women get to.... shut up, put up and make themselves smaller not to annoy anybody.

Anyone seen this?

@ArabellaScott

'This isn't just NSPCC wanking, this is M&S wanking'

All over the ladies knickers apparently.

Becles

Yes. And the advent of yet another surname has been noted.

It still is all about them.

The reality is that it not about them at all. It it actually all about those girl guides. Despite barley’s wish that this is focused on this leader, it has everything to do with the need to have a divisional leader that understands safeguarding above their own on-line needs.

How, in the name of sanity, did we ever get to the position where any of this is OK. I cant believe there is a poster on here, putting up detailed posts trying to justify it.

@Becles

Anyone seen this?

Hmmm. If only there was some action one could take to stop national media outlets publishing a story about one posting substandard BDSM shots of oneself on social media.

If only there was some action one could take to stop national media outlets publishing a story about one posting substandard BDSM shots of oneself on social media.

If we were to put our heads together, maybe with a soothing jangle of tambourines and a few spiritual exhortations, we might just hit on something that would avert this.

Worth a go.

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.

Lol, next up you'll be claiming that highlighting Sulley's BDSM pics or 'more boobs' photo is akin to revenge porn.

@ANewCreation

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.

This is a brilliant post and the information should be pinned outside every hall and venue, where rainbows, brownies and guides meet. I do so feel sorry for the dedicated and committed leaders. However, parents need to know about these safeguarding failures.

Absolutely excellent post from ANewCreation

And when you read all that and reflect that GG, in full knowledge of all this, have chosen to prioritise the protection of freedoms and the exemption from their usual rules and standards a male employee, a groundbreaker in terms of male employees taking women's (formerly female only) posts, over the safeguarding of the children who are (supposed to be) the sole focus of the organisation?

Not going well, is it? And GG are still apparently fine with this and would rather lose their reputation and members than do anything to sort this out. .

A great post from ANewCreation. So let's ask about why GG ing have doubled down on their doubling down and not just removed the person in question.

If they were a responsible organisation with the safety of children in their care at the heart of everything they do then surely this would be the most obvious solution?

So why are they resisting so strongly? Why?

@Artichokeleaves

Absolutely excellent post from ANewCreation

And when you read all that and reflect that GG, in full knowledge of all this, have chosen to prioritise the protection of freedoms and the exemption from their usual rules and standards a male employee, a groundbreaker in terms of male employees taking women's (formerly female only) posts, over the safeguarding of the children who are (supposed to be) the sole focus of the organisation?

Not going well, is it? And GG are still apparently fine with this and would rather lose their reputation and members than do anything to sort this out. .

Is Monica an employee?

I assumed that the role was voluntary.

ANewCreation if you don't mind if like to print your post and send it to Girlguiding.

@Iwishihadariver

A great post from ANewCreation. So let's ask about why GG ing have doubled down on their doubling down and not just removed the person in question.

If they were a responsible organisation with the safety of children in their care at the heart of everything they do then surely this would be the most obvious solution?

So why are they resisting so strongly? Why?

A 'noted, re training needed and a check of policy' would do, no need to remove if the issues can be sorted. A post of 'whoops, yes on reflection this was a bad idea for x reasons which I understand and have now sorted' also would have done it. End of problem.

No cancelling necessary, no witch hunts, this isn't personal, it's solely about following process in a responsible, appropriate way to justify public trust. The doubling down merely confirms that the initial concerns were seriously justified.

@ANewCreation

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.

I am looking forward to comment from barley on this post.

This post encapsulates and articulates the issues very clearly.

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...

No cancelling necessary, no witch hunts, this isn't personal, it's solely about following process in a responsible, appropriate way to justify public trust. The doubling down merely confirms that the initial concerns were seriously justified

This. A million times

ANewCreation - for any of us who have or have had, teenage daughters, or younger daughters for that matter, this completely nails it. "Vanilla" views on sex and fetish. FFS.

Artichokeleaves
A 'noted, re training needed and a check of policy' would do, no need to remove if the issues can be sorted. A post of 'whoops, yes on reflection this was a bad idea for x reasons which I understand and have now sorted' also would have done it. End of problem.

No cancelling necessary, no witch hunts, this isn't personal, it's solely about following process in a responsible, appropriate way to justify public trust. The doubling down merely confirms that the initial concerns were seriously justified.

This is part of what intrigues me about how they have handled this. They did the initial 2 tweets in November then no further update. They could have gone down the retraining on policy route soon after and this would have faded away. The doubling down allowing not the slightest criticism of ‘special’ leaders whilst we all know they previously removed others for violating social media policy by raising safeguarding concerns is the much bigger concern here. I hope this is part of Kate’s case against GG.

Yes, it does seem that the covering up of issues when the person involved is trans becomes more of the story than the issues in the first place.

This very much reminds me of the Jess Bradley story. Did Rose of Dawn ever get anywhere with that, or did it too disappear into the annals of "it never happened, and if it did it wasn't so bad, and if it was we had no control over it anyway".

@NotAGirl

Artichokeleaves A 'noted, re training needed and a check of policy' would do, no need to remove if the issues can be sorted. A post of 'whoops, yes on reflection this was a bad idea for x reasons which I understand and have now sorted' also would have done it. End of problem.

No cancelling necessary, no witch hunts, this isn't personal, it's solely about following process in a responsible, appropriate way to justify public trust. The doubling down merely confirms that the initial concerns were seriously justified.

This is part of what intrigues me about how they have handled this. They did the initial 2 tweets in November then no further update. They could have gone down the retraining on policy route soon after and this would have faded away. The doubling down allowing not the slightest criticism of ‘special’ leaders whilst we all know they previously removed others for violating social media policy by raising safeguarding concerns is the much bigger concern here. I hope this is part of Kate’s case against GG.

Yes, entirely all of this.

@TurquoiseBaubles

Yes, it does seem that the covering up of issues when the person involved is trans becomes more of the story than the issues in the first place.

This very much reminds me of the Jess Bradley story. Did Rose of Dawn ever get anywhere with that, or did it too disappear into the annals of "it never happened, and if it did it wasn't so bad, and if it was we had no control over it anyway".

The absence of any progress on that particular matter seems to be associated with the retention of the services of a well known law firm with a terrifying reputation.

Nothing useful to add as everyone has been beautifully articulate (not that that should be necessary when stating the outright friggin' obvious!) in their responses to the one poster who is fighting for destroying safeguarding standards for women and girls.

Just the one is good I guess - but dear god how is there even one on mumsnet and how are they not embarrassed to advertise it?

Oh just to say NO NO NO raising a safeguarding is not having a 'quiet word' with 'someone' and then letting them handle it as they fit. That is the antithesis of what safeguarding is as you would know if you'd ever worked in a role that involved safeguarding this century.

You realise you are likely arguing with teachers, social workers, doctors etc on this thread? Many of us are fully, professionally informed of and well practised at putting into action safeguarding procedures. Know what you do not know.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

Though, the titillation, guns, and ill fitting fetish wear don't exactly help the "don't worry, I'm one of the good ones" vibe that a man who was genuinely enthusiastic about girls getting to enjoy Guiding might radiate.

Slight tangent. I'd be deeply concerned if a man were doing this for Scouts, Junior or Sea Cadets, or similar. tbh, I'd be worried if this were a football, swimming, or other coach for children.

Monica was already a Scout Leader when Girl Guiding made the appointment - still is as far as I know. Monica has posted photos posing in a Scout Leader uniform (minus guns, whips, etc.)