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

@BettyFilous

So reporting a safeguarding concern to a children’s organisation about someone’s behaviour when they are working with children now gets you a visit from the police and a referral to the CPS? 🤔 Friends, I think the endgame is now in sight. Horrifying.

So glad I RTFT.

Someone's always said it before me

@allmywhat

posing with a group of little girls (faces clearly visible) in bondage gear and toting (possibly fake) guns.

There's a comma missing there, isn't there? PLEASE tell me that there's a comma missing and they weren't in bondage gear posing with little girls (or indeed posing with little girls in bondage gear, but I'm optimistically assuming I can rule the latter out.)

Sorry, it is not like me to be the comma police, but I just needed to make sure of this for my own sanity.

To be clear allmywhat, the line of small girls was on the profile shot and the profile shot was of this person in the bath.

Remember, that the profile images stay visible even if the account is set to limited access for the public.

And a reminder that @KatieAlcock has a lovely garden - it may be the depths of winter but we can prepare the flower/carrot beds for spring!

What body can we complain to that police procedures are endangering safeguarding and discouraging people from reporting safeguarding concerns?

I'm a teacher and constantly told how we all have a duty to report safeguarding concerns and to err on the side of caution if something rings alarm bells - the police actions here are actively discouraging that.

Ofsted? Police themselves? MPs?

The Notts OPCC changed last year in the elections, it has been Labour I think right from the creation of the role and whilst the pilot took place around making misogyny a hate crime, but the Conservatives won the post last year.

I would think that the police should be speaking to the GG for refusing to engage with safeguarding concerns.

Going off at a bit of a tangent, the Tories are in freefall at the moment and Labour are going up in the polls. However, if the Tories promised to do something about this sort of nonsense and put safeguarding of children and other vulnerable people back to where we were, and Labour clung on to TWAWTMAMNBPAV and ignored all safeguarding concerns - do we think that would make enough of a difference to people's voting intentions?

It wouldn't to mine, I'll be honest, as I can never imagine voting Tory, but then my vote counts for nothing anyway as I live in an extremely safe Labour seat. However, I could imagine it could tip the balance in a few marginal seats.

There aren't many things more important to most people than the safety of their children and elderly relatives.

To be clear allmywhat, the line of small girls was on the profile shot and the profile shot was of this person in the bath.

WHAT

OK, that's where my username comes from, it's the way I kept saying that at the screen.

I just went to look at how Twitter sets up its account home pages. So I'm picturing a bath selfie (WTF) in a little circle, superimposed on a picture of a line of small girls (WTF WTF WTF).

My God. If I say even 5% of what I'm thinking I will be banned, or perhaps arrested. I will restrict myself to saying this epitomises the way some males appear to see female humans as set dressing for their, er, gender performance.

@swallowedAfly

What body can we complain to that police procedures are endangering safeguarding and discouraging people from reporting safeguarding concerns?

I'm a teacher and constantly told how we all have a duty to report safeguarding concerns and to err on the side of caution if something rings alarm bells - the police actions here are actively discouraging that.

Ofsted? Police themselves? MPs?

There's the IOPC:

policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints-reviews-and-appeals/make-complaint

Having seen the original social media accounts I think the line of little girls might be relatives and bridesmaids at their wedding not guides

[quote Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]I'm just trying to see if I've got this straight, because it's so hard to believe.

Girl Guides announce the appointment of a new Divisional Commissioner.

Two minutes on the internet suffice for many concerned Guiders, parents of Guides/Brownies/Rainbows and members of the public to find selfies of this new Commissioner posing with automatic weapons and in sexually suggestive poses.

Many of these concerned people email or otherwise contact Girl Guides to say this is a safeguarding concern.

Instead of launching an investigation and putting a hold on the appointment, Girl Guides pass the complainants' details to the police so they can be investigated for hate crime incidents because (bet you didn't see this coming) the DC is a transwoman.

If I have this straight, this is about a clear indication as we've ever seen that there is indeed a sacred caste and nobody can complain about its members, who are considered to be outside all the normal safeguarding procedures. The young girls put at risk by this extraordinarily lax approach seem to be of little account.

I wonder if they're interviewing the Editor of the Daily Mail under caution too. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10235539/Girlguides-launch-probe-trans-Commissioner-58-saucy-dominatrix-style-picture.html[/quote]
No, you haven't got this straight. So far we have only one second hand anecdote stating that one letter had been passed onto the police. Assuming said second hand anecdote is true, it's entirely possible this particular letter contained something genuinely concerning or objectionable that warranted this action. There is absolutely zero evidence GG have been passing complaint letters onto the police as a standard practise or would do so if the letter's content was not extreme.

@averylongtimeago

Here is the photo with the little girls. I have blocked their faces. The original photo of their face is cropped from a head and shoulder picture of them clearly in a bath, also on their social media account. Both these and other photos were clear and easily found on their public social media accounts.

These are pictures of Monica Sulley's young relatives attending a family wedding. Why are you trawling through her social media accounts and lifting out pictures of her underage family members to share across the internet?

@NotAGirl

Having seen the original social media accounts I think the line of little girls might be relatives and bridesmaids at their wedding not guides

The fact that this social media profile with those small girls (with faces shown) behind a shot of that person in the bath, had a public posting history of themselves in Leather outfits and whips with suggestive captions, and pics of their cleavage with a captions of ‘boobs. Want to see more’ or something and inappropriate poses with guns and swords, should be ringing red flags.

I’ve just gone onto Crowdjustice and searched ‘Alcock’ to make another donation. I would like GG to survive as an organisation just for girls, it won’t survive if it carries on down this destructive path. Mothers won’t forgive GG setting the police on them for raising safeguarding concerns.
Katie Alcocks case is the best chance of forcing GG to stop and think.

These are pictures of Monica Sulley's young relatives attending a family wedding. Why are you trawling through her social media accounts and lifting out pictures of her underage family members to share across the internet?

Are you acquainted with this person then blueberry?

Or making excuses.

Hellofabore
The fact that this social media profile with those small girls (with faces shown) behind a shot of that person in the bath, had a public posting history of themselves in Leather outfits and whips with suggestive captions, and pics of their cleavage with a captions of ‘boobs. Want to see more’ or something and inappropriate poses with guns and swords, should be ringing red flags.

I completely agree. I absolutely would not be sending my daughter to GG right now if I had one in the age range as I’d have no confidence they would be carrying out appropriate safeguarding. I just think it’s worth being accurate about who the girls in that picture are likely to be.

Having seen the original social media accounts I think the line of little girls might be relatives and bridesmaids at their wedding not guides

That is almost worse, in that it raises the question of why the little girls? It's... unusual to have a photo of other people's children as your profile picture. And difficult to believe that this person had permission to post it from all the parents. Most parents if asked for permission would also wonder "why the little girls?", and decline, and they most certainly wouldn't give permission if they were aware of the nature of Sully's Twitter.

Girl guiding UK is a charity, so they are legally obliged to care about safeguarding:
www.gov.uk/complain-about-charity

@BettyFilous

So reporting a safeguarding concern to a children’s organisation about someone’s behaviour when they are working with children now gets you a visit from the police and a referral to the CPS? 🤔 Friends, I think the endgame is now in sight. Horrifying.

I think you're right.

I think you're right.

Other posters were quicker off the mark. There’s a reason why LangCleg’s posts were targeted for reporting.

Are letters traceable? I suppose they don't have to action them though not that they are actioning the emails either 🤔

Just withdraw the girls they have been warned

It's such a shame how GG has become a farce. My daughter is at the end of her time there but every leader she's had was kind, generous, and a brilliant role model. I feel sorry for the girls and the leaders. GG HQ can FOTTFSOF

@BettyFilous

I think you're right.

Other posters were quicker off the mark. There’s a reason why LangCleg’s posts were targeted for reporting.

Ah, I didn't spot those posts. Anyone else who said this, then I think they're right too.

LangCleg was banned about two years ago. She made some astute observations about the dangers of creating a sacred caste who cannot be questioned or challenged in matters of safeguarding. Many of us miss her.