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

You do a great job of showing people what the problem is Barley with your faux innocence. Are you sure you're not gender critical? Because it seems to me you're doing your absolute best to highlight the stupidity of the tra debate 👍

We've been through the gun thing. There are lots of pics of girl guides shooting online. It's not a real gun, shooting is a sport.

Yes barley. We have been through this on the earlier thread.

Remind us again how these images posted by this person were showing the responsible handling of any weapon. Including a sword.

No girl guide photos are showing reckless handling of guns, fake or real.

So, please. Remind us again in detail of how these photos fit the careful handling of weapons that GG and Scouts expect from their leaders.

And you can't see she's in the bath on that picture superimposed over what is very likely her family.

This is the case for the defence.

@Helleofabore

We've been through the gun thing. There are lots of pics of girl guides shooting online. It's not a real gun, shooting is a sport.

Yes barley. We have been through this on the earlier thread.

Remind us again how these images posted by this person were showing the responsible handling of any weapon. Including a sword.

No girl guide photos are showing reckless handling of guns, fake or real.

So, please. Remind us again in detail of how these photos fit the careful handling of weapons that GG and Scouts expect from their leaders.

I see so it's not being pictured with a toy gun that's the problem, it's how you happen to hold it. Talk about desperate.

Talk about desperate.

The only desperate I see here is you. But you're so transparent.

I see so it's not being pictured with a toy gun that's the problem, it's how you happen to hold it.

Shall I just copy and paste from the last thread? You are intent on continuing to minimise this. You previous assertions of safeguarding experience don’t seem to correspond with other people’s current qualifications.

But do… please keep going. Because this thread has many new eyes and they are watching your tactics in a live demonstration.

So again, exactly how did this person comply with the careful handling of weapons that the Girl Guides expect of their leaders? With any weapon, including the sword?

So both barley and blueberry think it is totally appropriate with a public posting history as is known by this poster to have a picture of them in the bath imposed over a line up of small girls with their faces clearly shown?

Regardless of who these girls are?

And that this person is following appropriate safeguarding of those girls as they should be, being a divisional leader with the Girl Guides.

That is what you are both saying?

Urgh...the "Boobs, or did you want to see more?" captioned selfie with cleavage shot is just... (not envy)

No way would a woman in the same position of responsibility for young girls get away with posting such a picture if it came to light. She would be vilified, told she was not upholding the standards of the organisation, and no doubt be told she was ugly and to "Put them away, love."

So both barley and blueberry think it is totally appropriate with a public posting history as is known by this poster to have a picture of them in the bath imposed over a line up of small girls with their faces clearly shown?

Why the obsession with the bath lol. All you can see is her neck and the top of her shoulders. That's all that matters. It is not an explicit photograph by any means, it's ridiculous to pretend it is.

That is what you are both saying?
They seem to be saying that not only is it 100% appropriate, but that anyone pointing out that isn't is 'desperate'.

It's been a very effective 'Squirrel!' away from the substance of the thread (WTF are the police interviewing women who have complained about this issue? Is this true? What did the complaints actually say?) to drag us all back round again to be told that we're the ones with the problem.

Except, of course, that there are fair odds that any new lurkers will be utterly boggled by the whips and leather.

*that IT isn't.

Yes, it's odd, isn't it?

The Board of Trustees is made up of 14 women. What the hell is wrong with them? WHAT. THE. HELL. IS. WRONG. WITH. THEM?????

@justaftb

Yes, it's odd, isn't it?

The Board of Trustees is made up of 14 women. What the hell is wrong with them? WHAT. THE. HELL. IS. WRONG. WITH. THEM?????

They've probably had a bath before and don't see it as a sexual thing.

"Boobs, or did you want to see more?"

Why the obsession with the bath lol. All you can see is her neck and the top of her shoulders. That's all that matters. It is not an explicit photograph by any means, it's ridiculous to pretend it is.

So both barley and blueberry think it is totally appropriate with a public posting history as is known by this poster to have a picture of them in the bath imposed over a line up of small girls with their faces clearly shown?

Regardless of who these girls are?

And that this person is following appropriate safeguarding of those girls as they should be, being a divisional leader with the Girl Guides.

That is what you are both saying?

Please answer the question clearly barley.

@justaftb

"Boobs, or did you want to see more?"

If this is not 'explicitly sexual', I'm Worzel Gummidge.

And we all know that the "...see more" was more than likely bobbing to the surface in the bath selfie..

@Helleofabore

Why the obsession with the bath lol. All you can see is her neck and the top of her shoulders. That's all that matters. It is not an explicit photograph by any means, it's ridiculous to pretend it is.

So both barley and blueberry think it is totally appropriate with a public posting history as is known by this poster to have a picture of them in the bath imposed over a line up of small girls with their faces clearly shown?

Regardless of who these girls are?

And that this person is following appropriate safeguarding of those girls as they should be, being a divisional leader with the Girl Guides.

That is what you are both saying?

Please answer the question clearly barley.

Yes I think it's perfectly approproproate for someone to post a picture of their face and neck on social media. And lots of people have pictures of their kids and grandkids on their facebook pages, so if that's who they are then yes there is no problem with that either.

I'm more convinced than ever that Barley is one of us

There is no way the posts can be seen as anything other than educating the lurkers.

I would, however, love to know if Barley is paid to post on here, as in: is it a full time job? Because if not I'm rather worried about it all. We all need to step away from the internet just occasionally.

And just a reminder to barley who declared on the other thread that profile shots cannot be seen in full, if you click on a Facebook profile shot it will show it in full.

So there is no doubt this pic was a photo of a person in the bath. Not out wearing a shoulderless top or dress, not wearing a strapless bikini. Not out and about at all… but clearly in a bath.

Because if you click on the image it will show the unframed image. Which I did before the account owner deleted it, and you called me a liar for.

If this is not 'explicitly sexual', I'm Worzel Gummidge.

I acknowledged in the other thread that this is a bit inappropriate, although theres plenty of similar comments from women on social media. It's have a bit of a quiet word inappropriate though, not OMG safeguarding risk sack her and never let her work with children again inappropriate. And perhaps Girl Guides have had a quiet word, they are certainly unlikely to tell anyone about it. I suggest reading up on current safeguarding policies and good practice and seeing what is deemed by safeguarding experts to be an incident which would require formal action.