Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

374 replies

mammajustkilledagnat · 19/01/2022 11:25

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

twitter.com/MDayCassandra/status/1483731590232657922

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
FrankBurnside · 19/01/2022 22:19

Of course things like nudity or anything actually explicitly sexual would be a different matter but there is nothing like that here

MS's photo, on a public site, posing in a short bondage type dress, brandishing a riding crop with the photo captioned: 'Now behave yourselves or Mistress will have to punish you', isnt explicitly sexual then?

Nothing to see here eh?

We can all see you

Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:19

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.

And if those small girls are NOT related at all? Still ok?

Just checking where you boundaries are.

Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:21

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.

And as we have repeated over and over.

It is not each of these incidents separately. It is the pattern of behaviour.

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 22:23

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.

You make things up, you claimed her name was a sexual reference with no evidence at all. So I don't trust what you say.

Not out and about at all… but clearly in a bath.

So what? It was still not an explicit photo. Do you have a list of approved locations that girl guide leaders must use to take pictures of their face and shoulders?

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 22:24

@FrankBurnside

Of course things like nudity or anything actually explicitly sexual would be a different matter but there is nothing like that here

MS's photo, on a public site, posing in a short bondage type dress, brandishing a riding crop with the photo captioned: 'Now behave yourselves or Mistress will have to punish you', isnt explicitly sexual then?

Nothing to see here eh?

We can all see you

I've seen worse in pantomimes.
Artichokeleaves · 19/01/2022 22:25

Not to mention, when you have to have a 'quiet word' about the absolutely bleeding obvious safeguarding issues with someone who you've just put into a senior post with responsibility for children and safeguarding, bloody great bells should be clanging about this is a really bad idea.

Not to mention, ooh look, here's our social media policy and this person in a senior post apparently hasn't read or understood that either. The decision to look the other way - in the context of the unusual aspects of this person's appointment anyway - begin to raise questions that are also safeguarding related.

FrankBurnside · 19/01/2022 22:26

I've seen worse in pantomimes.

I haven't.

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 22:28

@FrankBurnside

I've seen worse in pantomimes.

I haven't.

If it was in a movie it wouldn't even attract a PG certificate. There's far more risque stuff in a lot of kid's films.
Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:33

You make things up, you claimed her name was a sexual reference with no evidence at all. So I don't trust what you say.

And you were not able to prove that this person has not chosen this username for this purpose.

I laugh barley at your I don’t trust what you say. You even admitted last week that you over exaggerate claims for the ‘rhetoric’ value. And you leave threads when you have been shown to be wrong.

You twisted your ‘you see lying’ when it referred to exactly that profile shot. And someone even posted it as evidence.

So.
If those small girls are NOT related in any way to that poster… still ok with you?

Just to be sure where you draw the line.

Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:34

Not see - are. ‘You are lying’

FrankBurnside · 19/01/2022 22:37

If it was in a movie it wouldn't even attract a PG certificate. There's far more risque stuff in a lot of kid's films.

This isn't a movie. It's real life. Are you able to tell the difference? And someone behaving like this should not be a senior GG leader.

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 22:44

@FrankBurnside

If it was in a movie it wouldn't even attract a PG certificate. There's far more risque stuff in a lot of kid's films.

This isn't a movie. It's real life. Are you able to tell the difference? And someone behaving like this should not be a senior GG leader.

Why? Are we back to anyone who doesn't have a completely vanilla sexuality should never be allowed to work with kids again? What if she was going to a fancy dress party?

Perhaps take a look at some of the hen party shots on social media. Bet there's plenty of teachers, nursery workers, and even girl guide leaders in those photos many of which are far more explicit.

Or perhaps the gender critical protests where someone dressed up as a penis. Should all the women photographed in those photos be banned from working with kids? What about the women going round stickering pictures of penises everywhere?

RepentMotherfucker · 19/01/2022 22:48

@FrankBurnside

If it was in a movie it wouldn't even attract a PG certificate. There's far more risque stuff in a lot of kid's films.

This isn't a movie. It's real life. Are you able to tell the difference? And someone behaving like this should not be a senior GG leader.

Do you honestly think there's more risque stuff than someone wearing a leather corset and offering to show their tits in PG films?

Really?

I watch lots of PG and 12 rated films, because, y'know, I am a mother, and I can absolutely 100% assure you there is no way they would have anything like this in.

Maybe you haven't seen any kids films lately?

Maybe you just like minimising safeguarding concerns on the internet for reasons of your own?

AgathaMystery · 19/01/2022 22:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

RepentMotherfucker · 19/01/2022 22:51

Why? Are we back to anyone who doesn't have a completely vanilla sexuality should never be allowed to work with kids again?

Vanilla! Your misogyny is showing.

Again, for the hard of understanding, it was on the internet Do you actually think you do anything other than make people think 'fuck me, they're defending that!' here? You're a one person GC conversion machine. We should give you an award.

And I'll wait for you to find me some primary teachers doing the same...

LigandBrigand · 19/01/2022 22:52

It is appalling that women are being silenced and intimidated in this way. Our fears are legitimate and serious.

I remembered there was a very worrying study that was posted some time ago so have have now managed to find it. It was first published in 2011.

In a study of 56 people seeking sex reassignment surgery, 39 of whom were male, the researchers from Oxford found the following;

Saunders, K., & Bass, C. (2011). Gender reassignment: 5 years of referrals in Oxfordshire. The Psychiatrist, 35(9), 325-327. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.110.032664

The majority of individuals (80%, n = 45) were referred to a specialist centre for gender reassignment (Fig. 2), although only two (4%) have had funding for surgery approved at the time of the study. Three of the sample had or were planning to have surgery abroad, on the basis that services there were more easily accessible and less expensive than in the UK. Reasons for non-referral to a specialist centre included being deemed not ready for transitioning (either determined by the individual or because the person was not currently living in the desired gender role), being homosexual but not having gender identity disorder, having an autism-spectrum disorder with a significant degree of impairment such that the real-life experience criterion was not met, and seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role.

I will underline this excerpt; a small group of males were refused referral for sex reassignment surgery because they were seeking gender reassignment to facilitate or normalise paedophilia. This latter small group described gender reassignment as a means by which to increase their intimate contact with children, which they viewed to be more socially acceptable in a female role.

www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-psychiatrist/article/gender-reassignment-5-years-of-referrals-in-oxfordshire/6B5F217162ABD9B3189F2EB82787034E

Male paedophiles were seeking to be seen/ socially accepted as women in order to gain intimate access to children. So yes, this definitely does happen.

I have always wondered and worried about what happened to these men. I hope to god their cards were records we permanently marked so they could never be eligible in the future, but as we know sex reassignment surgery does not have to include removal of a male’s penis.

Not forgetting that these are only the men whose intentions became known, not those men who thought the same but were able to keep it secret.

RepentMotherfucker · 19/01/2022 22:52

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:53

Third time lucky maybe?

So barley

If those small girls are NOT related in any way to that poster… still ok with you?

Just to be sure where you draw the line.

AgathaMystery · 19/01/2022 22:57

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 22:58

Maybe you haven't seen any kids films lately?

Maybe you've never seen the original Batman series. Or the Powerpuff Girls which has a dominatrix character. Or Cats.

Helleofabore · 19/01/2022 22:58

LigandBrigand

That is most concerning. Even if one person does this for that reason, that is most concerning.

Thank you for sharing that.

I will read it tomorrow.

In the meantime, I have taken a copy of the link because I suspect your post may be targeted to be reported.

barleybadminton · 19/01/2022 23:00

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

LigandBrigand · 19/01/2022 23:04

Thanks Helleofabore I suspect it will be too. It’s an inconvenient truth.

I will try to repost elsewhere.

NotAGirl · 19/01/2022 23:04

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Quotes deleted post

RufustheFloralmissingreindeer · 19/01/2022 23:05

vanilla sexuality

😳

Swipe left for the next trending thread