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

And I'm completely sure you aren't in charge of any safeguarding since 'having a quiet word' (i.e. not formally recording concerns or actions) is about a big a safeguarding failure as you can make.

We were assured that they have decades of safeguarding training in a role regarding social care for vulnerable adults and young people.

We now have them clearly stating there is no safeguarding issues for a pattern of posting on any social media of the following:

• a self posted photo in BDSM gear complete with a whip, and a suggestive caption about mistresses and punishment.
• a self posted photo of a person asking if others want to see more of their breasts.
• self posted photographs of unsafe handling of any weapons, including a pistol, and at least one sword.

And confirmation that these images posted in conjunction with a photo of the person in the bath (that was clickable to be clearly seen as a bath photo) imposed over a background header of a line up of small girls in party dresses with their face shown is no problem whatsoever. Well, if each of the girls are related to that person in the bath, and with the rather damp non-answer of ‘if a parent gave permission’.

(Note, how many parents on this thread would give permission, relative or not, to this person using their daughter’s image in such a way? …. Anyone ? If so, why? What are we not seeing in all this?)

I would like to know what else someone not seeing the inappropriateness of this posting history, in a person responsible for ensuring that the leaders and volunteers of GG groups are following strict safeguarding processes, might miss in their own safeguarding role?

@Helleofabore

And I'm completely sure you aren't in charge of any safeguarding since 'having a quiet word' (i.e. not formally recording concerns or actions) is about a big a safeguarding failure as you can make.

We were assured that they have decades of safeguarding training in a role regarding social care for vulnerable adults and young people.

We now have them clearly stating there is no safeguarding issues for a pattern of posting on any social media of the following:

• a self posted photo in BDSM gear complete with a whip, and a suggestive caption about mistresses and punishment.
• a self posted photo of a person asking if others want to see more of their breasts.
• self posted photographs of unsafe handling of any weapons, including a pistol, and at least one sword.

And confirmation that these images posted in conjunction with a photo of the person in the bath (that was clickable to be clearly seen as a bath photo) imposed over a background header of a line up of small girls in party dresses with their face shown is no problem whatsoever. Well, if each of the girls are related to that person in the bath, and with the rather damp non-answer of ‘if a parent gave permission’.

(Note, how many parents on this thread would give permission, relative or not, to this person using their daughter’s image in such a way? …. Anyone ? If so, why? What are we not seeing in all this?)

I would like to know what else someone not seeing the inappropriateness of this posting history, in a person responsible for ensuring that the leaders and volunteers of GG groups are following strict safeguarding processes, might miss in their own safeguarding role?

Plus everyone is naked under thelr clothes, dontcha know! PG films show worse and don't forget the BDSM power puff girls, you lying, vanilla, pearl clutchers (despite pruriently trawling profiles for children's pics!)

Datun

Well, of course, Datun.

Not to mention that recently we were fully assured that only ‘fully transitioned’ males would be put in with female prisoners in the UK. The day before the study on Scottish prisoners was published proving this assertion to be another unfounded one.

And that the first wave of detransitioners have retransitioned because of abuses from feminists. Well, that one was admitted to be a ‘rhetorical’ claim.

Some people get very upset that women say ‘no’.

So. If MPs can demand an enquiry into homophobia in the police, how do we go about demanding one for misogyny in the police, evidenced both by police support and enabling of targeting of women by malicious complainants and by police refusal to pursue malicious threats against women?

WRT GG leader - EVEN IF it was all unintentional, and a leader just thoughtlessly posted sexually suggestive pictures/posts on several social media sites, and pictures of themself posing with guns and swords, open to public view, even if it wasn't red flag central, just the lack of awareness of what is appropriate and acceptable behaviour for someone with a senior role in a children's organisation would be enough to have that person's job removed.

People in positions of responsibility and authority are expected, rightly, to be both aware and respectful of very straightforward, sensible, easy-to-understand standards of behaviour.

When someone in a senior position of responsibility for a children's charity posts sexually suggestive pictures and themself wearing fetish gear and posing with guns online, it is one of two things: either evidence of a staggering lack of awareness and ability to grasp the requirements of their role, or it is done deliberately.

@ArabellaScott

WRT GG leader - EVEN IF it was all unintentional, and a leader just thoughtlessly posted sexually suggestive pictures/posts on several social media sites, and pictures of themself posing with guns and swords, open to public view, even if it wasn't red flag central, just the lack of awareness of what is appropriate and acceptable behaviour for someone with a senior role in a children's organisation would be enough to have that person's job removed.

People in positions of responsibility and authority are expected, rightly, to be both aware and respectful of very straightforward, sensible, easy-to-understand standards of behaviour.

When someone in a senior position of responsibility for a children's charity posts sexually suggestive pictures and themself wearing fetish gear and posing with guns online, it is one of two things: either evidence of a staggering lack of awareness and ability to grasp the requirements of their role, or it is done deliberately.

Well quite. And if they are entirely unaware of the organisation's social media policies they could have, you know, tried reading them

And if they are entirely unaware of the organisation's social media policies they could have, you know, tried reading them

Still waiting to hear how someone who seems to have no knowledge of these guidelines are responsible for ensuring others follow those same guidelines.

If you search the internet for the gg leader, the video interview with Huff Post is easy to find, in that interview they dismiss a customer with a valid complaint as “love” and give their CV. It is not obvious what on that CV makes them so exceptionally invaluable to GG.

I tried to google for instances where other GG leaders may have been dismissed for breaches of social media policies, but all I can find is the two women who were dismissed for raising safeguarding concerns.

So a children's charity is: dismissing those who raise safeguarding concerns.

Apparently/allegedly reporting to police those who raise safeguarding concerns.

And protecting those people who have demonstrably broken guidelines/social media policies.

Hm.

@ArabellaScott

I tried to google for instances where other GG leaders may have been dismissed for breaches of social media policies, but all I can find is the two women who were dismissed for raising safeguarding concerns.

So a children's charity is: dismissing those who raise safeguarding concerns.

Apparently/allegedly reporting to police those who raise safeguarding concerns.

And protecting those people who have demonstrably broken guidelines/social media policies.

Hm.

BOOM!!

Councillor Nina Killen:

"Yes it is true and I can put you in touch with a woman this has happened to. She politely raised concerns about Molica Sulley to @/Girlguiding via email. Was threatened with arrest. Interviewed. Case now with CPS for decision"

twitter.com/NinaKillen/status/1483920611890114570

Councillor Nina Killen:

"A friend wrote to @/Girlguiding to raise safeguarding concerns about Monica Sulley, a guide leader who posed with gun on social media. My friend was threatened with arrest for malicious communications and has attended police interview. Solicitor could hardly believe it."

twitter.com/NinaKillen/status/1483919288864063495

@ArabellaScott

WRT GG leader - EVEN IF it was all unintentional, and a leader just thoughtlessly posted sexually suggestive pictures/posts on several social media sites, and pictures of themself posing with guns and swords, open to public view, even if it wasn't red flag central, just the lack of awareness of what is appropriate and acceptable behaviour for someone with a senior role in a children's organisation would be enough to have that person's job removed.

People in positions of responsibility and authority are expected, rightly, to be both aware and respectful of very straightforward, sensible, easy-to-understand standards of behaviour.

When someone in a senior position of responsibility for a children's charity posts sexually suggestive pictures and themself wearing fetish gear and posing with guns online, it is one of two things: either evidence of a staggering lack of awareness and ability to grasp the requirements of their role, or it is done deliberately.

Exactly.

Only 2 things can be true here:

Monica Sulley gets off on flaunting their paraphilia on social media and getting away with breaching GG's social media policies, OR they have astoundinglyTERRIBLE judgment.

In either case, they shouldn't be in a position of responsibility in an organisation for children.

This thread raises a number of issues.

Firstly: should Girlguiding be a single sex organisation, as stated by its royal charter and as it has always been. Males have always been able to be occasional helpers, as most male partners of Guiders will testify! However, males have not, and are still not, unless they are trans women, allowed to make the promise and be actual leaders.
The wider membership were not asked about this change, it was brought in quietly in iirc 2017 when the description of Girlguiding changed from "single sex" to "single gender". Discussion of this is not allowed, any posts on guiding groups are removed, GGHQ have dismissed guiders who have voiced concerns.

Another issue raised is the behaviour of leaders. How careful should leaders be to ensure that their private life is kept separate from their guiding life? This applies whatever their sexual orientation or gender identity. What is appropriate or not? What rules should leaders have to follow? What checks should be done on leaders to ensure the safety of the children in their care?

Then there is the issue raised at the beginning of this thread: Girlguiding's response to those who raise safeguarding or other concerns, and the possibility of police investigation of those who have raised those concerns.

I've been involved in Guiding for a long time, the safety of the girls has always been taken seriously. Over the years the amount of training around safeguarding and risk assessment has increased dramatically just updated my own safe space training as has the guidance and rules around the behaviour of adults in Guiding.

What has shocked me about all this, apart from allowing males to join at all, is the way Guiding's own safeguarding rules and policies are being ignored or not applied if the "trans" card is played. I know full well that any other leader or Commissioner whose public social media accounts showed those photos who have been "retired" or in trouble. Also the rules about segregating males and females are incredibly strict- except again when it involves "trans", then it's all ok, apparently.
And as for Girlguiding's response to those who dare raise concerns, I should be shocked, but I'm not. Just sad and very very angry.

I'm gutted with all this. My teenager has put her heart and soul into GG since she was 5. She volunteers and loves the organisation, she is so sad at how GG are treating girls, she doesn't believe what they are doing is right, neither do the leaders she meets with, but everyone is too scared to question it. They are also conscious of how little money there is to spend on the groups she helps with, compared to the scouts. They have quite a few disadvantaged girls and everything GG has become more expensive, yet they can throw money defending court cases against women who are just safeguarding girls.

Those social media posts wouldn't be acceptable for a biological woman, so why are they overlooking them for a transwoman.

@ArabellaScott

So. If MPs can demand an enquiry into homophobia in the police, how do we go about demanding one for misogyny in the police, evidenced both by police support and enabling of targeting of women by malicious complainants and by police refusal to pursue malicious threats against women?

This needs to happen!

Women threatened with rape and death (actual malicious communications) are told by police to just come off social media

Women write to an organisation that they trust to keep their children safe, about a safeguarding problem and the police are hauling those women to the station.

What the fuck?!

@ArabellaScott

I tried to google for instances where other GG leaders may have been dismissed for breaches of social media policies, but all I can find is the two women who were dismissed for raising safeguarding concerns.

So a children's charity is: dismissing those who raise safeguarding concerns.

Apparently/allegedly reporting to police those who raise safeguarding concerns.

And protecting those people who have demonstrably broken guidelines/social media policies.

Hm.

A while back didn't Monica Sulley claim that the pushback was rather surprising because GG had invited MS to become a leader, MS didn't apply spontaneously but because there had been an invitation.

In their HuffPo interview, Sulley claims they're applying for a national diversity position within GG.

I've also realised that when this first broke, media reports were that they had taken down their contact page but in the link I posted last night, it's been reinstated. So I guess they've concluded that Sulley's behaviour means they're suitable to lead guiding groups.

Great thread for any posters who have been approached by the police…

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1483908266174386180.html

So, does this mean that vexatious individuals could go through a person's social media and report any posts they think require "checking" to the police?

There is a bit of me thinks "bring it on". Report us all.

We are legion.

Only 2 things can be true here Monica Sulley gets off on flaunting their paraphilia on social media and getting away with breaching GG's social media policies, OR they have astoundingly TERRIBLE judgment. In either case, they shouldn't be in a position of responsibility in an organisation for children

Exactly. If these pictures and comments are all fine and dandy and us silly wimmins are being a bunch of vanilla pearl clutching prudes, why aren't GG using these pictures on their website? Or on their own social media as a focus piece on their leaders eh?

I mean - "boobs or do you want to see more", what an wonderfully aspirational quote for girls that is!

Oh sorry, it's not? And GG won't be republishing those pictures anytime soon I'm guessing because it's not fucking appropriate

You want to get up to whatever in your personal life, fine. But if you're in a position of looking after children you Fort Knox the shit out of your social media. And willfully or not, if you bring your employer to disrepute through inappropriate content then you face the consequences. So far the only consequences seem to be for women who have presented legitimate concern.

And fucking hell the excuses made for it. But....fancy dress! But...but....dominatrixes in Powerpuff girls! What a fucking reach, all to protect a group of people who for some mysterious reason the rules don't apply to, so they can carry on in their positions while posting easily accessible photos of their guns and tits on the internet.

[quote Lolapusht]Great thread for any posters who have been approached by the police…

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1483908266174386180.html[/quote]
Thank you, v useful to know.

There is a simple question here. If you were looking for a childminder, and had an approach from Monica Sulley, did a quick look at SM profile, would you be happy that this is a suitable person to look after your kids, or would it be a big HELL NO! I like people in charge of my children to understand appropriate boundaries. I

@Clymene

In their HuffPo interview, Sulley claims they're applying for a national diversity position within GG.

I've also realised that when this first broke, media reports were that they had taken down their contact page but in the link I posted last night, it's been reinstated. So I guess they've concluded that Sulley's behaviour means they're suitable to lead guiding groups.

They'd certainly qualify for a "diverse" position in some ways. Sadly it's not in ways that enhance the safety or wellbeing of girls (or boys). Amazing that GG find this so difficult to comprehend. Mind you, recalling some of the alleged "advisers" to the GG presumably approval of extreme porn and the ritual humiliation of girls and women will feature significantly in the advice they've taken.

A while back didn't Monica Sulley claim that the pushback was rather surprising because GG had invited MS to become a leader, MS didn't apply spontaneously but because there had been an invitation.

To be fair to Sulley I could well believe that is what happened if GG were chasing those Stonewall points. GG clearly didn’t do any due diligence and Sulley may not have bothered reading any policies. And if that is what happened GG have let down girl guides, their parents and Sulley in how they have handled this.

@NotAGirl

A while back didn't Monica Sulley claim that the pushback was rather surprising because GG had invited MS to become a leader, MS didn't apply spontaneously but because there had been an invitation.

To be fair to Sulley I could well believe that is what happened if GG were chasing those Stonewall points. GG clearly didn’t do any due diligence and Sulley may not have bothered reading any policies. And if that is what happened GG have let down girl guides, their parents and Sulley in how they have handled this.

Yes. The responsibility for this lies with GG.