Girl Guide Safeguarding - how to make a complaint

[AgeOfReason99]

So Girl Guiding has been referring complainants about their safeguarding policies to the police apparently.
twitter.com/MDayCassandra/status/1483731590232657922

Let's give them more than they can deal with. Here is their email address for safeguarding concerns:
[email protected]
Bring on the police!

This is so chilling. That they would refer valid safeguarding concerns to the police. That the police would act on the report. Just when I think I've seen it all things get worse.

As well as emailing, you can follow the link from their website.

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/complaints-policy/complaints-procedure/

This also explains their policies and complaints procedures.

Thank you, OP.

I'm wondering if we can FOI or call for some kind of enquiry as to what on earth is going on within Girlguiding. Because it seems to me that massive breaches of safeguarding are being encouraged, presumably from fairly high up? This is an organisation with responsibility for many, many girls/children.

Girl Guiding have not been referring complaints about their safeguarding policy to the police. They may have referred one letter to the police, likely on the grounds it contained threatening or otherwise seriously concerning content. There is no proof apart from a second hand anecdote concerning an unnamed party they even did that, and there's absolutely zero evidence whatsoever they've done any more than that.

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/safeguarding-policy/

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/whistleblowing-policy/whistleblowing-procedure/

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/managing-concerns-about-adult-volunteers-policy/

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/managing-information-policy/

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/digital-safeguarding-policy/

'our volunteers, members and staff must:

Ensure that social media accounts are set up and used responsibly, by using disclaimers to make it clear that their views, thoughts and opinions are personal and not reflective of Girlguiding policies, procedures and guidance. And  follow all community guidelines and terms and conditions set out by third party social media providers, including age restrictions. For further guidance on digital platforms, including social media, please see our guidance on digital platforms for guiding.'

• There's tonnes of this type of thing. As you'd expect - GG are a huge organisation with responsibility for thousands of girls.

They have definitely dismissed two women who raised safeguarding concerns. This shoudl have been covered under 'whistleblowing'.

@BlueberryCheezecake

Do you think asking that a man, with a penis, who poses with guns wearing women's clothes and posts it on social media to stay out of the way (eg out of the toilets) that young girls use is 'threatening or otherwise seriously concerning content'?

There’s a thread on twitter giving advice about why to do should you get a call from PC Gul. I’ll dig it out

Gotta run out now - it’s Dennis kavanagh on twitter (yesterday) @jebadoo2

So far there seem to be three separate instances of this happening.

Nina Killen put out a tweet saying it had happened to a friend of hers.

Cassandra Day (the tweet referred to in the OP) says a friend of hers also had a visit from the police.

Someone called Ann Lorraine, responding to the Cassandra Day tweet, says it happened to a friend of hers.

It's possible that it's the same woman with three friends, of course. But also possible that it's three different people.

thread: twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1483908266174386180

@BlueberryCheezecake

Girl Guiding have not been referring complaints about their safeguarding policy to the police. They may have referred one letter to the police, likely on the grounds it contained threatening or otherwise seriously concerning content. There is no proof apart from a second hand anecdote concerning an unnamed party they even did that, and there's absolutely zero evidence whatsoever they've done any more than that.

You seem very well advised on this incident all round there Blueberry. I asked you on the other thread, but I will ask you again.

Are you acquainted with the GG leader in question? You seem to be claiming that you know who the small girls in their profile header are. And now you are claiming to have knowledge about just who has been referred to the police, how many people and for what.

Either you are making claims to which you actually know nothing.
Or you know this person and know what is going on.
Or maybe this person has been posting on forums and social media that you are also on and you can point us to their posts to reassure us.

Which of the above three statements apply please?

Because otherwise we will simply assume that you are again simply posting to discredit, shame and disparage women discussing a very serious safeguarding matter and the potential ramifications.

There is no proof apart from a second hand anecdote concerning an unnamed party they even
This
I never get how people automatically would fire off a letter of complaint /get all it's chilling, terrifying etc etc over something they haven't even seen and have only ever heard second hand from an anonymous internet user, and even then it's usually only happened to a friend, not even them.
What happened to fact checking first instead of blindly taking as word everything you see or has that completely gone out of the window?!

'Have you complained to Girl Guides or similar and been threatened by the police with arrest / "being spoken to"? This thread is a brief primer on some of the law in this area.

The police have no lawful power to interfere with lawful free speech.'

...

There can therefore be no lawful arrest where lawful free speech is involved. This means if you are simply stating your point of view and the police want to interfere with that in some way, by speaking to you, by "inviting" you for interview, unless they provide a lawful basis

you have every right to refuse. Ceri Black did precisely this in Norther Ireland because she judged the police had no lawful basis to arrest her or suspect her of a criminal offence. That seems to be the case as they declined to arrest her.

Arrest is governed by section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. An arrest in law requires two things to be lawful. Grounds and Reasons.
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24

Grounds (see ss.(1-4)) basically means the police must have "reasonable grounds" for believing a criminal offence is currently, has or is going to be committed. Free speech is not a criminal offence.

"Reasons" means the law requires an arrest to be necessary (see subsection 5) - the most commonly used is 5 (e) - "prompt and effective investigation of an offence. Note the word offence.

It follows thus. If there are no grounds for suspecting a criminal offence an arrest will be unlawful. If there is no reason for an arrest similarly so. If an arrest is unlawful it can amount in civil law to a "wrongful arrest/false imprisonment".

This explains why sometimes you do not get arrests when threats are made. The reason is that the police have been advised by a civil lawyer if they do arrest they will be liable in civil law.

So it comes to this. Any attempt to interfere with free speech, because of the chilling effect that has in a democracy should be closely scrutinised. You are entitled to speak you mind where you are simply exercising lawful freedom of speech.

It's very sad that I read today that some police forces don't appear to be on top of this basic principle of law despite the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in Miller v College of policing being clear on this. But I hope this assists anyone worried about this.

• hope Dennis doesn't mind me reproducing most of his thread here in case it's of use to any women worried about this issue. I'm not on Twitter so can't ask him directly. It's good to know that informed allies like Dennis are there to help.

@EeeICouldRipATissue

There is no proof apart from a second hand anecdote concerning an unnamed party they even This I never get how people automatically would fire off a letter of complaint /get all it's chilling, terrifying etc etc over something they haven't even seen and have only ever heard second hand from an anonymous internet user, and even then it's usually only happened to a friend, not even them. What happened to fact checking first instead of blindly taking as word everything you see or has that completely gone out of the window?!

I will take Nina Killen's word that this has happened over yours and Blueberry's anyday though eel.

And as many of us have written polite and not hateful letters to GG even, before this became mainstream, about this issue, it is actually a good thing to discuss it, and to be prepared in case it is more widespread.

I would like to also ask, how many women writing to express concern at a potential safeguarding breach resulting in a visit from the police and very likely a record added for a 'non-hate crime' would be ok in your mind?

n+1? Always the next one?

will take Nina Killen's word that this has happened over yours and Blueberry's anyday though eel.
Why though? That's my point - people take it as chilling things happening as gospel without any proof, or evidence, and would fire off complaints on the basis of someone on the internet's friend of a friend or just a friend said so so it must be true.
Then won't listen to anyone else saying otherwise because they don't like the name of who's saying it.
It's like all sense of reason has left the building.

@EeeICouldRipATissue

will take Nina Killen's word that this has happened over yours and Blueberry's anyday though eel. Why though? That's my point - people take it as chilling things happening as gospel without any proof, or evidence, and would fire off complaints on the basis of someone on the internet's friend of a friend or just a friend said so so it must be true. Then won't listen to anyone else saying otherwise because they don't like the name of who's saying it. It's like all sense of reason has left the building.

Hahahaha!!!!!

This has got to be the funniest thing you have posted yet!

It's like all sense of reason has left the building.

Aspersions cast on women's reasoning/mental health #456 this week.

hahahaha!!!!!

This has got to be the funniest thing you have posted yet!

"Why?
Is that suggesting it's funny because I can't possibly know any sense of reasoning because I support trans rights?
No attempt to even acknowledge what I said.
Just straight into sniggers and fingers in your ears.
Okey dokey.

What happened to fact checking first instead of blindly taking as word everything you see

I thought we were supposed to believe and affirm whatever people told us? So if a man says he's actually a woman we are supposed to believe them and not question it? Are there certain people we demand proof from but others above reproach? It's all soooooo confusing, it's almost like we are not meant to believe women.

Amazing isn't it, in this progressive right side of history world that women are having to share information to help each other in the case of a politicised police coming to punish them for raising safeguarding concerns with a national children's organisation.

Also how many people will note this, and decide next time they see an issue, that it's safer for them to say nothing and just let it be someone else's problem? And how much does it come up in serious case reviews that a child was harmed or died because an adult didn't feel safe taking the risk of getting involved?

It's like the last three decades of safeguarding development and the inquiries into the deaths of children that formed it, just never happened.

Is that suggesting it's funny because I can't possibly know any sense of reasoning because I support trans rights?

Its awfully transphobic to suggest that trans people need the right to behave inappropriately . Why don't you think they should he held to the same standards as everyone else? You surely think they are capable?

Why is it that following safeguarding rules and social media guidelines when you have a role that involves children, many of whom are vulnerable is a trans rights issue?

What rights are lacking exactly? Besides being able to flout safguarding rules ?

aspersions cast on women's reasoning/mental health #456 this week
My comment has nothing to do with casting aspersions on women's mental health, and completely mean it to people so that means both men and women