Girl Guiding latest

[IsitM]

"We want to update on a recent investigation into a breach of our Code of Conduct by a volunteer that received public attention. Girlguiding operates a thorough complaints procedure and takes all concerns raised very seriously.
In this case, the volunteer cooperated fully and the investigation has concluded. The volunteer made the decision to leave and is no longer a volunteer at Girlguiding."

twitter.com/Girlguiding/status/1493948407446224901?s=20&t=bupSPqZjpcdRV0VlXs7QpQ

Personal beliefs definitely don't get vetted out in Scouts. Those beliefs can be at odds with Scouting ethos. I know we have freedom to believe what we want..but...a very good (Scouting wise) and committed scout leader I know also posts a lot of the racist kind of 'white lives matter' stuff on Facebook. Some of it is pretty bad. He is a little bit dim and I can see some is just shared but that's no excuse. This doesn't sit well with me because my dc go to camp and other things with him so he is an influencer. He also told me he 'doesn't mind gays because he like the Pet Shop Boys'. This man is a commissioner level.
So I doubt they check Facebook.
They are very strict on safeguarding though in my area and have expelled numerous leaders in recent years. Most for poor behaviour towards children. Of the bullying kind rather than sexual/violent.

Weren’t they always with scouts? I thought they had already been involved in scouts for a long time.

If people doing safeguarding checks are not reviewing social media, that is a major issue. In any organisation. And if you don’t declare all social media accounts, that should be viewed as a bright red flag. Plus it is obvious there needs to be a regular enough review of checks to catch any new social media presence too.

@MargaritaPie

So was the volunteer suspended because she broke the GG terms of agreement? Or did she choose to leave because she was hounded out by non-stop harassment?

Don't be so disingenuous Marg

It suits you!

It is almost like Pie can’t admit when there is a safeguarding issue.

No, no! Nothing to see here!

Just a BDSM, ‘look at my breasts’ posting GG leader, just like any other GG leader.

Some posters really don’t think about what they are supporting in their need of admonishing women disagreeing.

I'm a guide leader, and I complained about Sully- not harassing just stating the truth.

I have also done the guiding safe space training and know the social media policy.
If I posed on public social media with my top off making sexual innuendo and with guns I would be out on my ear without a doubt.

It is not harassment or personal attacks to draw attention to safeguarding concerns.

averylongtimeago

If I posed on public social media with my top off making sexual innuendo and with guns I would be out on my ear without a doubt.

Tbf to Sulley afaik there were no pictures with their top off, it’s more that low cut dress pics mentioned boobs and they mentioned boobs a lot. The BDSM mistress shot in itself (aside from the whip) was not too bad either it’s the caption and whip in that photo that were the problem. And each if it was isolated it would be a warning, the whole lot put together felt like red flag bunting.

It is not harassment or personal attacks to draw attention to safeguarding concerns.

100% agree

@AlsoNotAGirl

averylongtimeago

If I posed on public social media with my top off making sexual innuendo and with guns I would be out on my ear without a doubt.

Tbf to Sulley afaik there were no pictures with their top off, it’s more that low cut dress pics mentioned boobs and they mentioned boobs a lot. The BDSM mistress shot in itself (aside from the whip) was not too bad either it’s the caption and whip in that photo that were the problem. And each if it was isolated it would be a warning, the whole lot put together felt like red flag bunting.

There was a photo taken in what looked like a bathroom - of head, shoulders and a cleavage, this was used as a profile picture. But no, it didn't show the whole chest.

"a willy waving, gun waving open paraphilic"

That description IMO is a bit derogatory. The gun she poses with is a (legal) airsoft gun that fires plastic BBs (shooting is also in fact one of the activities offered by the Girl Guides), and if she's an adult who wants to wear a leather corset in her own private time or whatever then I don't see what that has to do with her professional life as long as they are kept separate.

Re safeguarding the Girl Guides has a vetting policy linked here:

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/recruitment-and-vetting-policy/

I don't see what that has to do with her professional life as long as they are kept separate.

Indeed. If Monica had kept them private and not on public SM then there wouldn't have been an issue.

Glad to know you agree they shouldn't have been public.

[quote MargaritaPie]Re safeguarding the Girl Guides has a vetting policy linked here:

www.girlguiding.org.uk/making-guiding-happen/policies/recruitment-and-vetting-policy/[/quote]
Anyone can have pretty policies.

What matters is whether or not those policies are actually followed and reflect actual practice. Which in this case, proved to be a massive failure on multiple fronts.

In a serious case review 'but we have a really pretty policy' will cut zero ice.

"Which in this case, proved to be a massive failure on multiple fronts"

How was it "proved"? The leader left, but I understand they left voluntarily?

I think we have a semantic misunderstanding. In that semantic context 'proved' does not mean as if a court or inquiry reached a verdict. In this context, 'proved' means 'turned out to be', 'was demonstrated as'. The on paper policy was obviously not followed on the ground; the photographs, utter inappropriacy and lack of any awareness of safeguarding was evidenced in the photographs and SM posts.

averylongtime

There was a photo taken in what looked like a bathroom - of head, shoulders and a cleavage, this was used as a profile picture.
But no, it didn't show the whole chest.

You’re right I’d forgotten about the ‘bath’ head and shoulders shot. It was weird af, the sort of pic an attention seeking teenager (or z list celeb) might post

@Artichokeleaves

I think we have a semantic misunderstanding. In that semantic context 'proved' does not mean as if a court or inquiry reached a verdict. In this context, 'proved' means 'turned out to be', 'was demonstrated as'. The on paper policy was obviously not followed on the ground; the photographs, utter inappropriacy and lack of any awareness of safeguarding was evidenced in the photographs and SM posts.

That's one side of the debate. There are also people (myself included) who think transwomen are women and that adults have the right to a private life outside of their professional life.

adults have the right to a private life outside of their professional life.

Their "private life" was very public.

As an aside,
Paraphilias overwhelmingly affect men.

Paraphilias include, not limited to: exhibitionism, voyeurism, cross dressing, engaging in non-consensual sexual activity, sexual interest in inanimate objects.

Victims of men's paraphilias are overwhelmingly women and children.

Men who have one paraphilia will usually have another.

Nonetheless, not saying anything directly about this GG/Scouts person but people with a penis aren't women. They can be transwomen yes but not women because sex matters.

adults have the right to a private life outside of their professional life.

I’d like to know where your red line on this is pie.

Was the showing of a line up of small girl’s faces in their profile header behind the ‘in the bath shot’ ok?

Knowing that the timeline contained sexualised posts?

Were all the weapons poses, including the pistols and the sword shots fine too? Or just the other weapon that doesn’t shoot bullets. And please do tell us how a child/teen coming across the profile is supposed to know? And does it really matter, it is a rifle of some type being posed in a lounge room, never a ‘safe’ pose.

And posting sexually suggestive captions and images… where do you draw the line there? What poses and captions would be not appropriate for a code of conduct that states clearly that posts of any sexual nature are not appropriate for a GG leader.

Please do be clear because you obviously want to keep on repeating that they should be allowed a private life. Isn’t the entire point that a person in such a job with responsibility a) follows the code of conduct with no exceptions. And b) then ensures all other volunteers follow the code of conduct.

And what other parafilias do you consider safe for people to have while responsible for safeguarding children? Again. Please be very specific.

There are also people (myself included) who think transwomen are women

Of course a male can't be a woman.

[quote ODFOx]@Helleofabore I was a leader too. I quit because I couldn't reconcile the guidance with my understanding of safeguarding.

Are you aware of any natal female leaders having gone through this level of public vilification? After 30 years as a leader I know of several cases where people were encouraged to find other volunteering opportunities for behavioural and image reasons, but they were discovered at the local level, as you say, you check out your leader. In this case she was thoroughly searched by randoms on the internet because she is trans. [/quote]
So the "Catholic Church" solution did it also include a the hand on the Bible for an Oath of Silence ceremony?

*Random Tip of the Day^
When visiting a Dairy Farm dont try to milk cows with only a single teat.