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

Yes, @HelleofaboreThere was a toddler killed in his buggy by a BB gun in Glasgow years ago. Poor wee thing.

Children who see BDSM or any sexual behaviour at all are damaged by it.

Anyone who does not understand why it is inappropriate to post images of themselves in a bath alongside images of children is either just plain stupid, or deliberately trying to blur the boundaries of safeguarding.

Is it possible to groom an entire organisation?

I would not be firing an air rifle at my pet, let's be very clear here. They are dangerous. Despite margs attempt at 'look it is just an air rifle'.

Where I am from, there are plenty of stories of injuries to humans from inappropriate usage and mucking around with them.

You can't say she's going to "pose a threat to women and children" just because there's a photo of her in a leather corset

You're still hugely missing the point.

It is not appropriate to share pictures like those publicly on social media while in a position of responsibility.

It does not show any awareness of safeguarding while in a position of leadership and responsibility for safeguarding.

The posting of the pictures and sharing sex life publicly shows a very strong problem with good judgement, with boundaries and understanding of appropriacy. This is also not ok in a person in a position of public trust and responsibility.

A person with such poor judgement that they photograph themselves posing with guns while in a child organisation outfit really has made their competence and capacity very questionable indeed. Dunblane was one of the biggest safeguarding disasters in the 20th century and had a major impact on safeguarding development.

Should someone in a responsible position in charge of children be aware that to wave pictures of their sex life, and posing with guns is not an appropriate thing to do? Should they be able to recognise this is a safeguarding risk and very inadvisable and inappropriate? Should they follow their organisation's online policy?

Yes. They should.

These actions aren't defensible. They are not compatible with the job. That's it. That's all.

Really at this point you seem to be trying to argue that either

a) safeguarding is an infringement of adult freedoms and is unnecessary and safeguarding law and policy shouldn't be followed by people responsible for children

or b) this person should be excepted from standard safeguarding expectations and their choices and behaviours and lack of judgement should not be a barrier to their involvement with children in a children's organisation.

I've shared this before but will put here again some of the basic questions that come up again and again in serious case reviews, and appear in government inquiries as to why safeguarding practice isn't followed:

• Did those responsible 'think the unthinkable' - ie did they consider the worst possible interpretation of the facts instead of the best, did they consider whether adults' accounts and intentions were NOT as innocent as they could be interpreted as? For example yes an adult posing in uniform with a gun may be enjoying a nice sports pic for the album, but there are other and very worrying interpretations too that should not be ignored because 'its not nice to think that' or the adult might be offended by it.

• Were the difficult questions asked? - the ones that upset and offend and dig down into what may happen if the potentially ugly bits are skated over? People chickening out of this has led to many safeguarding disasters.

• Were the needs and voice of adults, especially vulnerable or potentially difficult to challenge adults in the situation dominating attention and focus, and were those adults needs being met at the expense of the party that should have been safeguarded? Were inconvenient bits of safeguarding overlooked or moved because those adults didn't like them?

Lots of adults like to have fun with whips and crops too, it's a form of BDSM.

And just to repeat.

Do those adults post their 'fun' onto publically visible social media?
Do those adults have the responsibility to assess and ensure that other adults in roles dealing with out daughters are also following the exact same regulations as they are supposed to be following?
Do those adults also post pictures of small girls with their faces very clearly shown behind pics of them in the bath on a timeline with other content of a sexual nature and with guns being inappropriately used?
Do those adults have the responsibility to be aspirational to young girls, while publicly asking people if they want to see 'more' of their breasts and if mistress should punish them?

Really, pie, what else are you willing to ignore in your belief that some people are exempt from safeguarding? Just how far are you willing to overlook safeguarding red flags? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Is it possible to groom an entire organisation?

History of safeguarding failures would suggest yes.

Catholic Church.
BBC
Kids Company

It's not to say everyone within the organisation/company is even aware of the issues, of course. There are good, great, kind and wonderful priests, etc. But when an organisation has chosen to 'turn a blind eye' and this has been baked into the guidelines/rules/structure/governance, then this creates blind spots and vulnerabilities that are not only exploitable but foster poor judgement and lack of awareness. Which can potentially also be damaging. There are predators who look to cause harm deliberately; there are also people who can cause harm accidentally, through a lack of awareness, especially of boundaries and appropriate behaviour.

But when an organisation has chosen to 'turn a blind eye' and this has been baked into the guidelines/rules/structure/governance, then this creates blind spots and vulnerabilities that are not only exploitable but foster poor judgement and lack of awareness.

When you add to that the threat that anyone pointing out the blind spots may be reported to the police and treated as criminals for doing so, really you have destroyed any effective safeguarding from the foundations upwards.

Bless Margarita for keeping putting forward the TRA point of view, and ignoring the many points made about safeguarding risks. So helpful for the lurkers to have the two sides' points of view debated like this.

I know these sorts of MN threads helped me to change my mind, having been a Guardian reader for a long time.

Just for clarification, GGUK prohibits:

War games, including laser tag, virtual reality war games and paintball - this includes all games in which players simulate a war or battle situation by firing at other players.

Girlguiding does not allow games where weapons of any form are fired at human- or animal-shaped targets. This activity is prohibited because it does not fit with the aims and objectives of guiding. However, paintball guns and laser guns are permitted if fired at other objects, for example, in a coconut shy activity.

IMO, people who splash around pictures of themselves in paramilitary style poses/dress, aiming weapons (outside of a sporting photo context) are not doing so to show how good they are at hitting a coconut. They are playing out a fantasy about being perceived as hard, threatening, dangerous and cool - all because they are a danger to other humans or animals.

@Justkeeppedaling

I was a Guide Leader, a District Commissioner, and most recently a Division Commissioner.

I resigned too, because I didn't want to be in a position where I was either organising, or signing off/approving an event where male bodied people were sleeping and showering literally alongside girls and women (in some cases helping girls to get dressed, go to the toilet, change night nappies etc), and where I couldn't call that out on a risk assessment, nor share that information with parents, other adults at the event, or my superiors in Guiding.

May I ask @Justkeeppedaling did you make the reason for your resignation known to GG?

I'm wondering if there has been a measurable loss of leaders and volunteers like yourself that GGUK knows is down to their stance on this issue.

It would baffle me that if they know they are loosing women like yourself, the backbone of the organisation, that they aren't making any effort to at least take stock and review their course forward.

Surely they can't be just putting their fingers in their ears, shouting la la la at any of the criticism, and writing off their leaving volunteers as bigots they are glad to see the back of?

It would be an unforgivable tragedy if the current GG leadership team destroyed this girls organisation in a stubborn and obstinate spiralling attempt to save face. Sadly I don't think they will ever admit that they got this so wrong though, will they.

They are playing out a fantasy about being perceived as hard, threatening, dangerous and cool - all because they are a danger to other humans or animals.

And it is a fantasy, just like other fantasies.

But at the risk of repeating this yet again the posing of weapons that this person likes to post is yet another indication that they do not understand responsible weapon usage.

This is yet another major issue for someone who is responsible for ensuring other leaders are fully aware of their own responsibilities around responsible use of weapons. If they cannot display the very action that they are supposed to be monitoring and ensuring does not happen.

I am really not sure how it can be made any clearer.

If a person cannot display that they themselves can stay within the code of conduct for all GG leaders and volunteers, how can they implement proper monitoring and adherence in others.

It is really not that hard. Unless you have a political agenda that you wish others to see you signalling that you are 'doing your bit to fight those hateful meanies who just won't agree that there is nothing to see here'.

Then you keep coming back with 'it is not so bad, everyone does it, you are all hateful, this is just because this person is [insert descriptor], you wouldn't have complained if this person was [insert descriptor]'.

It is tired, tired old trope. But I guess, someone has to keep pushing it if there is nothing else they can meaningfully say.

I totally agree with you, Helleofabore. I'm a GG leader myself. I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole organisation, it's inability to join the dots between predatory men and their open door inclusion policy, and their pandering to critical theory pushers and social justice causes. It's ruined the whole organisation, not just from a safeguarding POV, but in terms of the programme, which is frankly a pile of preachy, arid crap I have to spend hours rethinking/rewriting in order to make it vaguely teachable and interesting. Can't wait to leave.

@Fluffymule

I find that women are actually treated far more harshly in the media than men, particularly in the tabloids that ran the stories about Sulley.

So I can absolutely imagine that if a woman GG leader, or woman in any similar role such as teacher, children's nurse etc, came to their attention exhibiting behaviour that sparked the same safeguarding concerns as Sulley the tabloids would absolutely be digging for more pictures; scouring social media for salacious or incriminating photos and posts, and splashing as much clickbait about it as they can on their site.

A current example is the one where a young 22 year old woman teacher has just been struck off after sleeping with an 18 year old pupil. It's right the news should be reported, but the story has been typically illustrated with pictures unearthed from her social media of her in bikinis and in clubbing/party wear.

Yes exactly. I was just about to make the same point: the media are all over any sniff of a sexy bondage female teacher and those women get vilified in stories in the Mail etc. just as much if not more so than anyone else because of the titillating aspect.

can we really say that the same level of outrage or action from outside the organisation would have been seen if this were a natal woman?

Yes, I think a 60 yo gun toting dominatrix natal female Brown Owl (or whatever) would get the same treatment, possibly worse in fact, with just the same tone of tabloid glee because it’s a woman and the media loves to publicise and vilify women.

If you think that wouldn’t happen, you seem pretty new to the idea of sexism to be honest.

If you think that wouldn’t happen, you seem pretty new to the idea of sexism to be honest.

I thought this too. Or..... it is a political ploy....

@LilithOfEden

I totally agree with you, Helleofabore. I'm a GG leader myself. I'm sick to the back teeth of the whole organisation, it's inability to join the dots between predatory men and their open door inclusion policy, and their pandering to critical theory pushers and social justice causes. It's ruined the whole organisation, not just from a safeguarding POV, but in terms of the programme, which is frankly a pile of preachy, arid crap I have to spend hours rethinking/rewriting in order to make it vaguely teachable and interesting. Can't wait to leave.

And I thank you lilith and all GG leaders out there for that effort. It is appreciated by the parents.

@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?

Can I suggest that before you make any more of your usual inane remarks, Pie, that you sit down and read the entirely of the KCSIE (Keeping Children Safe in Education) statutory document on safeguarding plus all the appendices. This is compulsory reading for anyone working in a school or safeguarding-adjacent volunteering role, and you will find it invaluable in terms of understanding why anyone who has been safeguarding trained knows that this person should not have been working in this role, and why GG’s safeguarding is a problem:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1021914/KCSIE_2021_September_guidance.pdf

Then maybe you can make some informed comment rather than sounding like a perennial idiot on the subject.

Particularly read sections 3 and 4 on safer recruitment and background checking, Pie.

This is statutory guidance for schools, but essentially all volunteer organisations working with children should be working to the same standards.

Its simple:

Does this person have a right to a private life: Yes.

Does this person have a right to work with children: No.

If you want to work with children you need to be totally spic and span, to be totally legitimate, to be totally clean. Otherwise it's a risk, and its not worth taking when the risk is child abuse. Children are not collateral damage.

So if you can't control your private life from spilling out, then work for an organisation that doesn't have small, vulnerable people in it.

@sacredfeminina

Its simple:

Does this person have a right to a private life: Yes.

Does this person have a right to work with children: No.

If you want to work with children you need to be totally spic and span, to be totally legitimate, to be totally clean. Otherwise it's a risk, and its not worth taking when the risk is child abuse. Children are not collateral damage.

So if you can't control your private life from spilling out, then work for an organisation that doesn't have small, vulnerable people in it.

"Spilling out"... more like boasting about it.

Obviously it's only a co-incidence, but somewhat amusing that the person on this thread playing down the importance of child safeguarding has as the second part of their user name the initial of a deeply evil organisation that ran from 1974 to 1984.

"I know from experience just which ammunition is considered 'safe' and 'dangerous' and I assure you, that "little plastic balls" being fired from an air weapon can be harmful"

I wasn't trying to say they aren't dangerous. Just pointing out the pictured gun is a legal air gun and not an "assault rifle" as I've seen it called in the media.

And just to clarify, was she actually suspended and were any complaints upheld, or did she leave voluntarily entirely on her own terms?

And just to clarify, was she actually suspended and were any complaints upheld, or did she leave voluntarily entirely on her own terms?

You mean did Sulley beat a hasty retreat before an investigation could expose the full safeguarding shitshow?

Perhaps you could answer the questions put to you upthread before we chase that particular squirrel.

I had a member of staff who had committed an offence of gross misconduct

Under company policy I was required to suspend her pending an investigation & disciplinary hearing.

There was no question of whether she had or had not committed the offence. She fully admitted she had

On the day before her disciplinary hearing, she resigned

Her employment record shows she resigned but had we completed the process before her resignation, it would have shown she was dismissed

She resigned rather than go through the inevitable firing

It is very common for ppl to do this

DomesticatedZombie
"Is it possible to groom an entire organisation?"
History of safeguarding failures would suggest yes.
Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is proof that when the groomed are the senior people who control the culture of the organisation only a small number compound harm created by the predators.

The senior bishops trained the "up and comming" priests to move the offender again and again, and actively hid harm and publically made it difficult for the victimised and other whistleblows to speak out, all to control the organisation's public profile while ignoring that it existed to serve their community.

GG including "we will involve the police" in a statement about a safeguarding investigation is so wrong.