Mermaids charity paedophile & porn photos scandal in the press

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

The Times have covered the Mermaid's employee and his pornographic photos as well as the trustee over interested in paedophilia. I didn't think the press would cover this as it's so extreme but am relieved they have as schools who promote Mermaids really need to know what children are being exposed to. Share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ca30ddfe-48e1-11ed-8176-c5c5e560820a?shareToken=bb95ff5e988ec157b06e22f7455eb977

Well the Mail are now covering this? Wonder whether the Guardian and BBC will share the gruesome details with their readers?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11302231/Parents-children-used-trans-charity-call-probe-worker-posed-explicit-images.html

That was Lisa Muggeridge. Another woman who suffered terrible threats and abuse for speaking out.

When a masc cis white gay changes things up he’s loved. Why? Because he has sex appeal. He looks hot. He’s showing off his gym fit body. But when a femme person does it we get look upon like we are filth, that we don’t belong. Why? Because gay men don’t want to fuck us. "

Darren appears to have come to the difficult realisation that gay males just don't fancy Darren, I understand that is a hard pill to swallow but that, as they say, is life.

For me, I would go as far as saying those who did not match the theme were being queerphobic."

As ever it is everyone else's fault.

@pattihews I think this is the video mentioned above:

If organisations can't spot/aren't looking out for boundary and social-norm challenging behaviour like this, it is almost inevitable that they will have missed more. Predators WILL target places where they may gain access to vulnerable victims, this is known. And if you're not actively and constantly managing risk and looking out for them, predators will get through. An online forum which doesn't/can't verify identity, invites children to share sensitive information about their personal lives, creates an environment of trust, and then allows/encourages conversations to be moved into other, less-regulated spaces, is a wide-open door.

I could imagine lots of people phoning and saying things like "the whole TQ+ agenda destroys women's rights and LGB rights - I find it deeply bigoted, and I am on the phone talking to you now, because this phone call might just stop some autistic pubescent girl from getting through, and I might just be saving a woman's breasts and female voice by talking to you now". I can imagine such a call would be described as abusive and literal violence.

Wow! the comments on that Times article. Not yet closed or edited either!

I would like help working this through in my head. This will be a long one, apologies (i wish the safeguarding experts were back).

My instinct immediately says Mew should not be working with kids, but i want to follow that thought through (prepping for real life discussion).
What were the safe guarding red flags and why?

The first pics i saw if him, i saw a gender non conforming mid 20s male. Lots of make up. Highly groomed (i mean in a very polished type of way). Comedy moustache.
If i am totally honest, i would not be thrilled with any of my kids hanging out with him, but hard to articulate why without displaying clear prejudice on the basis of someone's gender presentation. My reaction bothers me, there was little difference between those pics and Boy George back in the day. When does non conformity become a safe guarding concern? (and yes i know BG might not be the best comparator).

Pic 2, he is posing in a suggestive manner (clearly drawing attention to his barely covered genitals) in a skirt that could be described as a school girl skirt.
Red flags really start here. But again why? This isn't illegal, doesn't involve anyone else, no evidence that he has indulged in sexual or inappropriate behaviours with minors. But, this makes me really uncomfortable immediately, particularly given his role and access to children.
I think this is less about what he is actually doing and more about how it clearly demonstrates that this person who works with vulnerable kids does not understand appropriate boundaries in the public sphere and that alone is a red flag, even without any evidence of real harm. Is that about right?

Then the final penis pictures. Which clearly trigger all the red flags in the world. But again, these images are not illegal and do not involve minors, could be classified as art in some circles and porn in others.

The issue seems to be not that he has made these pictures but that he works directly with vulnerable patients, and he did not see fit to have a higher level of privacy on his SM settings. If he looks as he does, and kept the pictures more private, would he be less if a safeguarding risk?

Also, for companies who embrace hiring non conformists (e.g. Gender non conforming, extreme tattoos and body modifications) is it inherently harder to instil appropriate safeguarding and boundaries. Would they need to work harder at this?

Really just trying to work my thinking through.

Upthread I mentioned a short video by a social worker in which she made the point that social workers have to be really clear about what's normal and acceptable, because social work is about maintaining boundaries and safeguarding — and if you keep stretching your concept of what's acceptable then almost everything is acceptable and you don't see the abuse, or the potential for abuse, in front of your face. I give you the case of Kayla Lemieux and the school that encouraged the fetish:
www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/25/kayla-lemieux-and-the-cult-of-validation/

Any charity (or school) taking on staff who will have contact with vulnerable children have to be especially diligent in ensuring that those staff have extremely clear boundaries. Perhaps this individual's choice of blue hair and a comedy moustache is one thing, but sexualised photos aren't — not for someone in a public position dealing with vulnerable children.

Context is everything. Kayla Lemieux can do what Kayla likes in private. But when Kayla makes takes Kayla's fetish public then it becomes everyone's business. Because this is not normal or acceptable. It says something that it took the children to point out that this was not appropriate and was indeed abusive, while the open-minded teachers stood around doing nothing.

It's fine to be judgmental. It's fine to have boundaries. Some people will call you a prude or a pearl-clutcher or Mary Whitehouse. That tells you more about them than it does about you.

Thank you, yes! I've now bookmarked this. It's really basic. You have to keep a strong hold on what is normal.

This is very disturbing but sadly not at all surprising. If your ethos is philosophically opposed to child safeguarding, then you don’t have any safeguards as an organisation. I hope the Charity commission understand the enormous risks of charities who operate like that for children and families.

My brain is itching with this one. Who decides what is normal?

Go back a century or two and women wearing trousers.

Some thought these women were deviants and wore trousers because they wanted to be men, others because they just wanted to wear more practical, comfortable clothing. History shows the motivation to be entirely the latter.

Now today, Darren with the green eyebrows and comedy tache and the suggestive poses. This could just be the new normal of the future?

Just look at how normalised tattoos have become in the last 10 to 15 years. They used to signify non conformity, be associated with criminality, be hidden. Now they are ubiquitous and signify nothing except perhaps a bit of a mid life crisis.

Do people who present in non conforming ways just never get to work with kids? Is this not important in teaching kids tolerance for difference?

Covering a semi with a tiny kilt isn't nonconforming. It's boundary pushing.

Posting pictures online of yourself holding your erect penis surrounded by amputated breasts and more disembodied shots of your penis and anus isn't nonconforming, it's porn.

Oh, and can I just add that a man complaining he cant get a shag, barely covering his genitals and photographing himself clutching his own erection is about as gender confirming as it gets.

Very true. It’s almost like the complete checklist

Darren's clippings (www.clippings.me/users/diaryofdarren) has a couple of pieces written for our old friends Pink News. But click on them and his name has vanished!

Looks like there’s a lot of memory holing going on….

www.clippings.me/users/diaryofdarren

When you are in Mrs O's linked article you will see links to related articles, including one by Euan McColm which I've just read and would recommend, and another by Lucy Bannerman about a charity suspending payments, which I haven't read.

What's really annoying about all this is that I can remember reading here ages ago about money from the BBC's Children In Need and Lottery going to these organisations.

Covering a semi with a tiny kilt isn't nonconforming.

Well, it's maybe children's-charity-trustee-role-non-conforming, at least? Even though it's totally sex/gender-conforming.

Unless the charity is Mermaids, of course.

As Glinner put it well in a recent heading:

Totally normal childrens charity

Meet Darren Mew. He's not safe for work, unless you work at Mermaids.

There’s no defining moment or definition of when ‘kinky’ or ‘alternative’ becomes ‘inappropriate’. But generally, when expression of sexuality is crossed with something deemed to be associated with children - nappies, dummies, school outfits - you know that point has been reached.

I've just been on Mew's linked in again. One thing it says is "I've been seeing so many TikToks recently around 'acting your wage' and setting boundaries in the workplace. It makes me really happy to see; we are so often told that the only way to progress is by "going that extra mile" and "acting in the promotional role" you want before getting it. Employees are not charities, they are being paid to do a job. If you, as an employer, see potential in that staff member to take on more then pay them to do so.

Employers in this day need to realise to get the most out of their staff they need to put their money where their mouths are. If you don't want your staff to "quiet quit" then respect them, value them, and honour the work they are doing."

I do have a lot of sympathy with his viewpoint, but as someone who runs a business the last sort of person who I would wish to employ is someone who campaigns against LGB and women's rights, campaigns against child safeguarding, and publicises the fact that he will do as little as possible for the money you pay him. In fact lazy people with zero morals are pretty much a case study in how to make yourself unemployable.

That he dresses as though he wishes to be perceived as a paedophile makes it even worse. I mean, literally, if Saville were around today (and he might be) he would look exactly like Darren Mew.

Or when it is being shown to children, or associated with childrens charities.

Thanks @Cuppasoupmonster , that is a good yard stick.

It feels like there should be a giant decision tree here.

I would hate to see all boundary pushing creating safeguarding red flags. I want less rigid societal expectations of how men and women present. I would welcome more men in makeup and heels and more women feeling they don't need makeup or heels. I suppose the trick is that everyone is held to the same standard. No stilettos in the workplace for men or women, no gratuitous nipple display, discrete makeup etc. Giant prosthetic tits, not so much.

Whilst the guy is probably fine to do this imagery (as long as it is legal) on the internet for adult publications etc, that is not the sort of person who should be employed by a children's charity. Seems like at Mermaids anything goes.

Just goes to show that they don't do any sort of checks on their staff, and with that attitude how can they be responsible for vulnerable children?

All those "furries". Yeah do what you want, whatever.

But of course, the outfits appeal to young children.