UK Drag Queen Charged for CSA materials

[burneruser]

And was involved in the publication of a calendar sold to raise money for mermaids.

I'm not sure if this was covered in other recent threads or not, apologies if I missed it then.

reduxx.info/uk-drag-queen-charged-on-three-counts-related-to-child-sexual-abuse-materials/

"A drag queen who performed under the name ‘Miss Rachel Rear’ has appeared in court on charges related to the possession and production of indecent and prohibited images of children.
Andrew Duncan, 24, is facing multiple counts related to 17 pieces of child sexual abuse materials he was found with. Some of the materials were media of real children, and others were illegal fantasy depictions of children engaged in obscene, pornographic acts.
Among the photographs found on Duncan’s devices were some classified as ‘Category A’ — the most serious type. Images and video in this categoryy_ can depict penetrative sexual activity, bestiality, and/or sexual sadism involving children.
Duncan is alleged to also have been in possession of and produced child sexual abuse materials via digital means, otherwise known as a “prohibited image.” In the United Kingdom, prohibited images are non-photographic media created by computer generation, cartoon, or drawing which feature pornographic and obscene depictions of children."
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6577301/Drag-queens-pose-glamorous-calendar.html

Charming chaps not.
< not envy.

DQST is deeply inappropriate. It's linked heavily and openly to agendas around breaking safeguarding boundaries and normalising sexual behaviour and misogyny around kids - with women who will rush to defend the normalisation and scold people with boundaries and go on and on about NAMALT. Either you are doing this intentionally knowing this and wishing to help get those boundaries down - which enables males some of whom includes the one in the OP, it is in no way in children's interests - or you are being used as a useful idiot in their cause. Either way, it's a bit grim.

Interesting. I haven't defended having drag queens reading in libraries, I've merely pointed out inaccuracies. I've specially said I don't even like drag queens so not sure where you get defending from. Google drag queen story time and you get that company, or American articles. Link to these others you've mentioned and I'll read. Butt monkey wasn't a drag queen according to the article I read.

But interestingly enough despite saying why aren't we focusing on the actual paedophile in the OP, and that most abuses are by men the children or women know, 100% of the responses are focused on drag queens story time or Mermaids, neither of which have anything to do with the paedophile in question. Why do you insist on focusing on the smallest risk? Why aren't you shouting about the men abusing children?

Yelena

There are plenty of Mumsnet threads about the creep of queer theory (zero boundaries) into education, child safeguarding and children's entertainment.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3915879-the-proud-trust

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3701564-Anal-sex-for-13-year-olds-Warwickshire-again?flipped=1

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3795892--All-about-me-Sex-Relationships-primary-education

amp.lbc.co.uk/news/graphic-and-extreme-material-sex-education-school/

And about a zillion threads about the inappropriateness of Mermaids on a number of levels, most recently being appointing a paedophilia advocate to their board of trustees.

"I don't...... I'm just...... I'm GC as they come but......'

All the faux innocence and thought experimenting and deconstructing and NAMALTing and waffling is all directly enabling things like the now five separate safeguarding disasters at Mermaids. (I think. They're coming so thick and fast it's hard to keep track.)

The time's past for all this wide eyed 'but...'. People are going to have to take ownership and responsibility now.

Thanks it will take me to time to read all of those, and I appreciate the links. However a quick glance at the first two suggest they are around sex education rather than 'queer theory' and in my opinion the more education people receive the better. And what's wrong with being queer or is that not what you meant?
Going by this inaccurate thread and the one I read the day before yesterday, where the OP had a doctored screen shot denigrating Mermaids. As well as reading I'll also research myself what was actually said. Honestly thanks though, this is a good start.

And what's wrong with being queer or is that not what you meant?

No, that's very much not what they meant.
Queer Theory is nothing to do with 'being gay'. It's about language and concepts and that boundaries are there to be broken.

I do recommend Kathleen Stock's book 'Material Girls' if you want an overview.

I would suggest that while taking responsibility we should ensure what we are saying is accurate otherwise why do you expect people will listen? There's enough genuine worries to point out without making stuff up, it starts to sound a bit boy who cried wolf and I'm sure that's not your intention.

But interestingly enough despite saying why aren't we focusing on the actual paedophile in the OP, and that most abuses are by men the children or women know, 100% of the responses are focused on drag queens story time or Mermaids, neither of which have anything to do with the paedophile in question. Why do you insist on focusing on the smallest risk? Why aren't you shouting about the men abusing children?

Please dive deeper into these boards before you come out with stuff about 'not shouting about the men abusing children' - that's what we ARE doing!

Mermaids have enabled a specific 'acceptable' pathway for men to do this. They have HUGE safeguarding issues, but because safeguarding is for boring square normies they ignore it. Therefore where is the best place for an abuser to hide in plain sight? Obviously somewhere where going against safeguarding norms is applauded.

I don't massively have an opinion on drag queens in general - when harmless and appropriate, they are harmless and appropriate. But sex stuff around kids clearly needs appropriate safeguarding. I can't actually believe this needs explaining, but that's because of the success of queer theory.

No, I'm really not interested any more in 'prove this to me to the nth degree while I niggle away' because the upshot is that male people continue to use children in highly inappropriate ways, connected to a highly dodgy agenda (do read the paedophile manifesto; we've all been had as to the intentional planning of how to soften up boundaries to enable offending, it's there in black and white) which women could see plainly, but have been told 'well there's not enough evidence. NAMALT. Be careful people don't think you're silly for saying x and y....'

And the evidence is getting higher daily. As in the mess of Mermaids.

You're either for this, or against it. And yes, those arguing with women shouting the house is on fire at this point are going to need to own what they are helping enable.

However a quick glance at the first two suggest they are around sex education rather than 'queer theory' and in my opinion the more education people receive the better.

That's a very naive opinion. You really believe that children are better off being "educated" in a harmful way, than not receiving said education?

I gave a specific recent example of Mermaids being called out (in the international press) for their (at best) slapdash attitude to safeguarding.

I haven't asked you to prove anything to the nth degree. Yes I'm against paedophiles and child abusers, I've made that clear in the thread. Your analogy is more akin to shouting your house is on fire when it's actually the house down the road. The fire brigade turns up at yours, realises you were 'mistaken' (given the benefit of the doubt) and goes back to the fire station leaving the real fire burning.

How would no education at all be any better? Make sure the education is not harmful, follow policy.

With respect Yelena, you haven't understood what 'queer theory' is so haven't understood the comment.

Appropriate sex education is really important. It is important to understand how queer theory attempts to encroach on it. Again, it's not to do with 'being gay'. I do suggest you read up on it.

I haven't looked this back up so I am definitely not confirming what I'm saying is completely accurate: but before I look it up was that the member of the board that presented a paper ~10 years(?) ago when he was a student for a charity supporting mental health for paedophiles. My understanding when I read it at the time was the charity provided mental health to people who had not offended to help them stop the urge and therefore not offend and hurt innocent children. It seemed reasonable, is that not the case? I will look into Mermaids to see for myself and if they are harmful I will say so.

@LaughingPriest I read the wiki page on queer theory I couldn't see anything specifically on harming children or anything like that. Do you have a better source of info? It appears to be saying let's get away from heteronormativity, are you saying it covers more than gay and bi people? If it covers furries, kinks, illegal, underage and what have you I can understand and would expect children to be protected.

Is this 'what about wry' or 'sealioning'?
I never can distinguish.

Whatever it is, someone is trying hard to obfuscate the problem which is a softening of safeguarding boundaries to enable abuse. It's a predator tactic.

This man is an example of why safeguarding needs to be robust.

When you work in a safeguarding field of some kind, certain things set off your spidey senses. Other people will hear what you say as crying wolf, bigotry, or anxiety. They will defend poor practice, and attack those who have nasty minds and are suspicious of the nice man in the wig.

That calendar should never have been associated with mermaids. Totally inappropriate.

Drag queens should not be doing story time.

Boundaries matter. It's not about pearl clutching.
Suppose we're drawing the boundaries too tight, and a really nice guy is stopped from doing something. A fundraiser can't run. Someone doesn't get to go to an activity they wanted to be part of. What a shame.
Suppose we draw the boundaries too slack, and organisations get infiltrated by people like the man in the OP, who should be nowhere near children. That would be our shame and our responsibility when children are groomed and abused.

I know what I prefer. Ask yourself why you are arguing so hard against boundaries?

I have not argued against softening of any boundaries, on the contrary I've said safeguarding for all.

I’d say sealioning with a bit of squirrelling

Tell me what you think the 'theory' is and I can help. I provided a book reference in my earlier post.
In fact, what do you think a 'gay person' is - a person who is attracted solely to those of the same sex?

Right I'll just pop on Amazon and buy that book and wait for delivery in a few days and that will help me with this conversation... oh wait... never mind I'll do my own research online when I'm back from taking my children out to Sunday lunch. I know what a gay person is thanks, I'm Bi myself but thanks for the patronising comment.

How would no education at all be any better?

Because suggesting harmful things to children with the intention of lowering their boundaries is worse than not talking about highly adult concepts in schools? Are you really this obtuse?

If you think there should be safe, age appropriate sex education in schools which isn't trying to sexualise children, normalise harmful practices or push adult political agendas, then we agree!

never mind I'll do my own research online

You don't seem to be particularly good at doing your own research online. Wikipedia isn't actually a neutral site.

but before I look it up was that the member of the board that presented a paper ~10 years(?) ago when he was a student for a charity supporting mental health for paedophiles. My understanding when I read it at the time was the charity provided mental health to people who had not offended to help them stop the urge and therefore not offend and hurt innocent children.

For someone who claims no knowledge about any of this you seem to know a lot of cherry-picked detail about this particular case.