Big Sibling is reading your mail.

A teacher and mother-of-three has been questioned under caution by Merseyside Police for sending a letter to Girlguiding UK raising safeguarding concerns.

Ok then, I guess if anyone has any safeguarding concerns about Girlguides UK, she’d better keep them to herself. Sorry girls! You’re on your own.

Her story begins in November 2021 when it emerged that Girlguiding UK had appointed a local commissioner called Monica Sulley, a role that involves overseeing Rainbows, Brownies, Guides and Rangers in Southwell, Nottinghamshire. 

Sulley is a trans woman who posts photos of himself on Instagram…

…wearing dominatrix clothing, one of which was captioned “Now behave yourselves or Mistress will have to punish you #mistress.” She had also posted a picture in which she wielded what appeared to be a fake assault rifle. 

Maybe not ideal for Girlguides then, eh?

The Merseyside woman, who does not wish to be named, wrote two emails expressing safeguarding concerns about the appointment: one to Girlguiding UK, and one to the local Girlguiding organisation in Southwell.

Others also wrote letters.

The woman received a formal acknowledgement of her email from the national organisation, which didn’t address the particular issue she’d raised. She then heard nothing more until 7 January this year, when a police officer came to her house and told her she needed to attend the police station for an interview under caution, which “meant that I could attend voluntarily, but that if I chose not to attend I could be arrested.”

Because she wrote to Girlguides about a man who puts photos of himself as a dominatrix on social media, questioning whether he’s the right person to be overseeing young girls.

I don’t think it’s possible that the people who run Girlguides are unaware that some men prey on young girls – that so many men do this, or some men do it with such dedication, that it’s hard to find a female person who has zero experience of grown men molesting or flashing or otherwise preying on them. Surely it’s a key part of the job of running Girlguides to know this. So why why why are they 1. hiring a man for such a job 2. hiring a man who shows off his creepy kinks in public 3. ignoring public concern at this situation 4. reporting concerned onlookers to the police???

It’s just nuts. Apparently Girlguides now officially doesn’t care about the safety of the girl guides, and does care about the cheeriness of kinky men who want to “supervise” some girl guides, and translates those preferences into reporting critics to the police.

It’s batshit crazy and sinister as fuck.

On 13 January, she was interviewed under caution at Smithdown Lane Police Station in Liverpool. During the interview, which lasted an hour, she was asked about the contents of the email and why she sent it. She was told that she could be charged under the Malicious Communications Act.

Why? Why are women not allowed to air concerns with people in charge of organizations that collect young girls? It’s as if Girlguides has suddenly decided to become an organization of pimps.

She didn’t have difficulty answering the questions, she says: “I’d been a teacher and a mum for years and am old enough to feel certain and confident that there was a breach in safeguarding. I kept referring to the unsuitability of such a person for the role, and that it meant that young girls in this case were threatened, that their safety and privacy were threatened.” 

She also told the police officer that safeguarding rules exist to protect women and girls from the minority of biological males who are predatory. At the prompting of the duty solicitor, she pointed out that when Girl Guides go to camp, they share accommodation and showers, and that “to have male-bodied men in that setting, I believed, was a safeguarding concern.”

Well done duty solicitor.

At the end of the interview, she was told that her case would be sent to the CPS for consideration. Her duty solicitor, she reports, “said he had never been more baffled in his life.” When the solicitor asked the police officer whether it was necessary to proceed to the CPS, the police officer replied, she says, that the email was considered a “hate crime”. 

It’s good to know the duty solicitor was baffled. He’ll have some knowledge of the law, unlike me, so at least I’m not obviously completely wrong about how grotesque all this is.