Potential Systemic Safeguarding failures in NSPCC / Childline illustrated by appointment & ending of relationship with Munroe Bergdorf Thread 2

Apparently the NSPCC knew about this guy's fetish back in December - did we know this?

• according to this person on Twitter anyway.

twitter.com/TFL88/status/1139293079314325504

Although - I doubt they knew about the wanking.

Gosh, she says Canada is ready to go. I am not so sure about that. I'd be interested in what makes her think its the case.

I too am totally shocked at the defence of key players in this saga. To point out the folly of the appointment and individuals behaviour is totally being met with cries of transphobia and that people are just being really mean. Throw in a good bit of 'whataboutery' and all that is left is a poor little victim. I don't get it, people have been villified and sacked for a lot less but no one starts jumping to their defence.

Strange times.

Isn't that what Lisa said? We have at least 2 decades of shit show fallout over child protection to come in wave after wave?

Yes. The bloody woman is Cassandra!

And, I'm sorry to say, we're currently in the genesis of the next double-decade cycle.

Am I missing something or is the NSPCC yet to reply? The ‘we won’t tolerate bullying of our staff’ message was put out before the worst of this broke on sm I think. I hope this is because they’re talking to lawyers and not because they actually think they can ride this out.

The biggest problem is there's so many people blocking discussion and avoiding talking about all this that it's possible it will be longer than 20 years.

It will take 10 years of de transitioned women for this to begin to be taken seriously.

We are only just near to the start of women who were part of ROGD coming out the other side. Another 5 for the girls who are a part of the 4000% increase in Female GD to start to detransition.

So I reckon 10-15 years before we sit in safeguarding meetings following the statutory rules and regulations in place to safeguard errors in judgement and avoid irreversible affirmative care.

Datun, and that is why this needs to not be forgotten. They can wait for this to die down. But it most certainly won't be forgotten and it will be pursued long term until answers ARE given.

You make sense, red.

Especially

And the possible conflation of LGBT and abuse is a hot potato. If you run a story on 'potential' safeguarding issue, it becomes a risk that people read it as if someone failing a safeguarding check is a sexual predator (when the reality might be far from that). No one wants to risk vigilantism as a side effect of that.

Given the reaction of Peter Wanless, I doubt this problem is an isolated incident tho.

Isn't that what Lisa said? We have at least 2 decades of shit show fallout over child protection to come in wave after wave?

Remember no one wanted to go near the scandal with Asian grooming gangs and 'girls who deserved it' for a very long time?

It took twenty years from the first concerns raised by care home managers for the first group conviction to happen. Twenty years.

Remember no one wanted to go near the scandal with Asian grooming gangs and 'girls who deserved it' for a very long time?

Yes it's absolutely this.,

I don't know Datun. My feeling is it almost has to be 'the right kind' of child protection story.

Here you don't actually have any abuse happening. Safeguarding is a rather dull subject in its beaucratic and preventative form.

And the possible conflation of LGBT and abuse is a hot potato. If you run a story on 'potential' safeguarding issue, it becomes a risk that people read it as if someone failing a safeguarding check is a sexual predator (when the reality might be far from that). No one wants to risk vigilantism as a side effect of that.

Remember no one wanted to go near the scandal with Asian grooming gangs and 'girls who deserved it' for a very long time?

And now the subject is all too often used a dogwhistle and there isn't too much talk of how grooming gangs exist across the country and have different ethnic make ups according to area. The affected abused girls concerned even now aren't the focus.

This story might have some 'great visuals to accompany it', but 'is it the right story for our newspaper and its image and reputation' ?

Hope that makes sense.

Also, do you sell newspapers on the back of sexual abuse stories? There has to be a sexy (nasty pun fully intended) angle to make it work.

I would have thought even a side view of that photo would have been salacious enough to sell any newspaper.

Well, all of this is very depressing. I now don't feel happy with my child attending any NSPCC talks / initiatives or supporting any NSPCC fundraiser efforts. I'm not looking forward to any discussions with the Head about why I'm taking my child out for any NSPCC stuff (although it's probably better that he know, he would certainly not be ok with any of this either, the safeguarding at my child's school is very good).

They're not even close to following their own guidelines here. I can't believe they're defending this borderline criminal behaviour that breaches so many safeguarding rules it's unbelievable. The man made porn and put it on the internet and linked it to the NSPCC, which is a charity children might search for on the internet. Ugh.

So then anyone using LGBT as a shield for nefarious behaviour is absolutely bullet proof.

No journalist will bother with you, so no media reporting, public will remain oblivious and those that do cotton on will be shouted down by the popular woke voices.

As long as you can squeeze under the LGBT umbrella or make sure you’re an ally, you are teflon coated.

Here’s a very Last Century bit of heresy.

We could suggest the NSPCC employ only mothers as statistically they are far less likely to sexualise their role, bring their sexuality to work on a blazing truck of lights, behave sexually and inappropriately in the workplace and actually centre the safeguarding of children before any other concern of ego or penis.

I have been profoundly shocked this week. And I have been around the block a few times.

How are these people being defended? Is sexuality and sexual rights the sole focus of so many people in the media that the emperor is standing stark bollock naked and all the pointing people are being vilified instead?

And isn't there a GE on the horizon in the near future...?

Cos the Mass Media is about influencing voting and generating sales? Just speculating here but:

Being seen as LGBT friendly is seen as essential to winning votes by just about every party today.

And children don't vote. And you are less likely to if you've had a chaotic childhood, for various socio-economic reasons.

Also, do you sell newspapers on the back of sexual abuse stories? There has to be a sexy (nasty pun fully intended) angle to make it work.

Also. Lawyers are expensive. So you've got to offset the cost of any lawyers versus the income you might generate from clicks or paper sales.

Just catching up with the Bergdorf saga and I've had to start over several times as I can't quite believe what I'm reading.
I don't understand why this is not being dealt with by someone with the proper competence at NSPCC - why is it being left to whoever runs their Twitter account? What the hell is going on in that organisation - have they not read the Oxfam reports?
And all the current and ex Childline counsellors who are objecting to Bergdorf's 'sacking' and defending the employee who filmed himself wanking on NSPCC's premises - are they mad?

Here's Faiza Shaheen, Labour PPC for Chingford & Woodford Green:
"I used to be a volunteer Childline counsellor. So disappointed with your behaviour towards @ MunroeBergdorf Why would any child questioning their gender identity come to you now? A lot of work will needs to be done to rebuild the trust with the LGBTQ+ community."

I just cannot fathom this. There must be massive gaps in the safeguarding training given to Childline counsellors if they can't see the problem. It makes you wonder about the standard of counselling kids get when they call Childline about gender identity issues.
And are they just going to let the man who brings his kink to work have a 'dignified exit' so he can carry on working in the charity sector? Or ask him to 'stop or be a hell of a lot more discrete', like they did at Oxfam with employees who used prostitutes?
JFC.

Is the reason the MSM aren't interested that the story has already been broken on Twitter and here?

No, they had it ALL on Saturday before it hit SM.

Is the reason the MSM aren't interested that the story has already been broken on Twitter and here?
Genuine question

In otherwords don't try and help the NSPCC on contentious issues cos you could get left up shit creek because they don't do their homework or due diligence because they don't know how to use google or research on twitter.

Bravo.

Yet they have a whole policy about 'online safety' which none of their employees seem to be able to grasp that online safety includes checking out the people you as a protection agency are working with, and how setting up controversial debates might have the effect of backfiring - and in the process end up harming kids either directly or indirectly.

Protecting rights is all about a balancing act and an understanding of the delicate nature of this and how they are fragile.

I read an interesting thread on rights which was retweeted this morning (original from 2017). Its about terrorism, but one tweet in it was particularly striking and the point is relevant to all rights.

İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي @iyad_elbaghdadi
Second: Human rights doesn't mean "niceness" or "kindness" or "sit them down and tickle them until they confess". Human rights is a rigorous legal and moral paradigm, as well as a formidable legal structure.

Full thread for anyone who is interested. You can substitute the word terrorist for other words relating to rights such as bigots and the thread still holds relevance and good context

Thus I have to conclude that the NSPCC does not understand safeguarding and neither does it understand the concept of rights either. Or its responsibilities to anyone who goes near it in any capacity.

Unless they wank in a staff toilet and stick evidence of it online (which sails close to legal wind to put it mildly).

Does the charity exist for anyone but its own staff first?