It's an AIBU but it belongs here - Stonewall

*So this group, posting out binders to children, was in breach?

'MORF*

@ArabellaScott
Yes if they held data without parental consent. Looking at the MORF site just now it says You CANNOT order a binder if you are under 18

Okay, thanks.

So this group, posting out binders to children, was in breach?

'MORF is based at the Manchester headquarters of the LGBT Foundation which has received close to £1.2 million from the Department of Health and a £500,000 grant from The Big Lottery Fund.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6450485/Trans-activists-send-free-breast-binders-13-year-olds.html

[quote ArabellaScott]As far as I can tell, you can't hold or process a child's data without parental consent?

gdpr-info.eu/art-8-gdpr/[/quote]
Yes. for a child under 16 they can't do it without parental responsibility consent

Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

Thank you FindTheTruth. We need to point this out to Stonewall then. Makes me so angry- here we are, trying to make massive organisations, keep to the Law of the land!

According to The information commissioners office (ICO), in their Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Children:

Where the child is below the age of 16 years, such processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that consent is given or authorised by the holder of parental responsibility over the child.

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/children-and-the-gdpr/

Sorry, to clarify, by 'bad enough' I mean 'difficult enough to do correctly'. When they brought in the GDPR everyone panicked about keeping names and phone numbers of adult customers.

This stuff is bad enough for adults, let alone children, let alone sensitive personal information of children.

I know relatively nothign about the subject but I can see that it needs to be handled carefully. I would expect a youth group or youth worker to have at least a cursory understanding of the issues involved.

Do you think it's just about Allison or is the Stonewall tweet partly about discrediting the court action going on?

As far as I can tell, you can't hold or process a child's data without parental consent?

gdpr-info.eu/art-8-gdpr/

How will this personal, sensitive information be stored? Secured? Will it be shared? The GDPR is relevant, surely?

I don't know anything about law, but I expect it's a data protection minefield, too: www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1436

They're not registered as a charity, so the Charity Commission is out.

It looks like they're not registered as anything, although they claim to be in the process of applying fro a CIC. (They've been claiming this since at least June - how long does it take?).

They had a company with the same name but it was dissolved.

twitter.com/millar_marion/status/1303415076569964544

We need to start letting the charity commission know, every single time these groups break safeguarding rules.

Maybe we should report this survey to the NSPCC. Oh, wait...

Seriously, though, is there anyone we could report this to?

That form could have been taken straight from an exercise highlighting what sort of information you shouldn't give out to strangers online. Imagine though if an LGBT child stumbles across it from a retweet on Stonewall/Mermaids - that's enough of an endorsement in their eyes to no doubt consider it legit.

Why can't those lobby groups do some fucking safeguarding training - everyone else working anywhere near children does. Honestly it's like they think they're somehow exempt or above it.

This.

[quote ArabellaScott]This?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/supervision-of-activity-with-children[/quote]
interesting link though it's for Schools, colleges and children's services. ... started reading 'The National action plan to tackle child abuse linked to faith or belief'

This?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/supervision-of-activity-with-children

I bet Owen Jones doesn't realise he is effectively endorsing an organisation which invited 12 year olds, along with adults, to privately DM them in return for payment and then told people who had concerns about this to 'suck your mum'

They know now. They know more than enough.

We really need to stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt all the time. In fact the more we try and warn them the more they double down and associate with even more of thse groups just to prove a point

Owen Jones has rted. Good. The more people that hear about this the better- I haven't reported it because I don't actually know to whom that would go. There's not much info on the group, don't know if they're a registered charity or anything?

This is a pretty straightforward safeguarding issue
and
I'm wondering if this is something the could be reported to CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection command)?

I'm curious what the law is and what can be done.

Out of interest...

• 1) has anyone here reported this to anyone?

• 2) has anyone reported it to the CEOP? - looking at it I'm not sure if it's the right avenue or not www.ceop.police.uk/safety-centre/

• 3) does anyone know if this is illegal?

• 4) if it's not illegal, then this feels like a campaign / petition that needs to happen. . . or is there a petition already?

• 5) what are your thoughts on a campaign to stop govt funded organisations retweeting (endorsing) messages to children, by persons unknown, telling them to share private information and photos ?

I bet Owen Jones doesn't realise he is effectively endorsing an organisation which invited 12 year olds, along with adults, to privately DM them in return for payment and then told people who had concerns about this to 'suck your mum'.

Yep, they have taken Allison Bailey's tweet and totally twisted it to make a 'look how bigoted these people are' hashtag.

Even Owen Jones has retweeted it, presumably without looking into it. Twat.

Of course being trans "is a thing"
What it isn't is a reason to take safeguarding protections away from a child. It's unbelievable the amount of times they (Stonewall, Mermaids etc) attempt this.

The charity commission recently issued a regulatory alert about safeguarding, because a large charity (RNIB) hadn't properly reviewed or followed its own safeguarding policy & procedures.

Just wondering if it may be worth raising a concern with them.