Pro-porn Childline film encouraging kids to google BDSM etc

Sorry, I was not clear. I had been responding to this:

GoingThruTheMotions

However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.

It's not an either or situation though, is it? The signposting of types here actually guarantees exposure to those types

Yes, we get that.
If you cant see problems you cant respond to them. Even if you've had safeguarding training its never a bad idea to do a refresher, and to review the safeguarding procedures where you work.

GoingThruTheMotions

“However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.” (Written by Asuggar)

Absolutely. I too did not know many of these variations of porn and was especially confused by Swan dancing porn.

Of course children would look it up. Just think of those girls and some boys who love dancing. Think of the beauty of Swan Lake.
Now think of the horror of what they’ll find - immediately:

Without opening links I just found lots of porn sites look linked to Swan Lake.

Pointing the way to finding this- which in my opinion the video does- epitomises the meaning of corruption.

I mean I don't see any issues really with the video so.

Personally I find there's a vast difference in quality both of training received and the type of adults involved with children.
I have experience in primary, secondary and youth work. Very few primary colleagues are not up to scratch with child protection. I've come across the occasional TA with funny ideas, but they tend to be on the stricter lines anyway (like one ta who told me male teachers should not teach girls pe in ks1 and 2 because they might see them changing).
In secondary and especially youth work I have seen many red flags. Ranging from down with the kids naivety to really troubling stuff. I'm not saying you don't get dodgy people in primary, but they are definitely vetted better.

Because of Childline’s involvement?

The fast pace of this delivery means so much of the information is left simmering to pop up later.

This also makes it a fail for discussions as it mentions SO much that you cannot give it adequate attention in one session. So they are going to look it up for themselves.

Why do adults involved in the sex education of young children believe they need to be told in detail about different kinds of pornography? Adults working with vulnerable children shouldn't be desperate to be seen as cool. It creates an unhealthy dynamic.

If that's how you view child line then fine, however I wouldn't agree that they aren't a reliable charity and source of support for young people.

Considering the track history of the NSPCC over the past five years, and Childline is part of this, there is little credibility here.

Are you are willing to accept this despite your own misgivings because you believe that Childline is infallible?

^However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.^
It's not an either or situation though, is it? The signposting of types here actually guarantees exposure to those types, of course curiousity is going to mean they'll look it up. I'm a grown adult and I don't know the swan thing. The only thing stopping me from looking it up is the knowledge that no good can come from that. Children don't check their impulses in that way.
If as you say, "Children will look at porn anyway" then it's doubly important a clear message comes from adults not affirming nonsense.

Helleofabore- Thank you for your posts.

As someone who was from a dysfunctional family I understand the concern. However, I'd much rather a young person in that situation watch this then find dangerous pornography.
If the child has parents then it is their responsibility. If not then that's where youth workers, social workers, teachers and more can try to help.

From SSA Twitter

"WTF is Porn’ is aimed at young people, although there is no age specified. It tells children that “porn is great to watch” and gives impressionable and vulnerable children sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and racist porn categories to google, including:

Softcore, Hardcore Lesbian, Thespian, Interracial, Facial, Alternative, Conservative, Hentai, Far Cry, BDSM, NEDM, Amateur, Mature and Swan Disco.

This is despite the director of ChildLine at the time, Peter Liver, saying six days before this video was put up, that:

“children are telling us very clearly that [porn] is having a damaging and upsetting effect on them.”

Ffs.

I’ve worked with some very damaged kids- from families who have let young kids watch porn, mistreated and abused them in all manner of ways. The exact kids Childline and the NSPCC are for. Whilst I absolutely agree it’s up to parents to steer their children safely through the world what about the ones who don’t have safe homes? Saying “oh that kid shouldn’t have watched that” doesn’t really help a child with no boundaries in place does it? Schools and children’s charities have to pick up the pieces not encourage shit behaviour.

I've got friends who are youtubers who have done work like this and this is how the procedure goes. Especially with big organizations such as Childline.

I notice that none of the actual points of concern we have raised has been addressed.

Lots of distraction though.

Ahhh. I cross posted with Datun.

Yes, just another ‘event’ involving this and the main organization.

I have been involved in both sides, do you know that is how it worked? He had released this information?

However, history has shown us that even survivors can be involved in delivering the wrong messages.

They should always be listened to, and always be considered and their rights should definitely be upheld and strengthened (but never at the expense of other groups).

When a major advertising campaign or brand change is done, large organisations will generally do some testing to ensure the messaging is clear. That the person seeing the message doesn’t have a negative reaction.

This was a sponsorship deal, I doubt that it was scripted by experts in child safeguarding or sex education. Sponsorship deals (and not all but most) are where the content provider will use their own ‘voice’ to get the message across. It must be authentic to work for either of the parties involved. Sometimes, there is little involvement from the owner of the brand at all.

Having been on both sides of these deals, I would have serious doubts that this content was in fact put through any focus groups (or with any rigour), I doubt there would be the budget and it may not be done because it was a sponsorship deal not an advertisement.

And at board level, don’t assume that even the trustees have seen it beyond a quick review. They will be looking at top level results.

No. I don’t think an appeal to authority is going to convince me.

Particularly in light of the rubber suit issue of the umbrella organization. Where is the credibility that you are appealing to?

However he is sponsored by child line and as professionals they deemed his language to be appropriate.

They also hired a well known LGBT representative who poses for playboy and encouraged minors to contact them in DMs. The person responsible for this hiring decision filmed themself, at work, in a porn film and uploaded it to social media. Quite openly. And was defended by the NSPCC.

One reason, among many, that your appeal to authority, especially this 'authority' are misplaced.

It's quite simple how YouTube sponsorships work. They would have sent him a brief with a rough script, he would have filmed and edited. He would have sent that over. Any changes to language and the video itself would be sent over for him to refilm. This would happen over and over until done correctly and then it would be signed off and posted.