NSPCC and SSAUK

Those message boards . Children asking how to bind and being given crap advice and no warnings about long term impacts.

This social trend throws up a real conundrum for adults. Of course it's great that children are growing up more open about different sexualities with less homophobia. But amidst all the rainbow flag waving, adults seem to forget that these are children, many primary children and the majority too young to have sex lives.

There's a massive naivety about all this. 11 year olds should not be discussing sexuality with 16 years olds in LGBT groups in schools or binding breasts. 11 year olds should not be "coming out" as anything frankly. There's a massive element of social contagion going on here with adults standing back handwringing, not wishing to appear homophobic while their children are accessing some of the most unsuitable, unhinged and frankly dangerous adults in the world for "advice".
Where's the safeguarding? Where are the boundaries between adult behaviours and what's appropriate for children? Deciding and experimenting with your sexuality is a process. While I'm sure that much of this is harmless posturing there are so many very young naive children involved and with so many schools and parents failing to establish safeguarding dominated boundaries, these children are open to huge danger.

The fact that the NSPCC and Childline are oblivious to / uncaring about all this is terrifying in terms of child safety.

I am so grateful to SSAUK for applying actual safeguarding. The NSPCC and Childline are captured. The NSPCC horrendous definition of abuse should have been enough for the charities commission to have shut them down.

Posted too soon without the links

www.childline.org.uk/get-support/message-boards/boards/threads/?roomid=239

www.childline.org.uk/get-support/message-boards/boards/threads/?roomid=257

I'm so pleased that SSAUK are looking at Childline as I've spent the last hour horrified at the bollocks on that site. Kids are being groomed by each other as well as by the anything goes, queerness of Childline materials.

Their busiest message boards are the ones on sexuality and gender which are full of kids as young as 9 or 10 coming out as gender queer, asexual, pansexual, omnisexual, biroromantic, demisexual, polysexual etc etc. I can't find any kids that identify as plain old lesbian or gay

I really think they don't need 20 different letters about underage children thinking they have a porn addiction.

Indeed. It’s just all so horrendous...

That Childline search, where their Ask Sam feature says it's "perfectly normal" to be watching porn at age 7. Our poor kids.

There aren't even words.

Also - does anyone know if Ester Ranzen knows about this? I can’t imagine she is supportive.

Ester Rantzen has been little more than a figurehead at Childline for a very long time, she doesn’t now have the clout to challenge this stuff successfully. The NSPCC have had full control over Childline communications for around 14 years now so anything published under the Childline brand site with them - they really can’t pretend it’s not their responsibility.

The understanding of safeguarding at the NSPCC has been questionable for a while.

Here is a thread from 2019 about their definition of child abuse in their 'Stay Safe, Speak Out' program suggesting that it is only abuse if a child is "frightened or worried."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3611569-Is-NSPCC-school-guidance-for-kids-re-sexual-abuse-shifting-the-Overton-Window-Need-expert-advise-to-break-this-down#prettyPhoto

The program has clearly recently been refreshed as it talks about changes in schools from Covid but they are still using this terminology that a lot of us reported two years ago.

That Childline search, where their Ask Sam feature says it's "perfectly normal" to be watching porn at age 7. Our poor kids.

Just googled this - BLOODY HELL. How is this possible!!????

Has anyone complained - know how to complain? Also - does anyone know if Ester Ranzen knows about this? I can’t imagine she is supportive. I am old enough to remember when CL was set up and it was NOT for this. I imagine this will encapture the very vulnerable children CL was set up to supposedly help. Imagine those children with ‘questionable’ adults used as an euphemism for another word which will get me a strike referencing this - hey it’s all ok...

I wouldn't be surprised if that hideous video is quietly pulled or the endorsement from Childline is quietly removed. Then they'll pretend it never happened... That Childline search, where their Ask Sam feature says it's "perfectly normal" to be watching porn at age 7. Our poor kids. These supposed "children's charities" all sound more sinister by the day.

Thanks for sharing that update. And it is important to get the petition shared.

That response was such a non-response. If they were at all concerned, they would have asked for the video to be pulled. It doesn’t matter how old the video is. It still carries their endorsement.

Well dodgy!

Brilliant thread SSA! Here's to you and your endless determination.

Well done SSAUK. And I agree with Rabbit - for safeguarding charities to be so captured by lobby groups and porn advocates is depressing and frankly frightening.
The levels of denial are unbelievable.

I am so grateful for SSAUK - without them I'd know about a lot less about the dangers facing my children.

And in contrast to the NSPCC with their 1 million in salaries, the good women of SSAUK are doing all their work for free - and doing a lot more to safeguard children despite the mismatch in funding.

It is truly shocking to see them write off Childline's association with inappropriate content because it was made a few years ago. It remains on YouTube with their endorsement and has had 3 million+ views. As your thread shows other organisations are using it because they believe it to be endorsed by Childline. Children as young as 12 (indeed 7 based on the information in your thread) should not be being encouraged to view specialist porn and or be fed unscientific ideologically driven information about gender. I find it extremely depressing that safeguarding gatekeepers can't see how far they're going wrong with this.