Am I Reading This Right?... Rosie Duffield Throwing KJK Under The Bus?!

I agree that this hole in safeguarding has probably been put there deliberately. It goes against all common sense.

Yes. We know that paedophiles infiltrate positions where they have access to children. Why is not informing the parents not seen for the massive red flag it very well could be?

In general it seems that there is a culture of blaming the family when, especially once children get to secondary school, children spend a lot of time away from family. They get themselves to and from school, and spend time in school where we know there are unacceptable levels of rape and sexual assault.

Parents have limited control over the environments their children increasingly spend time in once children get to the tween/ teen years

This ted talk on contextual safeguarding is really important in this discussion I think:

www.ted.com/talks/carlene_firmin_contextual_safeguarding_re_writing_the_rules_of_child_protection

@CharlieParley excellent post.

So the data shows a 12 year old is more likely to be made pregnant / abused by someone outside her family which means the decision to not involve the family benefits whom, exactly?

Why the need to make these absolute statements? Especially when that doesn't align with the facts.

It simply isn't true for every abused girl that her parents are if not the perpetrators then at the very least condoning the abuse happening. My friend who was raped by strangers and so needed an abortion aged 13 had loving, supportive parents who'd never have condoned any abuse.

And if you look at the statistics into child sexual abuse, they show that the younger the child, the more likely it is that the perpetrators are family members, but in this age group (12 to 17) family members only account for a minority of the perpetrators.

Yes, the vast majority of perpetrators are known to the victim but that does not mean that therefore the vast majority must be family members. They are not. Which is why excluding the parents from safeguarding is likely to be more harmful to a 12-year-old girl than including them.

Surely in ANY case where other adults decide to not inform the parents and it is also not the case that the child has been removed from the parents (/ parental responsibilities removed) there should be an additional level of scrutiny?

Absolutely.

I think this anomaly in child protection is something that has come from the pedo lobby.

I think part of the problem is that Rosie Duffield seems to be so isolated within her own party that LRM's tweet threw her straight onto the defensive. I imagine that, if she'd paused for 30 seconds (and yes I know MPs are busy) she'd have surely noticed that the clip was part of a longer video.

But did any of Rosie's fellow Labour MPs support her or call out LRM's behaviour? Or did they all look the other way, leaving it to Karen Ingala Smith (who had her membership application turned down)?

I don't know how either RD or KJK deal with this kind of misrepresentation day after day. Their resilience is extraordinary.

LRM is not fit to be an MP and should be kept well away from any political decisions that involve women or children.

It's is a very sad state of affairs where violent men like LRM get away with extremely intimidating behaviour against women MPs in the House of Commons and it falls to other male MPs to individually take a stand rather than the HoC doing something. Shameful he's still in post after that.

Apart from anything else, by choosing not to inform parents you are actively making a choice to deny that child an important form of safeguarding. Why would you do that?

I would imagine the cases in which it's not in the child's best interest to inform the parents are vanishingly rare (and as said upthread should align very closely to cases where the child is removed from the parent and the parent loses parental responsibilities). How many times is a child denied support and safeguarding from the parents because other adults have decided to deny the child that support and safeguarding? Do we have any data on this?

Surely this choice and decision in and of itself is anti-safeguarding?

Surely in ANY case where other adults decide to not inform the parents and it is also not the case that the child has been removed from the parents (/ parental responsibilities removed) there should be an additional level of scrutiny?

If people who work at the NSPCC think that protecting children from sexual content is a sign that “everyone hates sex”, then what bloody hope is there. James Makings himself, like LRMs cousin was accessing fetish sites under age.

https://james-makings.com/2020/02/10/why-does-everyone-hate-sex/

I'm very suspicious when people advocate for young children to access any medical procedures without the parents being informed.

That seems like a very slippery slope to me.

Absolutely.

And that, I hope, we can ALL agree on!

I was just thinking about LRM and his speech re: schools teaching teens about auto asphyxiation while masturbating based on his (genuinely tragic and awful) 15 year old cousin’s death.

His argument was that children and teens are going to try things they see online, so schools should teach them about it to keep them safe, which surely has the unintended (?) affect of making niche sexual practices mainstream?

Yet he didn’t say anything regarding the prevention of children and teenagers from being exposed to dangerous BDSM themed porn underage (materials that are classified as 18+)

Even if you give the most generous interpretation of LRM’s comments by steel manning his argument and supposing that he wants schools to completely warn against all forms of sexual choking and put teens off ever trying it (which I don’t believe he was) surely an effective approach would have to be two pronged and prevent exposure to the adult content that glamorises it?

Why is LRM not outraged that his 15 year old cousin was accessing and copying BDSM pornography in his bedroom in the family home?
Surely even in 2020 that’s not average teenage boy behaviour - did an adult online groomer point him in that direction?

I’m starting to think all computers, routers and mobile phones should arrive in the box with the tightest content controls as standard, that way it will be up to parents to lesson the controls from the default, rather than the default being all users can access-everything unless parents turn the controls on

But yeah, LRM is not someone whose opinions any of us should give even the smallest of fucks about.

Yes shes spot on there

You do realise that doing so would breach the child's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, yes?

And you do realise that what you are asking for is a de facto cessation of safeguarding girls, yes?

We have boundaries to protect children. A 12-year-old girl who seeks an abortion is a girl who has been raped. She needs to be protected from her rapist, not given access to an abortion, no questions asked. That would be irresponsible and a clear failure to safeguard the child.

Here btw is the NSPCC on the issue of safeguarding girls in this context, showing that the correct application of the Fraser Guidelines requires a safeguarding assessment:

Fraser guidelines

The Fraser guidelines apply specifically to advice and treatment about contraception and sexual health. They may be used by a range of healthcare professionals working with under 16-year-olds, including doctors and nurse practitioners.

Following a legal ruling in 2006, Fraser guidelines can also be applied to advice and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and the termination of pregnancy (Axton v The Secretary of State for Health, 2006).

Using the Fraser guidelines

Practitioners using the Fraser guidelines should be satisfied of the following:

the young person cannot be persuaded to inform their parents or carers that they are seeking this advice or treatment (or to allow the practitioner to inform their parents or carers).

the young person understands the advice being given.

the young person's physical or mental health or both are likely to suffer unless they receive the advice or treatment.

it is in the young person's best interests to receive the advice, treatment or both without their parents' or carers' consent.

the young person is very likely to continue having sex with or without contraceptive treatment.

(Gillick v West Norfolk, 1985)

Child protection concerns

When using Fraser guidelines for issues relating to sexual health, you should always consider any potential child protection concerns:

Underage sexual activity is a possible indicator of child sexual exploitation and children who have been groomed may not realise they are being abused.

Sexual activity with a child under 13 should always result in a child protection referral.

If a young person presents repeatedly about sexually transmitted infections or the termination of pregnancy this may be an indicator of child sexual abuse or exploitation.

You should always consider any previous concerns that may have been raised about the young person and explore whether there are any factors that may present a risk to their safety and wellbeing.

You must always share child protection concerns with the relevant agencies, even if a child or young person asks you not to.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#article-top

HTH

And he has got some bloody gall pretending he gives a shit about a women’s right to choose when he is arguing to keep parents out of the child safeguarding loop.

Karen Ingala Smith nails it.

I’m always amazed (yet not surprised) how sneaky, clever and determined paedos and other sex predators can be.
Sure, some are pure opportunists but many spend their whole lives getting into positions where they can access children, or better yet, where they can make all children everywhere easier to access. The artificial adultification of children (by arguing they have bodily autonomy despite not yet having the maturity to consent) of ‘queering’ boundaries between childhood and adulthood is all part of it.

@EndlessTea ‘s recent thread on charitable orgs in Scotland is a great example.

Some people involved aren’t sinister themselves, just useful idiots for sinister people - but it all results in the same thing, harmed children.
if people call me right wing for pointing this out a) I don’t actually give a fuck because I won’t stop pointing anyway and b) they are handing an easy win to the right by allowing the right wing to frame child safeguarding as a party political issue when it shouldn’t be one.

Every adult of all political persuasions, any religious beliefs (or none), of either sex, any age and any sexual orientation should be able to agree that the health, safety and general well-being of children is a top priority for society. For all societies.

As Lisa Muggeridge said (paraphrasing!) if your identity gets in the way of proper safeguarding practice then it’s your identity that’s the problem, not the safeguarding.

That identity can be anything, including ‘left wing’ and looking at the way the Greens and the Lib Dems reacted to the Challoners it’s not a stretch to say that a ‘progressive left wing identity’ can create a massive fucking blind spot.
Ditto the nonsense coming from Labour (especially in Wales) and obvs the SNP (who aren’t officially a left wing party but have enacted or tried to enact authoritarian left policies and nationalism seems to me to be a form of IDPOL anyway?)

Plenty of right wing nonces about too, obvs, but they don’t seem to benefit from the blind spot that left wing nonces currently operate in (historically the right wing paedos have benefitted from the class system, either by abusing children lower down the pecking order who won’t be believed or by exploiting posh institutional structures eg boarding schools).

I'm also totally shocked that the wellbeing of children is being used for a political football to try and smear KJK.

Why are politicians focused on this one adult human female and not talking about safeguarding kids which would be a much better use of their time? I actually think it's a huge dereliction of duty for MPs to even be discussing KJKs views (except if they were to serve as a starting point for a much needed discussion about safeguarding underage children).

It's terrifying - safeguarding is catastrophically destroyed in this country. I'm sure individual schools are still doing it well / their best, but any determined groomer can apparently get around all the supposed safeguards in place and bloody idiotic MPs are enabling them with this shit.

Exactly. If the parents aren’t considered safe enough to know what’s going on with their tween/teen then don’t just keep it a secret leaving the child to cope alone in the unsafe home environment - call social services!

I'm also shocked that politicians are so stupid about this.

Parents have legal responsibility for their children - they MUST be informed or they cannot fulfil these responsibilities. If they are unfit, their legal responsibilities should be removed for the good of the child.

We need Lisa Muggeridge.

I am actually shocked this isn't in law at the moment.

If a child needs safeguarding the parents SHOULD and MUST be part of that conversation UNLESS parental responsibility is removed.

The authorities, GPs, SS, the school need to be held accountable. If they think parents are harming a child to the extent they should not be informed about the pill / an abortion then logically they must also think that child is unsafe in their home and should be removed.

I don't actually see any grey area at all here.

If parents aren't informed these people should be prosecuted for their failure to act in the child's best interests and safeguard appropriately

If parental responsiblity is not being removed, they should be part of the conversation, anything else is a safeguarding failure. Safeguarding is meant to be a shared endeavour and if you're hiding relevant information about safeguarding (and a child going on the pill is definitely that) from one of the parties with greatest responsibility for safeguarding, you are making it impossible for them to safeguard appropriately.

So much this.

See also: gender transitioning kids at school and not telling the parents.

I’ve found that search doesn’t return anything if there is any extra or missed capitalisation- it’s got to be a direct replica of the username.

Dunno if that helps at all?

This is so important. It is so important to help families to function in a healthy way rather than just assuming parents are incapable of learning and understanding.

OP is a regular poster.

did you check there isn’t a space after the name when you search?

Even if she lies, social services can be involved and she has a much better chance of being protected from abuse than if the GP unquestioningly dishes out contraception and abortion referrals for children.