100 organisations ask Labour to abandon Tory revised guidelines on RSHE

I'm sure you deliberately misrepresent me.
I find it hilarious that you are so anti "the left" that you would interpret those charities signing a letter as because they are anti-Conservatives rather than genuinely concerned. It is rather a niche interpretation.

A cursory read of what various charities say would show they have good reasons for signing that letter. I agree with them. As there is no longer a Conservative government it seems unlikely they doing it for party political reasons.

That's a common feature of trans activists - they always discuss children by referring to adults. Their complete lack of understanding or care about children's wellbeing and rights is so clear.

Just wanted to add that I first noticed maybe 5/6 years ago that certain organisations began referring to my child as 'my young person'. My experience was with a local autism charity and our local CAMHS centre. My child was 14 at this time. It never felt quite right but I was desperately seeking help and thought as these were the experts it must be right. They did not regard her as a child and encouraged me to treat her as a young person. This as a parent never did sit well.

Discussing internet safety with children can be done in a completely non-explicit way.

Children have smartphones, you can discuss turning off air-drop from unknown (Apple should have this disabled by default, if it isn't already), set social media profiles to be private etc.

Not sure why there is this desire to teach all children explicit content just because a minority may have already experienced it.

And @CassieMaddox FYI year 10 children are 14/15 years old so not legal age for sex. I thought you would be aware of this have teenage boys and all that.

Thank you for this @LilyBartsHatShop:
"And I had to tell myself to stop it and just accept that the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite their rigidity, are interested in seeking truth and doing good and are capable of learning, too".

Life, experience, working with different people, being a parent, living in a community, all teach us that common values are shared by people with different beliefs, political views etc. There's a frustrating level of toddler thinking prevalent at the moment where "left = good & right = bad " Frantically trying to pigeon hole people in order to dismiss their valid opinions.

It's uninformed childish thinking and while I'm sure we've all had that feeling on occasions, allowing it to influence how we safeguard children really is unforgivable.

Just say thanks to pp in last few posts bringing some sensitivity and better insight to this.

@ResisterOfTwaddleRex "Anyway, I think this letter is like that. Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did."
I must admit, something like that did occur to me as I was reading the EVAW site.
Almost like, as conservative organisations and individuals come to see the truth of the points about domestic violence and child sexual abuse that only feminists were making in the 70s and 80s, people who strongly identify as progressive feminists feel like they need to assert something that conservatives won't be able to agree with. So, "we need to talk to nine year old children about anal sex otherwise any abuse they suffer is on your hands" doesn't feel like bonkers off the rails stuff, it resonates emotionally because they know conservatives will say, "no way."
I had an experience like that nursing a woman on a psych ward who was in an abusive relationship. "It's ok," she said to me, "I've read what I need to do to take care of myself on the Jehovah's Witness website." I felt physically sick and went to look at jw.org imagining I'd feel like a good cry and a shower afterwards. The information for women in abusive marriages was actually good. And, for believers, obviously brilliant because it was in a psycho-socio-spiritual package that was meaningful to them. I had a really strong reaction, a voice in my head started saying, Well, it's not /that/ good advice... And I had to tell myself to stop it and just accept that the Jehovah's Witnesses, despite their rigidity, are interested in seeking truth and doing good and are capable of learning, too.

The right approach with this very challenging situation is to ensure that people can speak openly and tease out the issues.
That women / parents can discuss issues without being told "Massive amount of pearl clutching going on, under the pretext of "the children".
That the nuanced issues around the ages that children can cope with different information can be discussed without organisations with no direct experience of teaching SRE in mainstream schools weighing in and insisting that they know better.
That the principle of working in partnership with parents that's embedded into our legislation since the 1989 Children Act is restored.
That the bad faith actors who spend their time promoting the view that parents are right wing, transphobic, homophobic bigots that children need protection from are educated about the dreadful outcomes for children alienated from their families.

None of the above will remove the presence or influence of the porn industry / fetish promoting organisations. But it will restore the balance in terms of influence, where the views of those who love, care for and know their children are elevated above the bullying ignorance of the online mob.

Organisations whose core purpose is part of the established safeguarding framework (NSPCC, IWF) opposing measures to safeguard children is not "hilarious". They are indulging in P/politics at the expense of keeping children safe. That is not funny.

While I'm at it, you don't respond to a poster saying she's found something triggering or upsetting by encouraging her to read more of the kind of thing that's upset her. Cassie you really know nothing about safeguarding, the law, or trauma-informed work. You've proved it over and over. You don't need to keep showing us how little you know. We get it. We believe your knowledge and insight here, is zero.

Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did
Hilarious. Not everything is about politics.

I think its actually because the current RHSE approach was only implemented in 2020 and the new proposals are not evidence led but are a set of edicts from central government.

The conversation about what girls get sent online is helpful. What is your suggestion to support the large number of girls sent pictures of erections? Ban smart phones until they are 16 then expect them to deal with it?

For context it's impossible to get mental health support for children unless they are actively suicidal via the NHS.

I'm sorry you've been triggered by it

If you read the paper, they are talking about the fact that 75% of 14 year old girls have been sent these kinds of images/video's () And how to educate in that context.

I totally agree with what you are saying but don't know what the right approach would be in today's world. If it is not mentioned, any sex education will seem irrelevant and out of touch. If it is, there is a risk of retraumatising.

I know 😓
But I'm basing my comments on having worked extensively with the NSPCC & their social workers in their statutory safeguarding role.

And remembering that they did eventually come to their senses and dismiss that creep.

Was going to say. The fish rots from the head.

The NSPCC?

https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-barrister-forces-charity-commission-probe-nspcc-over-workplace-porn-shoot

I agree @MrsOvertonsWindow. And the added danger of organisations like the NSPCC being led astray by powerful lobbies and not asking too many questions, is that they in turn are trusted by the wider public and other organisations. If the NSPCC is saying XYZ is okay, or ABC is bad, then there are plenty of people will take their word for it - after all, they should know best right?

Then the people who have delved deeper or who have resisted or challenged the lobby groups start to sound like conspiracy theorists and it’s harder for them to make their voices heard. Until we have something like Cass which comes along, having done a deep dive, and tells us all the truth. But by that point, children have been harmed.

It’s all very depressing. Hopefully the government sticks with this consultation and doesn’t make any rash decisions about this. Caution should be front and centre here.

Such a good point. Of course the NSPCC doesn't believe that adults should be talking to young children about porn, anal sex etc. They know the law only too well yet are influenced by powerful lobby groups who started with the bullying mantra #nodebate and have continued using those tactics.

That's why it's frustrating at the lack of enquiry by the media in exposing who these people are leading the demands to remove age boundaries, remove safeguarding from children. Just as close scrutiny of Mermaids exposed not only serious data breaches but it exposed the presence of adults with sexual interests that made them completely unsuitable to work with children. We need this to happen with some of the other organisations / individuals campaigning to remove safeguarding. The information is out there (despite the attempts to scrub it from google).

If charities / organisations are incapable of stepping away from the influence of the trans / porn lobby to the extent that children's needs come second, then they're also unfit for purpose.

Yes, I can see this isn't the direction the thread has taken, but what leapt out at me was the sight of 100 organisations - some of whom, I imagine, have a vested interest in the outcome - attempting to go over the heads of everyone who had contributed.

I've always regarded these kinds of consultations as an opportunity for 'ordinary' people on all sides of the argument to have their say. I didn't respond to this one because I don't have anything to do schools any more and didn't think I knew enough. But I've completed them in the past and know how much time and effort they take. If I had gone to all that trouble and then seen these organisations attempt use their leverage to override my contribution, I'd have been furious.

But as you say, I'd have quite possibly never found out.

It sounds dodgy as hell.

(Edited for typos)

I was reflecting on a conversation I'd had with a colleague about Cass. This person is very far from stupid, but brushed Cass off as something "anti-trans" only done by the Tories who had ulterior motives. The specifics of the conversation were about the 3month temp PB ban. I pointed out the evidence issues and so on. He could see this but wouldn't budge. It was a polite conversation but frustrating because I could see he understood it but was choosing not to.

Anyway, I think this letter is like that. Some of these organisations' opposition can only really be explained by an irrational opposition to anything the Tories did. I can't believe that EVAW, Rape Crisis, Refuge, the IWF, White Ribbon, NSPCC, Barnardo's (the list is too, too long) don't think this approach is wrong. They think they have to posture. This is where child safeguarding has broken down and must be fixed. They're all putting children's needs at different stages of development last, before their own "needs" to puff up their chests and have a go at something which will help keep children safe.

Defund the lot of them.

I don't think you're missing anything. There's a massive amount of ignorance from those who've never taught whole classes of children sex ed. Many of these organisations who pride themselves on "working with young people" are in fact working with often self selecting groups or maybe referred by other agencies and often teenagers .
A class of children of any age (maybe 30 of them) will have a range of social, emotional, learning and other needs. They'll be at varying levels of maturity with different knowledge, beliefs and experience. Teaching them about our bodies, differences, peer relationships, consent etc is (relatively) straightforward. Once you start introducing intimate sexual relationships (by law reserved for adults), abuse, porn etc then all these factors and many more come into play. Children receive and interpret the same information differently and it's ignorant in the extreme for activists of any type to assume that school classrooms are the place for discussions of challenging adult sexual issues (remembering that these people are objecting to guidance on what is age appropriate).

I've often said that sex ed in schools should be "conservative" with a small c for this very reason - sometimes we can inadvertently traumatise children who are not emotionally ready for information about sexually abusive behaviour. There's a reason one of the categories in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for a person to intentionally cause or incite a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.

Parents and teachers must be allowed to discuss age boundaries for SRE and it's disappointing to see these organisations displaying such ignorance at the behest of adults and organisations who openly campaign to remove safeguarding boundaries for children.

Thanks for this post. You have articulated well and sensitively why this is re traumatising

I’m surprised at the lack of consideration in a few of the posts over content so it’s good to see it explained.

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/government-rshe-proposals-would-harm-children-by-limiting-vital-education/

• A failure to take a preventative approach. RSHE is the cornerstone of work to prevent violence against women and girls. The government’s proposed age restrictions come with a caveat: teachers can address ‘prohibited’ subjects with younger students if an incident has taken place. Waiting until after the harm is done violates children’s rights to a safe childhood free from abuse.

This is so far from where we're at in Australia, I'm confused about what's going on here.
https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/01_2023/final-1ap-fact-sheet.pdf
Here's a fairly breif fact sheet about our National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children (if you follow the link in the PDF there's lots and lots more detail online).
The education system gets one mention in the fact sheet: "All parties under Safe and Supported will also collaborate with a broad range of policy and programs areas (e.g. health, education) to achieve outcomes that cross over with these areas, including the following 10-Year Outcome."
Australia is usually pretty close to the UK on social policy. Why the enormous discrepancy here?
Are EVAW just being hyperbolic? Irresponsible, but understandable if they really believe the new guidelines are bad.
I don't understand the strange claims that keep coming up again and again in Mumsnet discussions of SRE in schools, that education is the number one tool (magic bullet, even) in protecting kids from abuse. And now a big, respectable organisation is making the same claim? My opinion is there's next to nothing that can be done in a school classroom to prevent child abuse that's happening outside that classroom (Lots can be done to prevent abuse happening in the classroom, which the National Framework is really good on, but school education of any kind is not really a tool for preventing or responding to other instances of child abuse).
What am I missing?

I've been kept awake thinking about this and I know it's not always a good idea to post when I've been so obviously triggered, but maybe it will help to share from my perspective what is so misguided about what that paper reports was done with girls in high school class rooms.
I've had a fair amount to do with peer support groups for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and there are some really important ground rules for making them beneficial and not retraumatising. (Following list is by no means exhaustive).
~ It must be really clear that the group is an environment where people will be talking about CSA and everyone attending must have freely chosen to be there with that understanding (not the case for a school class that students attend routinely, not of their own choosing).
~ You never prompt an attendee to share.
~ You never prompt and attendee for more information. Asking "how old was he?" or "what exactly was in the video?" is inappropriate in a group setting. Asking someone who has just disclosed to a group they were a victim of CSA, "What do you think motivated him to do it?" is so off the scale re-abusive I struggle to understand how this was allowed to happen.
Best case scenario, Sexplain do not consider a 14 year old girl being sent a photo of a penis or a video of a male person masturbating to be an incident of CSA. They're treating it like the rough and tumble of dating in the twenty first century, and these children like adults.

Worst case scenario, I think questions like, "What was their motivation in sending it" suggest that the person running the group got kicks from making girls re-experience their abuse.
Either way, they're dangerous, and STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM KIDS.

Eh? So you're telling me everything I experienced at school was false?

S28 was still in operation under Blair's government and we had 3rd parties come in to do various part of sex education.