Still Asleep at the Wheel: A Further Examination of Gender and Safeguarding in Schools - Policy Exchange

What 'other dad' are you talking about?

They'll have to, because they're breaking equality law.

How come you don't agree with Johnny in Jane's changing room, in one post, but then claim that the school do agree with it and won't change their mind - and you don't appear to see much wrong with that.

I’m not sure why you’re failing to understand that if a child claims their parents may be abusive, that is not a justification for a school to collude the the child to keep secrets from the parents on ANY topic.

There are proper protocols and support to cover these situations and they should be followed without exception.

If a child is proposing to self diagnose as ‘trans’ that is an issue that teachers are not qualified to deal with and they must refuse all changes requested on the back of that. Once it reaches the threshold that PP previously proposed it should be put through the prescribed channels the same as any other safeguarding issue.

The approach you are advocating for is what trans activist organisations were pushing for years and children have suffered harm.

Quoting as it is clear that there has been some deliberate twisting here

"the professionals should be very very afraid." is indeed not remotely like ""Be afraid of me". That general tone."

This is not a threat of violence.

It is a threat that the organisations and the people who have made the decisions that will be challenged in court should be concerned about their safeguarding failures being publicly discussed, analysed and exposed.

SSSiS said "professionals should be very very afraid".....in the context of a court case.

As in Jo Phoenix's case against the OU, when various academics were dragged sulkily onto the stand to admit under oath that they'd signed a letter without actually reading it, because that's what everyone else was doing. Damn straight people should be fearful of their professional reputation when they act like teenagers.

"Be afraid of me" is apparently to be rejected as violent when it actually doesn't convey violence but it does convey being taken to court and being exposed for making a flawed safeguarding decision.

Whereas, a man suggesting that bigots should be assaulted by splintering rolling pins is just colloquial banter?

There is some inconsistency here.

I agree TwoLoons.

Cecilia you are being actively unpleasant and picking on a poster. Please stop this.

To be clear, the school failed to inform him - and every other parent - that they required their teenage daughters to strip in front of teenage boys, to improve those boys mental health.

No safeguarding protocols were or are followed.

Would you like to clearly condemn that as you have been asked too or are the issues involved far too complicated?

This thread isn't about one man. It's about nationwide safeguarding failures in education.

Someone may well be a massive dickhead online and in real life, but that doesn't mean they can't query the law (via appropriate means).

I note in your earlier workplace example, you describe the girl as "lovely". Safeguarding applies to unlovely children too. As I say, you reveal much about yourself and your professionalism.

You are throwing down some fairly nasty accusations about someone that many of us have been interacting with for a substantial amount of time. Would you care to share links to these open discussions that other women on here are having? Because I seem to have missed them.

Maybe speak to some of the other GC women about this man.

"Be afraid of me". That general tone. Apparently its the kind of thing he resorts to when challenged by women. I see these men all the time. We have them in just about every powerful position. I know how they act when they speak to female professionals, too. They usually threaten the police, the law, social services for your kids, any sort of authority where white middle classed men rule, they will remind you that they are their friends.

Its a bit like Piers Morgan. Cathartic when he agrees with you, massive arsehole the rest of the time.

SingleSexSpacesInSchools has posted his correspondence with various authorities on his ongoing threads on this subject. You can check for yourself, but I saw nothing violent or toxic in the formal requests for clarity on safeguarding and the law with respect to changing rooms in his daughter's school.

His posts on Mumsnet are not relevant to the court case.

The other dad had a really good point too. His was about toilets even, but being able to use the toilet freely. I agree with him. What nobody agreed with is how he went about it, how he behaved towards staff and how he dismissed his daughter's worsening mental health in his quest to be right.

That is why his daughter ultimately distanced herself from him as soon as she knew she could without her mum getting in trouble.

Can we have an example of violent language please?

I think you’ve redefined this term without telling anyone.

where is the violent behaviour please?

Yes and you support them until they disagree with you and then you turn on them and threaten to collapse the whole case. Why? Because you don't really care about the issue. As I said, you were cited as an example of performative feminism. A man who does this to gain favour and power but really has no interest in the underlying issues or those affected by it.

No i think your language and behaviour is violent and toxic. Not your intention. Other women think that about you here, too. Its why I knew who you were right away. They discuss it openly.

The bee in the bonnet in this instance is a school wilfully breaking the law, impacting every single pupil. The parent has sought legal advice after all other avenues (polite, factual letter writing referencing the law and querying safeguarding and insurancy policies) have been exhausted. The child's anonymity has been maintained. No individual teachers have been named or confronted. Can you explain why you think this is aggressive?

Your posts certainly reveal alot about yourself, perhaps not in the way you envisage.

There's an article about this and other stuff on the same subject by Baroness Faulkner in the Telegraph

archive.ph/RGHdz

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/21/labours-dithering-is-putting-women-and-girls-at-risk/

The bit at the beginning about how unprepared Labour were when going into Government 😬

What he's tried to do is get the school to agree with him. They won't.

I think he sounds like the angry dad's that I protect children from all the time.

A couple.years ago I.worked with a lovely young girl who was school refusing, why? Becauae her father had a bee in his bonnet about something, embarrassed her in front of the whole school and was extremely aggressive to her female teachers.

He had 50/50 custody. We thankfully helped her and her mum get it changed so she was not expected to spend that time with him any more. He didnt give a shit about her schooling. He just wanted another medium where he could control and dominate.

Ate those parents who felt they should be informed when their children didnt trust them enough to feel comfortable disclosing to them?

This isnt an issue in homes where the child feels supported and trusts the adults around them. This happens when a child fears telling their parents because they find them at best unsupportive and at worst, abusive.

If your kids trust you, you won't be in this situation where professionals are deciding whether it is safe for you to know information about your kids.

Yes of course there are. Professionals make decisions that keep the child as safe and well as they can be. Those decisions aren't one size fits all. I use that phrase because that was the serious case reviews specifically said we should stop doing

You don't get it. I see why this man was referenced when I was talking about performative wokeness, white feminism and virtue signalling.

Coming in here with your toxic masculinity :D

There is no "but in some special circumstances some people are special enough to make decisions on a case-by-case basis" loophole in safeguarding. This is so fucking basic!

Thanks to all the grown-ups who have patiently explained this more politely than myself.