Latest nspcc schools guidance

Another thought. Given that KCSIE and other school guidance is now explicit about no mixed sex changing, showering, dormitories etc. No teaching that GI is a fact etc, why on earth are the NSPCC even raising the possibility that the EHRC guidance might want men watching girls undress? It makes no sense.

Unless of course they're still taking instructions from the trans lobby who, as we see daily demonstrated, are working very hard to wedge men back into where they're not allowed?

Is the EHRC consulting on whether male teachers should be allowed to watch girls undressing in changing rooms? I've not read every section but am certain that if they were proposing this, those who have read it all, would have raised it as a massive red flag. So why the NSPCC believes they must wait in case a rule allowing predatory men access is a result of the consultation makes no sense.

But removing that section is very telling. Plus the fact that they're whining rather than simply confirming that the NSPCC is very clear that no man, no matter how he self identifies, should ever be in changing rooms where girls are undressing. It says a lot about how their view of safeguarding children has been weakened by their pandering to the powerful trans cult.

Stop saying men can be women - this is simply untrue.

This is worth restating in response to the ‘don’t read the Daily Mail’ scolding on this post today.

The NSPCC used to understand clarify in language was important.

Women have discovered that unless something is explicitly excluded activists will use that ambiguity to prise away those rights and safeguards.

All the NSPCC had to do was change the word ‘gender’ to ‘sex’. Instead when that removal was highlighted by women they’ve whined, blamed others, said ‘it’s not fair’ and obscured the truth. That’s a lot of effort when reinstating a single sentence with the word ‘sex’ instead of ‘gender’ would have resolved the issue.

Rightly or wrongly as soon as you remove a stated restriction you are considered to be allowing it. It’s regarded differently to if you’d never had a stated restriction.

NSPCC are in a position of responsibility and authority for child safeguarding. We must be able to highlight when we think they have got it wrong, particularly when there’s a fear they may have been influenced by individuals or organisations that want to see reduced child safeguarding measures.

Stop reading the Daily Mail - this is simply untrue.

www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2026/false-media-report-supervision/

Safeguarding needs to be clear, if the NSPCC can't be clear on single sex spaces and the law they should be disbanded.

I would say that the NSPCC should have a strong safeguarding culture, and they clearly don't. Which makes them not fit for purpose.

Their response to rubber wanker man, who IIRC advertised online that he worked at NSPCC, presumably as he identified this as part of the attraction of his homemade porn videos made in NSPCC toilets. This will have attracted exactly the people the NSPCC is supposedly set up to stop.

The fact their social media team then blocked people reporting safeguarding concerns shows a fundamental failure to have an appropriate safeguarding culture. Ofsted would downgrade them very severely on this if they were a school.

Their response here is more of the same. Equivocation about what other people have said and the meaning of words, rather than a clear line on safeguarding is not a good safeguarding culture.

And that's before we even get to the suggestion that if a young child doesn't personally feel they are being abused (because they've been psychologically manipulated by their abuser) then they're not being abused fiasco.

I don't know why anyone takes the NSPCC seriously. They've been issuing all sorts of nonsensical guidance since the Soham murders (and probably before, but that was the first time I noticed). They think everyone 's a child abuser (except if they're a male in charge of female children, apparently),

She seems like an enabler to me. We have no room for cowards when it comes to protecting children. She should resign and let someone else take charge of the situation, someone who has a backbone.

She knows - she's a Mum, certainly has a child as she mentioned men changing her child's nappy at nursery. (not sure why she thought that was a good idea following all the paedophile scandals involving men in nurseries but.)

She's scared. Children don't have a vote but the bullies wedged into the labour party, civil service, unions not only have a vote but are capable of making the lives of any woman politician failing to pander to the trans cult very difficult.

I'm not defending her cowardice - just pointing ot that she knows who has power and evidently isn't prepared to find the courage to say what every responsible adult knows.

Because it isn't explicitly spelled out in part of the NSPCC's guidance that even a Government Minister can't/won't say that men should not be supervising girls, says everything about the necessity of absolute clarity.

I've just watched that Minister for School Standards video again above. It's hard to take in that she cannot give the answer of NO.

She falls all over her words and is smiling. She say's she doesn't know the full details, yet was given the very heart of the matter twice by the presenter.

What are these people actually doing other than opening the door for all manner of perversions? How could she not give a total NO to that question. Evil.

I think that’s a fair argument - however I think that you are saying this is what the NSPCC should be saying and I completely agree with you…

my point was more aimed at those who were saying inaccurately the NSPCC said xyz when technically they didn’t

I think your approach is far more robust because claiming that they said something they didn’t technically say gives them an out - they can (as they have) just say… we didn’t say that…

whereas your approach is hard to argue and puts them on the spot far more accurately

I I think we would both like the same outcome!

Thank you - I take you point - but disagree. I understand the issues of "being clean" but having been involved in fighting this for over a decade, being compelled to be polite and kind got us nowhere.
It's only since we've been allowed to use accurate language and to be clear about what's happening that things have started to shift.

I have personally worked alongside NSPCC colleagues for a considerable length of time in an LA and had great respect for their professionalism and skills. Their capitulation to the porn and trans lobbies has been very disappointing.
It's actually them who need to use super - clean language with no ah buttery.
"Our only priority is child safety and we can confirm that there's no place for men watching girls undress. In the light of the fact that puberty starts earlier, we'll be amending our advice to ensure that girls over the age of 8/9 are also similarly safeguarded".

It's actually very easy rather than whining that the DfE hasn't explicitly said that men shouldn't be watching girls undress in schools and sport.

I am not disagreeing with that - and of course my views align...

but I think that from a fairness point of view that there has been a bit of jumping on them implying that they were saying that opposite sex can supervise - whereas

• they didn't say that explicitly
• at worst they omitted any comment in the main document leading to implications
• at best (and their argument) they specifically state only same sex in their parallel document - which is linked from the first document...

It is also slightly tricky in that as a country we don't ban opposite sex supervision for younger children - I think there would be a general agreement on here that perhaps KCSIE guidelines are a little high in their age cut off at 11 as girls esp. can already be developing several years ahead of that - perhaps the '8 year old' boundary used in taking children into changing rooms would be more appropriate, but as it currently stands a man can supervise girls up to 11 changing (one assumes / hopes outer clothes, not swimming type changing etc.). I trained as a teacher over 30 years ago, and even then I was uncomfortable with school approaches of even yrs 5&6 (which I taught) all changing together, and kids still doing some sport in underwear etc. - so I instigated different and more modest approaches - but the fact remains that in principle a male teacher was able to be supervising boys and girls to age 11.

So while I agree it could have been more positively stated in both documents - especially as it is a current topic of contention and one which is important to establish as same sex for safeguarding / reducing risk / etc. - I think there is a bit too much castigation for something they omitted in one place and confirmed elsewhere, and at no point actually posted the opposite...

I think it is important that we see our discussions / reasoning / arguments from the GC perspective as being super-clean in terms of lack of bias etc. and this smacks a little as being a witch-hunt where I am not sure that it is entirely justified...

It's fair to point out that an organisation that in the past has trashed their reputation for prioritising safeguarding children, in favour of the interests of porn soaked men, needs to be crystal clear that men shouldn't be supervising girls undressing. The fact that they were unable to be clear, to state that of course girls are entitled to privacy from men, is the problem

If they wanted to comment on age, they could have done. The access that transactivists / dodgy men have to girls undressing relies on obfuscation of language, limiting safeguarding and making everything difficult and unclear.

The NSPCC have one job - and it's not about enabling male access to undressing girls. That shouldn't be difficult for them to clearly state.

I would suggest in the interests of absolute clarity- as you’d expect from such a body- they issue a statement PDQ saying, “Bugger, that doesn’t read as unequivocally as we thought. We’ll put that right immediately!”.

Not, “Fake news, that’s not what we said at all, stop being mean.”

I am not sure that is a fair view...

As I understand it

• they removed a line saying 'of the same gender' (hurrah - that was clearly wrong and needed to be removed).
• They didn't replace it with 'of the same sex' (shame, would have been clearer)
• but the new version does specifically link to their sports changing guidance
• their sports changing guidance specifically says 'of the same sex'

I posted all this above...

Technically this is a stronger statement than the KCSIE which talks about adults supervising children changing over the age of 11 (i.e. secondary school).

There are certainly primary schools which have historically (and still?) had children changing for PE in the classroom - and that would include boys with a female teacher or girls with a male teacher. Considered normal - and while many schools now have children come in wearing PE kit - not all will...

So the NSPCC guidance seems to be stricter in terms of same sex than KCSIE if they are not dividing practice by age.

That statement is very disingenuous.

They've issued new guidance which had the line about supervising teachers must be the same sex removed. There is a clear inference to be made from the removal of this line- it wasn't an accident!

Its like the 'accidental' defamatory Amnesty report - it didn't spawn from the ether, someone commissioned it, someone else wrote it, yet more people edited it, signed off on it and published it. These were conscious decisions, just like the removal of that line in the NSPCC guidance was a conscious decision.

When challenged and handed the opportunity to clarify, they've double down (about whether males can observe female children changing) and bleated about waiting for government guidance.

They're the so called experts but they can't even bring themselves to state that of course, the supervising teacher must be the same sex to protect both the children and the teacher because what kind of idiot would think it was ok to do otherwise.

As a pp said, their explanation just sounds like kids in the playground moaning that they aren't 'pushing other kids over' (they're pulling them instead). "Technically we didn't say that" - yes but nonetheless you clearly communicated that you don't have a problem with it.

Our briefing for schools reflects government guidance which is currently unclear on this issue. Our briefing does not say adults of the opposite sex should supervise children changing.

But it doesn't say they shouldn't and, despite being self identified experts in child safeguarding, we need the Government to hold our hands for this one. Except we don't, apparently, because of the advice in the Sports Guidance. So wtf we're being so inconsistent and pigheaded about this must be because of the lols!

The nspcc has decided that men should be allowed to watch girls get changed for pe ...

No, they haven't.

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2026/false-media-report-supervision/

Oh, I agree, Aston. NSPCC bosses should have their feet put to the fire to explain, as should Amnesty. And in the meantime, other people, mostly women and children, suffer. It's a shitshow.

Ikwym, but real people (women and children) do suffer because of the lack of clarity and lack of leadership from these organisations.

You only have to read all the threads on these boards about schools fucking up their responsibility to provide single sex spaces and responsible, compliant lessons (not out source them to activists). Real kids have been indoctrinated and harmed.

Its like Amnesty. Yes they used to be great but now they're a broken mess and not fit for purpose. They can't keep on trading on what they used to achieve, back when they weren't shit!

I was in Lidl earlier, and noticed that they have a tie-up with the NSPCC on a 'give a small amount of shrapnel to charity at the check-out campaign. Hit Yes or No'. Googling for a bit, there was quite a lot about 'charity partners' and so on. All very modish, but on the other hand, would I want to see the NSPCC's income take a sharp dip? Real people would suffer.