Latest nspcc schools guidance

Wow that is unreal.

If ever there was a clear answer to be given to something so very, very basic. That woman couldn't give one and should not be in that job.

The world is so broken.

Weaponised incompetence - yes - being used as a Trojan horse for other intentions.

What's the point of the NSPCC if they can't answer unambiguously and clearly on the point as to whether single sex changing rooms should apply to the supervising teacher/staff? Apart from anything else we now have KCSIE saying changing rooms over 11 have to be single sex, but it's not if the teacher isn't the same sex as those changing is it? Then it's mixed sex.

There was a phrase I'd seen used usually in relationship threads that I couldn't bring to mind. It was really annoying because to my mind it summed up all the 'waiting for this', 'waiting for that', 'oh, it's so-o-o-o complicated', we've heard since the FWS victory. What's actually being said is 'I don't want to do it!'<stamps foot>. Anyway I remembered it earlier, weaponised incompetence.

Fwiw, in response to a pp, undoubtedly some of the people who claim to have trans identities are unhappy that they're discovering they've been lied to by their allies. I think their allies should crack on with repairing the damage they've done by finally being truthful and finding workable accommodations for these niche lifestyles.

Schools standards Minister spluttering her way through an answerr....

https://x.com/MichelleDewbs/status/2099821577974005846

obviously the conversation is around the conduct
and integrity of the NSPCC as an organisation.

I get what you're saying, but it wasn't a statement it was an entire document.

Published for providing guidance.

If they don't feel able to publish robust , factual and unambiguous guidance, they shouldn't bother publishing it at all. It is not fit for purpose.

Then why issue ambiguous guidance to say that 'technically' it would be OK?

And then frantically backtrack, while sounding like a toddler caught with their hands in the biscuit tin when questioned, rather than say 'yes you're right that's not very clear we will amend that bit'?

Guidance is supposed to decrease ambiguity, not increase it! Its literally the only point of bothering to publish it. If its not doing that one job, the writer/publisher has monumentally failed.

I get what you are saying and it was my first thought too.

However I contrast their public response to being asked about the change (unclear, deflection, possibly untrue) with the way they responded personally, to me, when I've had to call them for advice on child protection (unequivocal, informative, I was told that if I gave identifying information to the call handler they would have to take action themselves).

Ok two different scenarios but also two very different approaches. The NSPCC that I would expect to see, based on my personal interaction with them, would have used the publicity of the response to reiterate safeguarding best practice.

They didn't do this because they can't. The charity sector is, IME, almost completely staffed by pronoun people. The person signing off the statement either believes or is too scared to look as if they don't believe.

This. It's not something that happens in reality - no male teacher would go into the female changing room unless there is an emergency situation. Any that would - that's dodgy. Also in my limited experience with my two - kids don't usually shower at school. My daughter never has and my son only does when it's rugby.

The same NSPCC who sacked someone for inappropriate conduct? Doesn't sound like it to me.

This is outrageous. But I'm really not sure why it's being blamed on trans people again when there's no actual evidence to suggest it's anything to do with them.

Quite possibly.

But its so ridiculous. Its rendered their 'guidance' utterly pointless.

Ambiguous interpretations of rules do no one any good.

Isn't there a saying something like:
Between what is meant and not said,
And said but not meant,
Most of love is lost

Substitute 'clarity' for 'love' and that about sums it up.

Someone posted upthread that it was likely they just couldn't bring themselves to change the word 'gender' to 'sex'. It stuck in their craw and they couldn't swallow it. Perhaps they hoped no-one would notice. All this obfuscation is an after the fact attempt to justify it.

Quite.

if they're so certain that they're innocent, then let's have the actual reason why the line was pulled. Who told you to, where's your workings out?

Thank you for this.

Interesting:

[The NSPCC] added that it was “categorically untrue” that the line had been taken out “as a result of external lobbying”.

I suspect it was actually internal lobbying. I note they did not touch on that point.

Their entire response reads like a "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" from a seven-year old bully in a playground. ("You said don't push the other kids over. I'm not. I'm pulling them. Pulling them over isn't pushing them over. You didn't say don't pull!)

Once the standing orders start to tail off they may see sense - decision makers in this debacle need naming and shaming!

I can see the attraction for schools, the NHS and care services etc in any policy that treats all staff (and service users) as interchangeable units for as many duties as possible, regardless of sex, because they all struggle with covering duties at all.

But I'd have thought bodies like the NSPCC should be taking the line that, yes, we know you are struggling and may have to improvise at times, but here is the best practice you should be aiming for wherever possible, and here are the absolute no-no's.
.

Yes, it's infuriating. I want the question to be what kind of guidance do you think you can use to make sure that men watch little girls get undressed.

It's their response that's the give away. You'd expect an "ooops" response or a "sorry, naive intern given the job".

Instead they obfuscate and claim they're waiting for more government guidance as they're unable to say that men shouldn't be supervising girls undress!

Very glad to see JKR has commented about this. They deserve maximum publicity.

Do they think everyone is stupid?
I've thought about this, and I'm afraid the answer is yes.

It's like fucking Schrodinger's guidance. Constantly there, and yet not there.

From the Daily Mail article:

But the NSPCC denied it had made the decision under pressure from trans activists and said it may consider changing the guidance again when there is more direction from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Ah...ye olde "we need more guidance after the guidance " tactic.

Do they think everyone is stupid?

Sunlight -

I’m just suspicious why they keep muddying the waters. Why clarity is eschewed in favour of vagueness and pointing at other documents and organisations. Why they inserted the wording into the presentations for primary age children (linked threads below -a few years ago) to imply that sexual abuse was only a problem if children were distressed or made uncomfortable by it.