Latest nspcc schools guidance

I am one of those teachers. I am very angry today. I have e-mailed a letter of complaint.

Fucking, fucking bastards.

They just cannot bring themselves to say sex can they thus explicitly excluding transwomen. I absolutely think they should be forced to do so.

Agree it all sounds pretty shady.

I know several male teachers (including my husband) and none of them would ever be alone with a lone pupil in a room with a closed door - this is to protect them from any allegations and to ensure the children are comfortable. It is what they are told to do. Given that its common to take such basic steps for a much lower risk scenario, I can't imagine any male teacher saying 'fine, I'll supervise the girls showering'! The 'Miss Titwank' TiM 'all girls together' scenario is the one that could most likely be a problem.

I absolutely agree that the NSPCC shouldn't be muddying the water like this and that if its a mistake or oversight, why wouldn't they simply say so?

Me too. It seems pretty shady to me.

If it's just a cock up, and they meant to either put sex instead of gender, or are assuming people will rely on their guidance in other documents, why did they say this

The NSPCC said it had made the change after a similar recommendation was removed from Department for Education (DfE) guidance that was updated this summer. But the DfE denied this last night and said no such recommendation was removed.

I realise they're not being specific, but the problem is why not? Why say we've changed it, because other people changed it, without saying what the change means?

Not to mention the fact that the DfE deny any such change anyway.

To me it looks like deflection, and all on a par with claiming people objecting to a fetishist filming porn in their office is homophobic.

It doesn't say that, does it?

I've (quickly) read the nspcc, sex matters and the SM letter. It appears that the guidance used to say 'same gender' and rather than changing 'gender' to 'sex' they have removed it entirely.

'Gender' means Sex to most people, and Gender Identity to some. I agree it was a problematic use of the word and should have been changed to Sex rather than leaving it out altogether but I don't see where the nspcc are saying that men or tw can supervise girls.

Have I missed it? Please quote the section.

For absence of doubt I 100% believe men and boys should be nowhere near women in girls in toilets and changing rooms. But the TRAs are forever making up accusations like this and it makes them easy to discredit, we should not do the same.

I've always been suspicious of NSPCC since they employed a man who filmed pornography in their toilets, linked it to his accounts online and then blocked people alerting them to this behaviour.

Suggests not very good safeguarding tbh from a children's charity.

except for the fact that they link to the sports guidance which is very much sex specific... maybe they feel that it is sufficient to have it in one place - though I agree it would be clearer and beyond doubt to reinforce the statement in the main guidance as well...

surely had they been wanting to be vague / etc. then the sports guidance would also have been changed?

however the guidance has in fact removed references to same-gender, just not replaced it with same sex - so while less specific, it doesn't appear to be promoting opposite sex supervision...

You think so. In which case they'd go, 'Oops! My bad!' and fix it. Which doesn't seem to be happening. What I think we have here from the NSPCC is an attempt at plausible deniability.

Is there some confusion over this - when I first read the news, it appeared to be vague to allow for a 'trans-woman' (man) to be in boys changing rooms / 'trans-man' (woman) to be in girl's changing rooms...

this would sit comfortably with the same sex approach that is appropriate...

however the guidance has in fact removed references to same-gender, just not replaced it with same sex - so while less specific, it doesn't appear to be promoting opposite sex supervision...

if you look at the NSPCC sports 'safe use of changing facilities' briefing document it is clear that where there are adults in a changing room with children there shoul always be at least two adults - of the same sex as the children...
https://sport.nspcc.org.uk/media/kvgaekrh/safe-use-of-changing-facilities-and-toilets-v2.pdf

it also says this
Consider the following:
• sex – it’s considered good practice to ensure that children are supervised by staff or volunteers of the same sex while changing

that all seems to be as I would want it to be...

have I just missed something - I appreciate that the omission of specific guidance in the first document can be seen as not ideal - but it is an improvement on the 2024 version - the document also does link to the sport document where sex is clearly stated as the basis for supervision...

and presumably they can't go counter to KCSIE anyway where it is specific that children over 11 should not undress in front of adults of the opposite sex.

so - am slightly confused by the concerns being raised...

I'm waiting for their response, and then will cancel my monthly donation to them if it is not satisfactory. Such a shame after 20 years of donations.

Yes, agree, Predators have infiltrated - they need to be shut down. At this point with 'guidance' such as this, I'm fairly sure they're causing more harm than they're preventing. All the money going to them would be better spent elsewhere.

NSPCC should be stripped of their safeguarding responsibilities for this. They are not fit for purpose.

One of my Dd's recently said to me 'we got told in school to call this number (some NSPCC helpline) to speak to someone if we needed to, but why on earth would I call a COMPLETE STRANGER and talk to them? That seems a REALLY bad idea, and what they're always advising us NOT to do when online gaming or whatever'.

I could not help but vehemently agree with her, and feel a smidgen of pride too. I confirmed to her that talking to any random stranger on the internet or phone is never really a good idea unless it's the very last resort - talking to a trusted adult in real life is far better.

And yes, the good men always go out of their way not to end up alone with any girls.

I can't believe anything this obviously fucking stupid and a gift to paedophiles is an accident - it's clearly deliberate, everyone who works for NSPCC who was involved with this needs their hard drive checking, frankly.

I guess I just can’t understand what’s going through their minds.

I doubt they’ve forgotten.

It’s like they’ve forgotten what men are like.

Absolutely - and it's promoted from the very top of all these organisations.
.
The DfE and Ofsted have in recent years had to roll back on their transactivist influenced policies - including safeguarding!
There's currently a major problem with the EHRC issuing "technical guidance" for schools which is based on the insane (but apparently legally accurate) belief that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment can apply to children of any age. And it's written in activist speak with no reference to the legal primacy of safeguarding guidance.

The tactics of bullying and intimidation have successfully persuaded countless organisations like the NSPCC to openly enable predatory behaviour in the interests of "inclusion" - along with grooming children into believing that sex change is a great option to cure their pubertal angst.

As soon as small steps are taken to safeguard children, these powerful lobbies step in to reverse things.

They infiltrated years ago. I'm worried by them saying they haven't taken advice from 3rd parties as this shows, to me at least, that the infiltrators' work has been successful (in their terms) and the NSPCC now has this ideology so thoroughly embedded throughout that they churn this stuff out unaided.

I was that child who could hardly bear to change even in front of other girls (thanks to major body and bullying issues), and games lessons were occasions of genuine terror for me. Just the thought-experiment that male teachers might have been allowed in the changing room watching me struggle desperately in and out of my kit is truly the stuff of nightmares. There must still be girls like me these days.

Shocking and shameful.

there are prominent transactivists in the higher reaches of many organisations that work with child safeguarding: the police, social services, counselling organisations. It’s getting better, but not quickly enough. Terrifying because the general public assume a level of complete reliability when it comes to an organisation such as the NSPCC. An assumption that basic child safeguarding will inform every single thing they do. Alas, they’ve been sucked into activist agendas.

Found a thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3611569-Is-NSPCC-school-guidance-for-kids-re-sexual-abuse-shifting-the-Overton-Window-Need-expert-advise-to-break-this-down?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

The post:

To me the most worrying thing is that the definition of child sex abuse has been quietly changed so it now refers to something which "upsets" the child. The whole point of grooming is that the child may not seem upset (at least, not at the time).
Why hasn't this made the news? I don't know. I'm afraid it may be the same reason that Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and the Catholic Church did not make the news. Many people knew it is wrong, and talked about it, but it did not make the news.

The wording change is referenced here but I can’t find a thread about it or the actual wording. It seems the plan was to go into primary schools and give assemblies about it!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3611447-Potential-Systemic-Safeguarding-failures-in-NSPCC-Childline-illustrated-by-appointment-ending-of-relationship-with-Munroe-Bergdorf-Thread-2?reply=87948017?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Thanks, Datun. I couldn't remember the details, only that there had been a rubber clad wanker at the NSPCC. And Ereshkigalangcleg: Munroe Bergdorf! So much wrong with the NSPCC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48643467 recruited by Makings the Rubberman