AIBU to be shocked that the NSPCC cancelled their Facebook Live session with Mumsnetters, because they didn't like the questions? That they can't explain why they aren't putting children in danger?

[loveyouradvice]

I am reeling from this - Mumsnet promoted a Facebook Live for Thursday 12.30... to talk about keeping Kids safe from Abuse, and to publicise their PANTS and SpeakOut StaySafe campaigns.

NSPCC just didn't turn up - and only 4 hours later published a brief statement that said nothing!!!! So lots of people waiting for a no show.

It is fine for them to have the policies they have - IF THEY CAN EXPLAIN that they really are in all children's best interests and that they aren't putting girls at risk..... They haven't even tried to do that... Just ignored us and run. Ignored MUMSNET - which is full of people who raise or give money to the NSPCC, and who use it.

HOW??? I am bewildered beyond words.....

Oh ... and hopefully clicky link here of the questions Mumsnetters asked - really thoughtful cogent ones!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

But it is really unreasonable to have a concerted set of posters flood the entire set of questions with trans questions

But it wasn't "concerted" at all. I posted a set of questions quite early, off my own bat, not because there was some sinister behind the scenes orchestration.

There was nothing to stop anyone else posting questions with a different focus, and yet nobody 9or nearly nobody) did.

But it is really unreasonable to have a concerted set of posters flood the entire set of questions with trans questions and shuts down debate for anyone who might have wanted to discuss something else.

Nobody flooded the thread with questions and prevented anyone else from raising questions they wanted to ask. That's not how threads work. All Mumsnetters were able to submit questions and those were the questions that Mumsnetters submitted. If you were so concerned about other aspects of the NSPCC's work, you could have asked a question about it.

I also love how we are the ones that are "shutting down the debate" - from the movement that brought you the "no debate" slogan, no-platforming, threats and assaults against anyone wanting to discuss the issues, 'terf-blocker' to avoid hearing any opposing views etc

The entire thing was 'trans people are ebiL!!!' and 'trans ""WOMENZ"" are CHILD MOLESTORS!!""

Of course they shut it down. YA all BU.

NoSquirrels I do get what you are saying but on every thread I have been on with Rat, they have sea-lion-ed all over the shop.

Children have the right to say no, and adults have the right to hold charities to account if they intend to undermine that.

This. THIS

Having had a good look around I have failed to find a case of a man who dressed as a women to access female areas or abuse children

They don't have to dress as a woman under self ID. Google "man filming in toilets UK" or similar and see how many there are, thats just ones who were caught.. Do we need to make it easier for these people to access female spaces?

But here are some who bothered pretending to be women/transgender to commit their crimes

1

2

3

Child protection means that all loopholes are unacceptable.

You cannot campaign about telling children to speak up if they feel uncomfortable about anyone making them feel uncomfortable; and simultaneously telling those same children that certain men are women and to be trusted as such and that you are a bigot if you perceive them as being men (just because they are men) and that you must not mention it and just suck it up when boys and men say they are girls or women, when they are in your changing room.

Spit.

They don't have to dress as a woman under self ID. Google "man filming in toilets UK" or similar and see how many there are, thats just ones who were caught..

And then the press will either describe the perpetrator as a woman (as per their current guidelines) or just be vague about their sex, despite witnesses repeatedly referring to the offender as male while the person's carer took them to the female toilets, as per this case last month:

www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/702003/fife-teen-on-sex-offenders-register-after-supermarket-child-attacks/

I see no one has answered my question about David Challenor. Given everything we know about him, what do you think is his motivation for being so passionately in favour of self-ID?

The NSPCC is an utter disgrace and no longer fit for purpose.
There are far more effective charities who are more worthy of donations.

Yes I know there are trans women in prison but most of those were men when they committed their crimes.

Do you suppose they haven't had a thought or two about how continuing to be trans when they are released could be useful to them for further crimes?

I think I'm late to the party, but I get it. And I'm angry! I don't want penises or erections in my daughter's toilets and changing rooms at school. And shame on the NSPCC for not standing up for her rights. (Tho I never forgave them for not condemning the McCanns behaviour)

it is really unreasonable to have a concerted set of posters flood the entire set of questions with trans questions and shuts down debate for anyone who might have wanted to discuss something else.

MNHQ made clear that the questions to be answered would be those asked during the live webchat, with possibly a few from the thread.
In any case NSPCC, who are supposed to be into safeguarding, should have been able to cope.

"Ignored MUMSNET - which is full of people who raise or give money to the NSPCC, and who use it."

Don't the know who we are?

It's almost as if MN isn't as powerful as they like to think. Or that most people in the real world don't have an anti-male / trans vendetta.

Do you have any idea how much money MN users donate to the NSPCC? I bet you have none whatsoever.

ItsScoob, I've never seen any anti-trans posts on MN. I've seen many posts concerned with protecting women /girls spaces.

@tillytop

I have. Frequently. So have MN moderators as I have a long list of emails from them where I've reported posts and they've subsequently been deleted.

Often the posts stand for a day or two before being deleted so either you're infrequently reading threads or your choosing to ignore the anti-trans sentiment.

Slightly off topic but in the case where a ‘carer’ allowed a 17 year old Male into the the women’s toilets, did they not enable the assaults that took place?

I think there is a liability issue with the carer if they acted outside their organisations guidelines. If they acted within their organisations guidelines then there is a liability issue with the organisation.

I hope the parents of the girls are taking legal advice with regard to who to sue. People who assault children need to criminally prosecuted and jailed, those individuals and organisations who fail to protect children by inadequate safeguarding also need to be held to account.

The real scandal here is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of abused children are abused at the hands of their parents, family members or teachers, not trans bogeymen. And the opportunity to discuss that has been lost, because of people demanding that the NSPCC focus on trans

This . I have just come back from a place where I fully suspect that inter family abuse and such is a real issue .
And to see the thread hi jacked by trans issues when around the world far far worse things are happening via adults is very saddening

For shame, really?

Presumably there are fewer inconsistencies and gaping holes when it comes to their th inking on family abuse?

Nobody demanded the NSPCC concentrate on ‘trans’ people. They demanded that the NSPCC concentrated on closing loopholes that could enable children to be more vulnerable to abuse/predators to access children.

Their actual purpose is to PREVENT CRUELTY TO CHILDREN. This means they should be proactive, spot potential loopholes and shut them down.

The nspcc have made this an issue to talk to them about by having the stance they do on trans issues. I don’t like to say “they started it” but they did.
Protecting children’s boundaries and keeping predatory males from hurting children (who may be at risk through identifying as trans) is surely something a children’s charity should be encouraging - instead they have thrown us under the bus.
I stopped supporting them financially last week as a direct result of this lack of engagement

And to see the thread hi jacked by trans issues when around the world far far worse things are happening via adults is very saddening

Presumably you had exactly the same access to the thread, and to ask your own questions as anyone else?

Nobody hijacked anything. People who thought of concerns they have wrote stuff, other people with no concerns didn't.

Imagine being so much of a cunt, that you try to threaten and bully an organization such as NSPCC because at an event to discuss one thing aimed at helping children, they dont want to discuss somethingelse, that while related, is not the topic of discussion

Imagine being such a cunt that you cant see how telling children they can't say no might be somewhat dangerous to them.

IAmLurkacus Sun 02-Sep-18 22:16:04

And my follow up question to the NSPCC is ‘have you read that judgement? If not, why not? And if you have what changes, if any, have you made to policy as a result?

In your link the NSPCC should have read the judgement because the NSPCC is mentioned in it.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

from the link:

Transgender equality has received a great deal of attention in recent times. I believe that in this case the profile and sensitivity of the matters raised by the mother blinded a number of professionals from applying their training, skills and, it has to be said, common sense. They failed properly to investigate M's assertions, in part I suspect, because they did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high profile issue.