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

Placemats yes that was one of the quotes from the link:

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

That I felt was particularly pertinent:

The picture of J's life now emerging from his home with his father also lends context to the concerns expressed by school A. The Mother dismisses those concerns high handedly… 'they were Roman Catholics'. By this she meant that the staff were religiously or culturally opposed to gender dysphoria or unreceptive to it in some way. Surprisingly, as I have set out above, this rather crass cultural and religious stereotyping appears to have been accepted as a satisfactory explanation by the social worker undertaking the s.37 inquiry. Not only is the Local Authority's response unsatisfactory it is also discriminatory. The School's concerns, referred to the Social Services, were well reasoned, thought through and an impressive example of appropriate safeguarding.

And:

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.

Topcat,

The issue is one of safeguarding. Safeguarding is set in place to prevent abuse or further abuse from happening. It's not supposed to be a stable doors approach.

"That is, in fact, what is happening."

Really so boys just say "I'm a girl" and the school accepts that?

Reported here by the people that post repeatedly on trans threads, anecdotal evidence from people with an agenda?

Yeah right.

O"h, well, that's ok then if you say it'll only happen infrequently hmm"

Yes, infrequently, so infrequently that it doesn't even register in single digits in the percentages of sex crimes committed, but in the 0.00 digits.

Yet was enough of an issue for the mumsnet anti trans mob to attack a children's charity?

Pathetic and vacuous.

On what planet are questions an attack?

Really so boys just say "I'm a girl" and the school accepts that?

Yes. The advice given is to affirm the child's identity

@topcat1980

What do you think about David Challenor? Why do you think he was so invested in campaigning for self id? Do you not think there is a teeny tiny chance that he would have exploited it?

Jess Bradley? Telling women that they are bigoted for having concerns about males in female spaces, whilst carrying out the exact sort of behaviour that women are concerned about. What toilet should Jess use?

Do you know anything about the lengths men will go in order to access vulnerable people to abuse, the risks they will take? Do you really think that in a culture of 'self id' some men won't take advantage? Or do you think that we should just do away with sex segregated spaces altogether?

Yet was enough of an issue for the mumsnet anti trans mob to attack a children's charity?

Asking questions is not an 'attack'. Just like saying men aren't women isn't 'violence'.

In the UK there is no way that a sex crime, which was perpetrated by a transwoman would be reported as anything as such

Yeah, right. WTF is this then?
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-caught-extreme-animal-porn-13399570

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.

@IAmLurkacus

There will rightly be questions asked of the agencies involved in supporting the young person (17) who sexually assaulted the two girls (aged 10 & 12) in women's toilets in supermarkets.
There may well (should?) be a serious case review.
There are two areas of focus: the two young girls who have been seriously assaulted & also the care of the young person convicted (whose solicitor described has had social care involvement from an early age)
There should also be examination of policies / decisions which are relevent. If as the newspaper report implies, the young person is male but does not identify as a man, these would include any tran-inclusive and trans-affirming policies etc.
relevent thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3324578-Vunerabilities-of-Looked-After-Children-Social-Work-CP-restricted-by-affirmation-requirement-Trans-Youth-in-Care-Toolkit

This is not all directed at you actual, but yours is the last similar post ive seen

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. YABVU

1st post was 4.50 ish on the Tuesday...4/5 posts

The rest of the posts came over Wednesday morning...by page 2 people were beginning to realise that the thread had been removed and that the NSPCC weren't turning up

The post had been up for a week before ANYONE posted

People are allowed to be concerned about whatever they want, they were not flooding and obviously nobody else wanted to debate anything else

Or they would have posted on the thread

It would have been very very easy for mumsnet or the NSPCC to say 'very sorry we are here specifically to discuss the PANTS safeguarding but we would be hapoy to set up another chat at another date' (and then not bother) but they didnt

Pauline long was charged and jailed for sex attacks as a woman. Was originally reported with no mention of their transgender status either.

Apologies

Should really have said that not all posts were on the one subject...most yes, but not all

What about the "women" who stamped on that poor man in the tube station (I think) not so long ago. Definitely reported as women attacking...

Oh away with you, Rufus and your rational facts. There were people throwing things on that thread. Prams and, er, packets of pom bears and everything. The violence was terrifying.

For those who claim that our concerns about self-ID opening up a planet sized loophole for offenders are totally unfounded have obviously not seen this morning's news:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-online-sex-threat-80000-people-children-national-crime-agency-a8519606.html

From the article, this stood out: “One officer I met, who had previously worked in counter-terrorism for over 20 years, told me how in all his years of working he’s never been so shocked by the scale of the threat or the determination of the offenders as he is in his current job.”

Do those of you who object to us banging on about self-ID really, really believe that none of these 80,000 men would claim to be a transwomen just to get access to a child. Hmmm.

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

No it wasnt

Im not rereading the entire thread by it had been pulled before there was even a hint of this....one post could be construed as this.

If there is a webchat I want to engage with, I don't know about anyone else but I don't even read the thread. I just ask my question. I couldn't generally tell you what other people have asked - I just skim for the answered questions afterwards. So other posts are pretty irrelevent.

In the UK there is no way that a sex crime, which was perpetrated by a transwoman would be reported as anything as such.

Lol. You would think wouldn't you.

Back in the topsy turvy world of 2018 though...that is exactly what is happening.

gender

Its really beginning to irritate me

And the funniest thing is that some posters have accused some GC posters of needing tinfoil hats

And then conspiracy theories abound on here

Thanks @R0wantrees for the response. And thanks for all your other informative posts and links.

I also suspect that there will be an SCR in the Challenor case. What happens in cases where the findings and ‘lessons learnt’ from an SCR need to be public domain but a victims anonymity could be damaged by that?

And no one has answered my question I see. Which was about the pants rule.

Have you actually read anybody the guidance for schools wrt this issue topcat?

The issue on MN is that people will just suddenly identify as trans in order to exploit self ID to abuse people.

Its so unlikely and will happen so infrequently you might as well be afraid of zombies

Look at it the other way round - people who wish to abuse or exploit other people will look for any way to do it.
Everyone is aware that there are people like that. Do you think they just won't bother to stroll into toilets and changing rooms as it becomes acceptable for them to do so (and they won't even be required to make any change to their appearance, never mind a legal declaration)?

Do you think they just won't bother to stroll into toilets and changing rooms as it becomes acceptable for them to do so?

There are definitely no men out there who would behave in such an ungentlemanly fashion. Absolutely none. This article about how dangerous unisex loos are is clearly all lies and doesn't support that idea at all.

In the UK there is no way that a sex crime, which was perpetrated by a transwoman would be reported as anything as such.

Not sure what you are trying to say here (because it sounds like you are agreeing with us and I can't imagine from your posts that that is the case!). To clarify, these are the UK press guidelines:

Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story. (see www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/#Discrimination )

Therefore, the details of the trans status of a male individual who has committed a sex crime is not revealed in reporting unless it can be shown to be 'genuinely relevant' (which seems to be interpreted very tightly).

Take as an example Jasmine Hill - All the original reporting about the crimes describe them as a woman. The fact that identifying as woman was central to the crime isn't seen as sufficient reason to reveal that they are trans/physically male e.g.:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-posed-teenage-girl-facebook-9759228

It was only revealed that Jasmine was a transwoman (ie a male who identifies as being a woman) when Jasmine made up allegations of being raped in a men's prison in order to strengthen their case for being moved to a women's prison (because there was no other way of explaining why they were in a men's prison without mentioning that they were trans):

metro.co.uk/2018/02/21/trans-woman-jasmine-hill-lied-raped-mens-prison-child-abuse-sentencing-7329420/

In most cases, this information is never revealed and it is just recorded that more and more women are committing horrific sex offences.

Try transcrimeuk.com for a whole website devoted to crimes committed by trans people in the uk. You an search by crime type as well, so can search for sex crimes.

The reason this website EXISTS is because there is no data being collected by police or cps and many of the crimes are recorded as being committed by females.