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

Yes, yet, you’re right.

You missed the bit where it was all a secret plan to sabotage the safety of thousands of children.

I'm only on a quick coffee break but weren't there cases recently of sex offenders who - because they identified as women - were released rather than jailed because the judges couldn't put them into a male prison - because they identified as women, and were not happy putting them into female jails because - well - they are sex offenders.

Notmyname. I agree it feels very unfair if someone who has had surgery and genuinely feel like they are a member of the opposite sex would have to use the facilities of their birth sex. They will be let down by the demedicalisation of the process that's being proposed. I am worried about the implications of allowing someone to change their legal sex on the basis of their own say-so (not a diagnosis or any gate keeping process). The detail of how this will effect previously single sex places for the v vulnerable eg a refuge or hostel needs to be thought through properly. That seems more concerning than Loos. And the normalisation of male bodies in previously female only spaces will impact on teenage girls like the poster above outlines (with the 12 yr old daughter). The nspcc need to be able to discuss that.

I think it was not jail but sex offender programmes, and there being none for women meant that men who identified as women didn't have to complete them.

Sotiredallthetime thanks for your post.

I'm not sure if you got round to this rat, so I'll do it on your behalf.

@MNHQ, did you put the NSPCC pre recorded video up anywhere yet? Thanks.

I think NSPCC are a bit busy at the emergency PR meeting trying to work out how they can emerge from this shit show looking ‘brave and stunning’. Oh to be a fly on that wall!

Yes I'm sure your right Lurk.

Do you think we can FOI the minutes?

Why on earth didn't the NSPCC just say, 'Look, we want to concentrate on PANTS this time. But we can do a separate web chat /whatever to discuss trans issues since we see there is such a lot of concern amongst your users.'

The more misplaced or unwarranted they felt that concern to be, the easier it should be for them to allay it.

So ...why not just do so?

I wonder why they didn’t just explain to us why our concerns were unfounded. It must be possible to explain.

Right?

The problem as I see it and almost everyone else, is that PANTS cannot be discussed in isolation. There is an OBVIOUS overlap with self id.

It has to be addressed and not ignored.

Re the case referred to previously on thread:

October 2016 Feminist Current article by Julian Vigo ( 'scholar, film-maker, and human rights consultant')
'When lobby groups like Mermaids dictate policy and discourse around gender identity, kids lose'

(extract)
"Last week, The Guardian reported that “a seven-year-old boy who was “living life entirely as a girl” has been removed from his mother’s care after a ruling by a high court judge. At first read, it was unclear who the actors in this case were aside from, obviously, the mother (M), the father (F), and child (J). The judgment of this case, which includes a critique of the section 37 report prepared by Social Services, which Justice Hayden describes as “very disturbing reading,” though, begins to clarify things.

Justice Hayden writes that J’s mother caused “significant emotional harm” to her child and critiques the local authority social services staff responsible for the youngster’s welfare.

He goes on to detail the acts of a controlling mother towards her child, M’s personal diagnosis of J’s alleged gender dysphoria, and a system which failed this child. Together, these various failures demonstrate a pattern of abuse and a mother who, Hayden writes, “deprived [her son] of his fundamental right to exercise his autonomy in its most basic way.”

What the judgment shows is that reports made by the Local Authority’s Housing Department, J’s school, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and Social Services gave M’s behaviour towards her child (including her approach to J’s “gender presentation”) a pass simply because she was receiving support from Mermaids, a UK-based charity that claims to support parents of children who identify as transgender. Observations like these show major conflicts of interest between Mermaids and the government agencies named in the judgement." (continues)

www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/26/lobby-groups-like-mermaids-dictate-policy-discourse-around-gender-identity-kids-lose/

It is also worth being aware of the challenge by Mermaids and some other prominant trans-rights groups and individuals to GIDs approach (NHS service) & specifically its lead, Dr Polly Carmichael. Some aspects of this were discussed in The Spectator article by James Kirkup May 2018,
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/21/boy-living-life-as-girl-removed-from-mothers-care-high-court-judge

There are certain inaccuracies to that feminist current article. I've read the judges report and it's my belief that the judge was directing their criticisms to the social workers involved. The school was praised for their safeguarding. NSPCC was contacted regarding the child and the harm it was coming to living with the mother - it's unclear the action it took.

I'm confused. The webchat was open to all Mumsnet users, advertised across the boards, and there were no rules on the type of questions that could be asked.

What's the conspiracy?

I don't think that anyone who didn't post a question themselves has a right to be angry about the type of questions that were asked. You had your chance, as did everyone else.

placemats I had some questions also. I know the judge made special mention in commending the appropriate actions made by school staff.

I think, the CAFCASS report though was highlighted for criticism?

I love the fact that people seem to think NSPCC will be shaking in their shoes because mumsnetters are unhappy. Mumsnet is just an internet forum - it really isn't that important.

We were perfectly happy before they ran away scared and refused to answer our questions, you are confusing cause and effect.

"Look, we want to concentrate on PANTS this time. But we can do a separate web chat /whatever to discuss trans issues since we see there is such a lot of concern amongst your users.'"

Because that would have brought the same level of angst that not doing it has and would have meant going along with a webchat where the anti trans lobby push there " Men will use it to abuse women and girls" agenda, when the actual number of instances is very low.

Put it this way, if you can find me 100 prisoners in the UK who are trans women in womens prisons who have committed offences, then you only have 0.1% of all prisoners. I bet you can't even find me 10 which would be 0.01%.

The ability to find evidence for men pretending to be women to commit sex attacks has already been shown.

But it would have descended into howls of frothing rage when the NSPCC when the NSPCC did not give the answers you wanted, and an even worse bit of PR.

I love the fact that people seem to think NSPCC will be shaking in their shoes because mumsnetters are unhappy. Mumsnet is just an internet forum - it really isn't that important

No totally. That's why none of the major advertisers in the UK bother with it and why the NSPCC didn't pay to do a webchat.

Put it this way, if you can find me 100 prisoners in the UK who are trans women in womens prisons who have committed offences, then you only have 0.1% of all prisoners. I bet you can't even find me 10 which would be 0.01%.

But any one of the sex offenders in prison can walk into a women's changing room if this continues. 100%. That's the point. Not whatever point you've made up.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/number-of-transgender-prisoners-rises-by-80-7stz2bfvl

fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

As of this year there were 125 trans prisoners in the U.K. 100 in Male prisons and 25 in women’s.

Stonewall are currently campaigning for all trans prisoners to be housed with prisoners of the sex corresponding to their acquired gender as part of their current ‘reforms to the GRC’ campaign.

Only one current trans prisoner is believed to be female-born (Gayle Newland).
The other 124 are male born.

40% of trans prisoners are sex offenders.

But any one of the sex offenders in prison can walk into a women's changing room if this continues. 100%. That's the point. Not whatever point you've made up.

Stop spreading this scaremongering nonsense. This is factually incorrect and you know it.

Every single prisoner in a women's prison is subject to a risk assessment. If they pose an undue risk to other inmates they are housed in specialist facilities. These facilities are all in male prisons.

So no. Not "any one of the sex offenders in prison". And at this point in the debate you really should know better than going around spreading those sorts of lies.

Clearly, at least one ‘risk assesment’ of this kind has failed:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44877856