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

Schlesinger. Omg. What is wrong with people men?

Shrodinger!

That's shocking and extremely disturbing. This man was allowed to use unwilling women as props in his fetish and those who complained were told to put up with it. Wtf is going on in canada?

A non mail link:

www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-university-accused-of-failing-to-take-action-against-student-with-strange-sexual-fetish-1.3680529

Good grief!

I was just going to come on and say that DM article reads a little bit like the 'Muslims want to ban Christmas' type articles, but having had a Google, it does seem to be true!

God forbid the university be accused of "kink shaming". Much better to allow the women to be sexually harrassed

This line always makes me

On two occasions the man is alleged to have asked the university's nurse to change his dirty diapers, although she refused the second time

So the nurse did it the first time he asked?

I like putting a photo of you in a nappy, with a dirty nappy, in an English essay.

So PoMo I think it would literally break the PoMo Dirty Novel into a thousand pieces.

@SpiritedLondon I am asking this with respect as I've seen that you work in this area and might therefore have an interesting viewpoint considering I also work in a related area....I'm not bashing anyone. :)

If the majority of abuse happens in a family setting (total agreement here as do the stats) then can the claim of trans people being attacked in single sex area e.g. M-F in M areas be discounted or in your opinion is the number of occurrences of this type of abuse higher than e.g. F in M&F areas? What is your opinion on the outcome - would disabled/unisex toilets and areas be an answer or do you support trans people in single sex spaces?

Genuinely interested in the answer - thanks!

Please don't blame the nurse for this. She was probably frightened of losing her employment.

Please don't blame the nurse for this. She was probably frightened of losing her employment

I'm not blaming the nurse at all. I'm horrified that she felt she had to do this, even if only once.

It is horrific to think a woman had to change a man's nappy, in a university, because the law says she has to.

The whole thing is non consensual though.

It has to be fake news. despite two links

Sorry Itsall I misread.

The whole thing is non consensual though

That's the thing. Aimee is into that sort of thing but (I very much hope) it is entirely consensual. I think it's a bit weird, and not what floats my boat, but what goes on between consenting adults isn't really anyone elses business.

But when, as this bloke did, you try and involve other people non-consensually, or,.like Aimee may have done, you use your position in a way to make flaunting your kink in public easier, well I have a big problem with that.

Please don't blame the nurse for this. She was probably frightened of losing her employment.

Exactly. An adult health professional, with presumably a lot of experience in dealing with people in very difficult circumstances, felt unable to object. What chance do children have.

A lot of these institutions and charities need new leadership. With new leaders it would be easier to move away from the mistakes of the past.

Plus I think people harnessed by perverts at work should be able to sue. It's really crazy anyone should put up with this shit.

It’s frightening to see how many links / facts etc are just brushed off as ‘transphobia’ from supposedly educated people who work in safeguarding. I’ve just read the whole thread, with endless links, statistics, concerns from professionals and yet some people still don’t get it. Open you eyes! Read the links.
And the nspcc should be hanging their heads in shame over this

I've just seen that prominent Green Party transactivist David/Baloo/Lucy Challenor submitted an FOI request in 2013 to find out which specific local schools had hard to reach (ie vulnerable) children placed in them:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hard_to_place_school_admission_p

That's the David Challenor who did this:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/coventry-captive-girl-attic-torture-den-david-challenor-coventry-a8502991.html

And was also involved in scouts, loads of voluntary work with kids and actively promoting gender self-ID while trying to silence any women who raised any safeguarding concerns about it through 'terfblocker'. Anyone want to hazard a guess about his motives here?

If the posters on MN are ‘anti trans’ as opposed to ‘women with a shit ton knowledge of safeguarding who can see another Savile/Rotherham scandal coming if loopholes aren’t closed’ then it would be in the best interests of everybody including vulnerable children and transsexuals if an NSPCC rep came on here and Clearly explained why there aren’t loopholes open to exploitation. They haven’t done that because there are loopholes and they bloody well know it!

Quite.

I find it utterly terrifying that the NSPCC refuse to answer questions about child safeguarding. I get that its awkward to talk about the self ID issue, but if the NSPCC will not even think through the issues, who on earth will? Just members on here, who continue to be named bigots for caring? Its ridiculous. And if the NSPCC truly have thought through the issues and came to the conclusion that there are no concerns, it would surely be possible to tell us how they arrived at that conclusion?!

Also many of the questions specifically referenced PANTS and such. Yet still all were deemed off topic basically, because they weren't nice and fluffy and easy to answer? Reminds me a bit of Corbyns webchat on here not too long ago, avoiding anything even slightly challenging.

@loverly

I've been thinking about your question and I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking but I'll reply with some general viewpoints. I should say I no longer work in child protection - after 7 years I no longer felt able to deal with the emotional demands, particularly of hearing first hand accounts of abuse and viewing images. I don't particularly have any recent experience of LGBT issues although I have investigated hate crimes -against members of this community ( a number of years ago). I have no experience of either trans child victims or trans suspects as part of my CP work. I stopped reading this thread as I found the tone of many posts to be rude /hostile - and quite frankly I've dealt with enough of that in my life. So in any event some general thoughts which I hope answer your question:

• the majority of abuse ( of all kinds) is committed in a family setting by someone known to the victim. Sexual abuse is obviously one of four types of abuse that are included in the overall figures.
• secondary to family based abuse is abuse by adults in a position of trust - teachers, coaches, scout leaders etc. Not every allegation against this group is regarding sexual offending - I have dealt with physical abuse allegations by a tennis coach for example.
• offenders with sexual interest in children will most definitely manoeuvre themselves into positions where they have access to children ( since grooming is a fairly common aspect of the MO) *'the number of attacks by strangers in a " predatory" manner is low in comparison to the 2 categories above.
• I would consider that a trans person is vulnerable to attack and hate crime more than a child is at risk from someone dressed as another gender ( which is not the same as saying it does not happen)
• I don't have strong views about access to toilets etc but I cannot see how someone who is in transition can be expected to use facilities based on their birth gender if their outward appearance is different. So a woman from birth who is in transition and presents with no obvious breasts and a beard would presumably cause outrage by using a ladies toilet ( irrespective of his/ her genitals). I would obviously also be worried about a male transitioning to female ( dressed as a female ) being expected to use male toilets. The risk to a person would therefore seem to depend on how well they can " pass" as their chosen gender. Perhaps unisex toilets that you find in Coffee shops etc are a solution - although available to anyone rather then specifically designated for a third gender. I don't have any stats sorry about attacks on trans people and I don't know what the trans position is - it's just my view.
• Finally, sexual predators are resourceful and open to opportunity. I'm not persuaded that single sex spaces necessarily protect anyone particularly. Generally I think the perceived threat as relentlessly detailed in this thread has been overstated in comparison to the actual threat. I don't understand why people are not concentrating on the areas of most concern ( e.g. Online grooming). This is only my view - thank you for the polite way you addressed me.

Like a few other people I know, I am a regular donor to NSPCC and I will be contacting them about this issue.
Thanks for the thread, I would not have known otherwise.

I'm not persuaded that single sex spaces necessarily protect anyone particularly. Generally I think the perceived threat as relentlessly detailed in this thread has been overstated in comparison to the actual threat.

Not sure I understand contradiction of acknowledging that predators are resourceful and manoeuvre themselves into accessing children but also disregard the opportunity to access spaces designed for women with children?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk

Our investigation shows single-sex facilities are far safer

Only that the number of attacks by strangers are considerably rarer than by family members or by people in a position of trust who is known by the child.. I’m not saying single sex spaces are unnecessary or irrelevant but feel the emphasis on this type of offending is misleading given the other different myriad ways that offenders access children. Your child is far more likely to be groomed online for example yet the majority of parents of children with smart phones don’t have parental controls on them.