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

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.

This is a different thing entirely - because it's in the family home/family sphere, and so the sort of safeguards we're talking about are not in place as they would be in say, the Girl guides, school residential trips, other external activities kids take part in.

It's not "either/or" - it's both.

What MNetters are complaining about, as if it wasn't obvious from the first 500+ messages on this thread, is that these safeguards (single sex segregation) are being eroded - and the NSPCC is just saying "we're not prepared to be questioned on our part in this erosion of safeguarding".

Nobody's negating abuse normally happening within the home, or by a person known to the child - we're saying this is not a reason to roll-back other external safeguards.

Not only is it NOT a question of either/or, these protocols are dismantling children's means of communication re CSA.

Telling lies to children - that obvious men, naked men, are actually women is wrong. And if the speak out they disrespectful/bigoted.

It's my understanding that language is vital in ascertaining abuse. That even pet names for anatomy (foo foo, etc) can muddy the waters.

How about telling kids that a penis is something a woman has, or that a large clitoris is actually a small penis?

Why? Who the hell is this benefitting? Cos it sure isn't kids.

YY Datun - language is absolutely vital. And language plus boundaries is the very thing that is being removed. It's a perfect storm.

A penis is not a enlarged clitoris. Women don't urinate out of their clitoris, for a start.

A penis is male sexual organ - only men have them. Men are predominantly the sexual abusers - to the tune of 98% - this matters.

If only those 500+ messages were so reasonably put instead of dismissive and rude as some of them were. I find the GC comments particularly unfathomable in many cases. I didn’t go into CP work with some weird agenda - I did it because it was a natural progression from my domestic violence work and I felt I could be effective. I’ve also worked with some excellent social workers , Drs and teachers who are all committed to improving the lives of children - yet the sneering towards safeguarding professionals here because they don’t support the GC narrative pretty much guaranteed my departure yesterday. I only returned to the thread because I was asked a direct question which I’ve tried to answer to the best of my ability.

I was talking about the posts on this thread - but I find both threads to have put the arguments v well indeed. Eloquent, well reasoned questions. That the NSPCC couldn't answer.

Why couldn't they come on and allay our fears, if our fears are baseless? They couldn't.

spirited

I don't think you realise. Women are excessively concerned over this issue. They are routinely threatened, ignored, bullied, doxxed, intimidated and, recently, battered in public (the transwoman was convicted) and subjected to the threat of bombing.

You saying you wouldn't listen because some women were rude or sneering is risible.

I'm frequently astonished that they're not incandescent with rage and frustration.

Bomb threats ffs.

Spirited, it is perfectly fine to call out even well respected charities that help children when they are seen to have policy changes that will lead to harm for the very people they are aiming to protect.
Should I say certain overseas aid charities do great work therefore they shouldn’t be called out on sexual exploitation of women? There is no free pass.

How has this debate become about women? I’m discussing children. 2 boys raped in a toilet in McDonald’s were not protected by being in a single sex space. I’m also not criticising anyone for asking questions of the NSPCC or any charitable organisation . My own query centres around the large numbers of people seemingly concerned about one element ( self ID) of one category of abuse ( in which attack’s are less common) rather than looking at where the largest numbers of crimes against children are committed. Of course if you’re going to open out the debate you must take on board the myriad ways in which women abuse children daily - but I fear that does not suit your narrative.

Why are you trying to change the debate though? We know other bad things happen and they are discussed regularly on here.
As for nastiness, I asked what a pp would say to a teenage girl who said she was alarmed by having a woman with a penis in the toilets with her. The answer I received contained two "fuck off" s

Surely this thread has shown exactly when the NSPCC called off the debate.

Fristly, they realise there's a vocal minority who simply refuse to let anything other than their pet topic be discussed.

Secondly, they don't have the ability to engage or discuss or think and therefore the live session would have been a waste of time.

2 boys raped in a toilet in McDonald’s were not protected by being in a single sex space

No because men are the threat. As we have been saying.

It's not your fault you were called back here - as you say - but if you don't understand that men present a greater threat to women and children than women do and that that is why sex segregated spaces are important (as I believe the UN will tell you) then please do take note of that fact.

Fristly, they realise there's a vocal minority who simply refuse to let anything other than their pet topic be discussed.

Nobody. Asked. Any. Other. Questions.

It's not "either/or" - it's both.

This!

Spirited you seem to be saying that the erosion of single sex spaces and boundaries is almost irrelevant because most abuse takes place at home.

Do you believe that single sex spaces are necessary or not? And if you do, do you believe that any man should have the right to 'self identify' into that space?

Also why Datun said about language. I thought part of safeguarding was giving children correct language for genitals (it always comes up on the 'my 2 year old calls it her vulva you know' threads). How can that happen if kids are being fed utter horseshit about who has what genitals?

Secondly, they don't have the ability to engage or discuss or think and therefore the live session would have been a waste of time.

Who hasn't engaged or discussed or thought on here?

If you’re addressing me I’m not trying to change the debate - I’m wondering why people are discussing attacks on women. The whole debate has had unpleasant elements which is why I withdrew.

I’m wondering why people are discussing attacks on women.

Women who were attacked for being opposed to the total destruction of boundaries for women and girls?

You can't see why that has been mentioned?

Why do YOU think men have attacked women for wanting there to be sex based restrictions in wonder?

However you feel about the trans issue Self ID seems very relevant to the Speaking Out section the NSPCC wanted.

Speaking Out involves saying when you are uncomfortable despite outside pressures to stay silent. Current policies of allowing people to change with the gender they identify as would require anyone who is not comfortable with it speaking out while having the pressure of being called a bigot.

I think it's quite important we teach children (and adults!) that actually.

If you’re only going to discuss sexual assaults then the debate will be centred on males attacking males/females although there are many types of offence where women also participate - trafficking of children into sex work as an example. I’m not going to repeat what I have said about single sex spaces as I’m not sufficiently informed on the subject. My comment about the attacks on the 2 boys was to hilight how easy it is for a determined predatory offender to find a child - the target is not necessarily a female child. Saying that, the majority of abuse of children is not committed by strangers it is committed by someone known to the child ( possibly in a position of trust). The continual emphasis on stranger attacks worries me - this is true in fact in sex offences against any person , when so much emphasis is placed on stranger rapes offences within marriage / relationships etc are somehow seen as not “ proper” rapes. You see it on threads on MN all the time

I’m not quite sure about the topic of genitals and how it relates to the debate. A child who has made an allegation will be interviewed about what happened. Lots of children don’t have the correct terminology for their own genitals let alone an offenders. There are plenty of techniques available by a good interviewer to establish what actions have occurred. So for example a child refers to her vagina as a “ flower” - I can determine where on her body her flower is. I can establish evidence of penetration by the fact she felt pain. She may not know what she was penetrated by but I might be able to establish that it couldn’t be his hands. ( by descriptions of body positioning). Finally I will have access to an intermediary who will be someone like a child psychologist who can assist where the child is very young or has a disability or impairment. Parents could perhaps teach their children the correct terminology but no one likes to think their child will ever need to be interviewed by the police in this way.

As a final comment please don’t tell me that I am ignorant in relation to what’s going on because you don’t agree with my comments or because you disagree with me. I do have knowledge of CSE / child abuse and have worked with agencies such as the NCA and CEOPS. I have specialist training in a number of areas relevant to this subject.

I’m going to withdraw now - I’m not The NSPCC and I’m not the mouthpiece of the “ opposition” however keen you are to frame me as such.

Fristly, they realise there's a vocal minority who simply refuse to let anything other than their pet topic be discussed

Firstly they realised that for nearly a week noone was bothered about asking a question

Then they realised that they were a bit frightened of engaging with the safeguarding topic that some women wanted to discuss

Sexual assaults aside spirited what about the women and children who, for whatever ever reason, simply do not want to get changed or be in an intimate space with a male? Who do not want to be in that vulnerable position with males around? Because they feel uncomfortable? Or perhaps because their religion dictates that they shouldnt?

Is it just tough shit for them?

As a final comment please don’t tell me that I am ignorant in relation to what’s going on because you don’t agree with my comments or because you disagree with me. I do have knowledge of CSE / child abuse and have worked with agencies such as the NCA and CEOPS. I have specialist training in a number of areas relevant to this subject.

Who said you were ignorant?

You either want to engage with the debate or don't.

You asked why attacks against women were being discussed and it is because men are attacking women who want to uphold sex defined spaces.

A child who has made an allegation will be interviewed about what happened

In the new world order, the child will not be interviewed, but sent for re-education. That is what the Trans Lobby are aiming for. Plus for trans offenders to be released. I am not quite sure what you are finding so distasteful about people being upset about this.

Are not 98% of sex offences committed by men?

And you are happy about any sex based restrictions being eradicated - that is your right.

But please do not come and 'tell us off' for being concerned that men will abuse this reduction in sex based restrictions for their own means.

Jessicca Eaton Speaker, 'Author & PhD Researcher in Psychology of Victimblaming VAWG CSE CSA Trauma.'
Founder of VictimFocus. victimfocus.org.uk

Jessica Eaton's comment:
'every week social workers approach me about traumatised kids after abuse and trauma suddenly identifying as trans and SW being told to just affirm it rather than working through the trauma'

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3324578-Vunerabilities-of-Looked-After-Children-Social-Work-CP-restricted-by-affirmation-requirement-Trans-Youth-in-Care-Toolkit

thread re her work on the influence of porn on language with reference to young people:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3253264-Very-good-article-by-Jessica-Eaton-about-language-used-to-describe-sex

Fristly, they realise there's a vocal minority who simply refuse to let anything other than their pet topic be discussed.

It's not a minority.

And nobody else posted any questions. If you wanted other questions posted, you should have posted them rather than complaining after the fact,

If you’re addressing me I’m not trying to change the debate - I’m wondering why people are discussing attacks on women.

Spirited, it's because women are being relentlessly silenced when they try to speak about this issue. Venues that have been booked for meetings are targeted. Including Millwall football club and the House of Commons. Threatened with bad publicity they pull out. So now, when meetings are held, the venue is kept secret until the last minute. In 2018 women are unable to gather to talk publicly about an upcoming change in the law which affects them. Including a bomb threat which the police have stated was 'credible'.

The reason why this is currently such a hot topic is because the government is consulting, right now, about changes to the GRA. Which includes self identification.

They have said they are committed to removing all the criteria necessary to legally change sex. Making it an administrative exercise only. A matter of completing a form online, sending a small cheque, and bingo a man's a legal woman on his passport and birth certificate with the protected characteristic of sex (female).

It's the biggest piece of social engineering ever and instantly negates women's rights, if being a women doesn't depend on biology.

A wonderfully diverse executive board consisting of half men and half women, could, in fact, be all men.

Transactivists have openly admitted that a government consisting of half men and half transwomen is a legitimate, indeed preferred, goal. And, fulfils the diversity quota of representing both sexes. A hundred years after women acquired the votes, their political representation is under direct threat. Legally.

Apologies if you are already completely au fait with this, but you don't seem to understand why women are concerned, being threatened into silence, why they are reacting to it, and why the issue is currently top of the feminist agenda.

The government's consultation, which anyone can complete, is only open until October.

Link below.

fairplayforwomen.com/