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

Not enough for you to derail a Q and A by a charity that would help avoid the 99% of other types of abuse with their advice.

What other types of abuse? PANTS deals specifically with sexual abuse.

Strangely there is no mention of she in these videos.

We are not 'anti-trans'. We are standing up for women and girls.

We are not 'anti-trans'. We are standing up for women and girls.

Except all those children who could have been helped had their parents stumbled across the NSPCC live chat.

Except those children.

Thousands of them, vulnerable to the most common form of sexual abuse.

Standing up for children... except them.

Well done.

Why are anti-trans posters such fans of anaphora

Why can't anti-woman posters focus on substance rather than style?

Except all those children who could have been helped had their parents stumbled across the NSPCC live chat

Er, the one without any actual questions posted in it? Yes, that one!!!

Except all those children who could have been helped had their parents stumbled across the NSPCC live chat.

Why would the 'thousands' of these women that you speak of have to stumble across anything? It was in chat.

It's a pity that people are forced into extreme positions and considered to be 'anti' one side or another if you don't subscribe to all the views. A lot of people can see both sides and end up silenced and condemned by both because they're not extreme enough for either. Since the only way to solve anything is to find a way forward that everyone's willing to sign up to, the silent majority in the middle are probably the voice most worth listening to. But you need to have more skin in the game to be prepared for a public flaming so they just don't post and speak.

Same with politics generally.

Er, the one without any actual questions posted in it? Yes, that one!!!

You're not taking one shred of responsibility for that? "You" in the general sense, that is.

Well I think you're being far too generous to yourselves.

Except all those children who could have been helped had their parents stumbled across the NSPCC live chat.

Parents don't just stumble across things. The vast majority of parents understand safeguarding issues and will want to engage in a web chat. This chat was ignored for days, including you Top. You choose to ignore it.

Except those children.

Thousands of them, vulnerable to the most common form of sexual abuse.

Standing up for children... except them.

Again Top you choose to ignore it. Shame. I would have liked to have seen your questions.

Well done.

Stop now. You are not coming across as a person who is in the slightest bit interested in CSA.

heartsease68

I don't disagree that the issue polarises people.

But one of the ways to drag that back is for a very relevant organisation like the NSPCC to address the question.

Thousands of them, vulnerable to the most common form of sexual abuse.

I don't understand who these thousands of children are who would have been saved from abuse because of a Mumsnet webchat which no one posted on for a week, and which anyone (yep, including you Rat) was perfectly free to post on? The PANTS campaign is incredibly widely publicised and has been around for a good while, indeed, that is probably why the initial reaction to the thread was so slow.

1st rule of misogyny, women are responsible for what men do. You can try and blame gender critical women for any subsequent abuse of children that may take place from now until the end of time, but it doesn't wash I'm afraid.

You're not taking one shred of responsibility for that? "You" in the general sense, that is

The thread was empty for some days. Then some posters started to ask about safeguarding, trans and associated issues. These were all valid questions. If any responsibility is to be taken it is by you (not in the general sense but in the sense of those accusing) for not asking the questions that you think should have been asked initially!

Thousands of them, vulnerable to the most common form of sexual abuse.

Them being children of course. The most common form of sexual abuse towards children is by men.

Why would the 'thousands' of these women that you speak of have to stumble across anything?

It's thousands of children actually Datun, do keep up.

You do realise that had that Facebook live event gone ahead it could have got their message about PANTS across to far more parents than would ever have seen a barely active Chat thread, don't you? Or are you so unfamiliar with what MN can achieve outside of your little FWR bubble?

Not Top but to Ratrolypoly

Apologies

Blaming women for not asking a question that someone else couldn't be bothered to ask, without even knowing about it, is low even for you rat!

Them being children of course. The most common form of sexual abuse towards children is by men.

Ban them then. Ban men. Lock them all up at birth. Why don't we do that, exactly??

Orrrr..... the most common form of sexual assault towards children being by people they know, we could reach out to their parents with things like the PANTS campaign to keep them safe when they are at their most vulnerable (Tip: it's not in the changing rooms in Primark).

Except of course we didn't do that (or at least we missed an opportunity too) because you lot who "care so much about women and children" wouldn't stop pushing your narrow-minded hateful agenda.

You do realise that had that Facebook live event gone ahead it could have got their message about PANTS across to far more parents than would ever have seen a barely active Chat thread, don't you?

Are you Rat in possession of a crystal ball? Got some magical powers?

You do realise that had that Facebook live event gone ahead it could have got their message about PANTS across to far more parents than would ever have seen a barely active Chat thread, don't you? Or are you so unfamiliar with what MN can achieve outside of your little FWR bubble?

Didn't MNHQ say that the NSPCC were still going to upload a pre recorded video about PANTS? Has that happened yet?

Blaming women for not asking a question that someone else couldn't be bothered to ask, without even knowing about it, is low even for you rat!

I'm not blaming women for anything Datun, but I do get rather sick of you using the word "women" as if it relates to you and yours and somehow doesn't to me. I'm as much a woman as you are, and I'm sure tophat and others are too. Why don't you stop bashing women, Datun? Why don't you stop bashing women for not agreeing with you that fucking over children is totally justified just because you really, really hate transpeople?

" the most common form of sexual assault towards children being by people they know, we could reach out to their parents with things like the PANTS campaign to keep them safe when they are at their most vulnerable (Tip: it's not in the changing rooms in Primark).

Except of course we didn't do that (or at least we missed an opportunity too) because you lot who "care so much about women and children" wouldn't stop pushing your narrow-minded hateful agenda."

THIS

Except of course we didn't do that (or at least we missed an opportunity too) because you lot who "care so much about women and children" wouldn't stop pushing your narrow-minded hateful agenda.

What are you talking about we? What did you do exactly? Did you ask the NSPCC questions about PANTS?

Why are anti-trans posters such fans of anaphora?

Well repetition is persuasive speech 101. So you might as well ask 'why are gender critical posters such fans of the word 'the', or the letter 'e'?'

But that wouldn't allow you to get out your one big word so it would miss the point right? It is your one big word isn't it because I've seen someone post this exact question before on AIBU.

Such irony that Rat replied to this by talking about linking unconnected things when that is precisely what you did here...

Who chose to cancel the event?

Ban them then. Ban men. Lock them all up at birth. Why don't we do that, exactly??

Non sequitur argument there Rat

What then follows is illogical. You know that the sex of the person who poses the most threat towards children when it comes to CSA is those people whose biological sex is male.