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

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

I just looked and I couldn't see it.

I hope they do.

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

Oh because I didn't look at MN for a few days, or actually see this thread I can't comment?

Aren't you all about not silencing people

Hypocrites.

Did you ask the NSPCC questions about PANTS?

Oh, sorry, didn't see the thread before it was removed from Active because a flock of monotonous seagulls had arrived! I'm sure there are a lot of us in that boat.

Would have liked to read it after the event though, as do a lot of people who come across MN threads waaaaay after they're current by searching related terms on Google.

I hope they do.

Have you not been onto them about it yet? Surely that means you are complicit in fucking over thousands of children?

Sorry Rat are you saying we shouldn't ask questions to charities because of the good work that they do. If Oxfam or Save the Children were doing a MN webchat I may ask a question about the recent revelations around some of their staff using prositutes. It would not be my responsibility if they refused to answer the question and decided not to engage. I would not be responsible for any lack of publicity for their good work that resulted from this.

Who chose to cancel the event?

You (general) derailed it to fuck and you're blaming them for cancelling??

Why don't you heckle a public speaker into silence and then blame them for not getting their point across.

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

The way you are carrying on makes it sound as if you were silenced. In fact, as has been pointed out, you totally failed to ask any of these all important questions when the thread was opened.

There is a difference. These were written. They could have posted on the thread. They could have said some thing about addressing two of the questions on this theme and then getting back to the pants campaign.

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!

Indeed. And a lot of the questions specifically refeenced the PANTS campaign, and other NSPCC campaigns too.

But no, as they were difficult to answer, they bailed. Because child protection is all about easy and fluffy questions eh..

By the way I am engaging with you politely. Could you stop the 'fuck's please?

Good Lord, rat. It was women who posted those questions you were getting up in arms about. How else do you want me to refer to them?

It comes across as a massive agenda when you are criticising women for not asking questions that no one else could be bothered to ask. That you didn't ask, that top didn't ask, that no one on this thread asked.

I did ask a question that was relevant to Speak Out, Stay Safe. The title of that campaign is ludicrous when if you do speak out, this is exactly what happens.

It wouldn't have mattered if there were 10,000 questions about the issue. There is only one answer. One answer that was not forthcoming.

The fact that the answer was not forthcoming, makes the questions even more relevant.

Because then you are just left with why

Why couldn't they answer the question, rat?

Sorry Rat are you saying we shouldn't ask questions to charities because of the good work that they do.

No, I'm saying when a charity with a valuable and effective campaign turn up and say, "as part of promoting this campaign we invite you to ask us questions about it", if you then choose to do something other than ask them questions about that campaign YOU ARE HINDERING THEIR PROMOTION OF IT.

You are ACTIVELY HINDERING the work of that charity.

That's like you turning up to Oxfam or Save the Children and taking their fucking blankets, not asking them about the child sex abuse scandal!

Jesus fucking Christ.

I don't see how they could.

it would have ended up with the same groups shouting about being silenced, and demanding answers regarding their specialist topic, and then screaming even louder when the answers weren't specifically what they wanted.

Great way to make people want to engage with you, atm no one does because of your rabid behavior.

You (general) derailed it to fuck and you're blaming them for cancelling??

Can you explain how an empty thread was derailed? How were people with concerns supposed to know that certain questions were not allowed?

@twotailed

The real scandal here is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of abused children are abused at the hands of their parents, family members or teachers, not trans bogeymen. And the opportunity to discuss that has been lost, because of people demanding that the NSPCC focus on transgenderism.

Very well put.

Also the facebook live thing could still have gone ahead, if they wanted it to. They could have ignored the many valid concerns posted on here by parents, and just done the webchat. That they didn't, says to me that they know that there are a LOT more than parents on here that are concerned about boys sharing showers with girls, and male people sharing sleeping accommodation with girl guides, and so on. They realised how any chat would go, and weren't willing to engage. pathetic, from a charity that supposedly centres childrens safety.

Sorry Stealth, hadn't read your last message. Fucks fall out of my mouth like water in general conversation, I stopped bothering to rein it in on MN quite recently but I'll try and put the lid back on.

Look guys we're not allowed to ask the NSPCC questions about safeguarding children. Okay? And especially not if our rhetorical techniques don't pass muster. And Datun is a big misogynist who hounds women. And now that I've descended into using anaphora (albeit clumsily) I should DIAF.

All they had to do was present facts and logic and tell us why we are wrong

They couldn't do that because penis is a penis whether it's under a dress or some jeans

Policies exist purely to ensure that the worst case senario doesn't happen .

Once by protect both parties one from false accusations and one from potential harm.

No one thinks all teachers R dodgy but we sure Sure as hell expect them to have been back ground checked.

Would have liked to read it after the event though, as do a lot of people who come across MN threads waaaaay after they're current by searching related terms on Google.

MN comment
"As a result we came to the decision not to run the stream live on Facebook, although we will be recording some content with the NSPCC on the original topic which should go live either later today or tomorrow."

from page 7 of the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

It comes across as a massive agenda when you are criticising women for not asking questions that no one else could be bothered to ask. That you didn't ask, that top didn't ask, that no one on this thread asked.

I'm not criticising them for not asking question they didn't, I'm criticising them - and you - for asking the questions you did.

You. Did. Not. Help. Children by asking those aggressive, lengthy, accusatory and completely off-topic questions en masse on that thread.

You did not.

And yet you sit here saying you're protecting women and children.

Yeah, right.

I resent this constant litany of trans people being at risk in the UK unless anything less than self ID is introduced.

The fact is that women and children are at a very high risk, and safeguarding is needed; including single sex spaces and services.

No one here derailed the thread. Anyone could have posted on it; you chose not to.

All they had to do was present facts and logic and tell us why we are wrong

This! If there is 'nothing to see here' with regards to trans issues, then just explain why it's all hunky dory and then we can move on?!

Still waiting for Rat to come back with how they are getting on with their contact with MNHQ about that pre recorded content.

How's it off topic.

Being able to name body parts and define a man or a woman and not be expected to lie about what happens to you is the very core of safe Guarding isn't it. You need to define what happened and by who and what could have happened