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

Lecturing women in morality

Three lines is a lecture, is it? And what would you call your thousand word manuscripts?

After all it’s their policy

Blinking iPad traitor

Rat do you think it was important that the sex-abuser aid workers at Oxfam and other charities were called out about it, or do you think asking awkward questions, which meant that their campaigns were a lot less lucrative, harmed those that need aid?

Just answering it would be marvellous. Not holding my breath.

The NSPCC are going to be tying themselves in knots over this. They need to look at what they are saying very carefully indeed. If people on here are asking them to look into things again more carefully that is all to the good.

Should we email them with that directly do you thibk

Really? I think they're ignoring. Pretending this doesn't exist.

People pretend to be all sorts of things in order to gain access to children from enthusiastic as a scout master to when 19 pretending to be 15 and obviously similar issues can also arise with men pretending to be women or boys to be girls. That does not mean we cannot also seek to protect trans teenagers but it does mean the NSPCC needs to think about all these issues before rushing off with new policies which are dangerous to many.

Also this isn't just about children. It's about scout and guide leaders and other adult helpers and a whole range of adults that children come into contact with. They should feel empowered to be able to say if they don't feel comfortable with members of the opposite sex in single sex spaces. This is the entire issue. That's what supposedly this fabulous NSPCC campaign is about, not being obliged to do things you are uncomfortable with.

I would also, given they were incredibly concerned about online grooming, ask them about ROGD.

It's another area that is directly relevant to their charity.

I also learnt that the NSPCC have statutory power to remove children. They are not just a benign, well-established altruistic organisation. They have real power.

I would like to know what their stance is on the Scottish guidance that says if parents do not support their child in their transition then social services can be called.

The NSPCC need to reconcile their policy with their online, interactive presence.

Because these questions will be asked. Until they answered.

And no amount of bullying, or telling women they are directly responsible for the continuing abuse of thousands of children as a result of these questions, is going to wash.

Succinct as always littlebrowndog.

I actually can't keep up with all the posts on this thread

Quick - if you look in the kitchen there is a cake that needs icing.

And no amount of bullying, or telling women they are directly responsible for the continuing abuse of thousands of children as a result of these questions, is going to wash.

Quite. The lame deflection attempt by assorted TRAs and posters on this thread has failed. It won't wash. We need answers and we will get them.

I would like to know what their stance is on the Scottish guidance that says if parents do not support their child in their transition then social services can be called.

Comment by Tara Hewitt NHS England Diversity adviser, formerly of University Hospital South Manchester (UHSM) / TELI co-founder (with Jess Bradley et al) / adviser to the resources for 'trans-youth' in the care system, foster carers & professionals supporting them (linked previously).

Interview with TH 2016 : www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-its-like-transgender-catholic-10810323

I have specifically said the questions asked were the hinderance to the work of the NSPCC.

How though? I am not understanding how asking questions about safeguarding hinders the NSPCC.

Also of course, datuns question is spot on. Separate rooms for mixed sex children after aged 0. But if one identifies as the opposite sex its fine. Makes no sense.

But safeguarding policy has to apply to everybody
It really has to
Nobody nobody gets a free pass because of their race, sex, sexuality, gender, class

Isn’t it the very core of safeguarding ?

That is why the nspcc should’ve answered the question about their policiy

Isn’t it the very core of safeguarding ?

Yes it absolutely is LBD & any attempt to prevent this should always be interrogated.

R0wantrees

Does 'safeguard refer' in that tweet mean phone social services? That person is saying that if the parents disagree their child is trans they have advised organisations, including camhs that they need to phone social services?

Because the NSPCC, who have the power to remove a child, need to answer whether they subscribe to that.

Ffs.

This is like some horrible, futuristic science fiction film.

Datun
'Safeguard refer' suggests a formal referral to social services. The terminology is often used by other agencies eg education / NHS where there has been sufficient cause for concern to refer.

Tara Hewitt has legal qualifications so it is possible that she may have provided guidance / added legal advice etc to any possible referral.

It would be interesting to know on what basis she has been acting, in partnership with whom, what capacity etc

Yes I'm pretty sure that is what Tara means by "safeguard refer".

So is it clear if there any conditions under which you can disagree that your child is trans, that would satisfy Hewitt?

So there is a policy which says that parents should be referred to social services if they don't believe that their child is trans? Whaaaaaaaaat?! Which policy is this?

Did the gay rights movement demand this? That parents who didn't accept their child was gay be referred to social services? This is madness!

That's like you turning up to Oxfam or Save the Children and taking their fucking blankets

I know the thread’s moved on, but this deserved a post of its own.

Yep, asking questions is just like stealing blankets from children.

It is as simple as this... and certainly not something NSPCC won't have discussed and come to a clear decision about - It would have given us a lot more confidence if they had shared WHAT they thought and WHY... and if not, we are REALLY worried....

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

datun

I like the sound of rat, actually. Not so much you with your gas lighting.

It would also be interesting to know if Tara Hewitt has directly or indirectly through TELI involvement provided 'trans-specific' safeguarding training for professionals or organisations.

Tara Hewitt has provided training 'trans' specific cancer training for health care professionals in the NW. (and there are some issues of concern with it)