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

I am helping children by calling the NSPCC to account.

You might have been, if you hadn't chosen a time and a place that took away from more important work (more important because children are much more at risk in their own homes with their own families - not a trans issue).

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

Lol.

You might have been, if you hadn't chosen a time and a place that took away from more important work

from Wiki:
NSPCC have Approx. staff 2,500 Volunteers. 1,700

All discussions about Safeguarding frameworks and child protection concerns are important regardless of how many children may be affected.

heartsease68 I do agree with you that this isn't a trans issue.
Its child protection issues. In my opinion, the sooner that it ceases to be seen as a 'trans issue' the better for all, especially children, young people and vulnerable adults since they are the focus of Safeguarding.

You might have been, if you hadn't chosen a time and a place that took away from more important work

What important work, sitting at a pc answering questions from MN parents?

Datun hasn't exactly snatched the file of evidence that Billy's stepfather has been abusing him out of anyone's hands.

I think its been asked elsewhere who (their role rather than name) had come to answer the proposed live feed questions.

It's unlikely to have been a front-line social worker!

The NSPCC asked for questions. Some people submitted questions, how it that taking them away from valuable work?

It's work that the NSPCC initiated.

zutt

Not the right questions

Apparently

Just finished RTWT. The questions on the NSPCC Chat thread would have been easy to answer had the charity got a well thought out policy to produce. But they didn't seem to have a policy because not only did they not even try to answer, they backed out of the whole event.

I'm deeply unimpressed by the NSPCC's performance. They really should know better. If they've abandoned proper standards and principles we are in trouble.

Turns out those on this thread scolding women who had the cheek to post safeguarding questions on the Chat thread had not themselves posted any questions.

And lots of posts on this thread from people who really don't want to acknowledge that the most reliable way of protecting naked girls and women in public showers and changing rooms is to keep men out, or that being male is by far the most common feature among those who commit sex or violent crime.

There's no evidence that men who identify as women commit crime at any lower rate than other men. Rather the converse in that 40% of the transwomen in prison are either held in sex offender or max security prisons far higher than average.

The attempts by some posters to misrepresent what actually happened on the thread are laughable. No one asked any questions. There was nothing to derail. This is the issue that is at the forefront of many people's concerns.

You can try and spin it as a baying, bigoted mob all you want but it isnt true. Self ID is a massive safegaurding issue that puts children at risk. Not requiring someone to disclose previous names for a background check if they have transitioned puts children at risk. This is what most people, most mothers, both on MN and in the real world can see. No amount of throwing accusations of bigotry, hysteria or phobia is going to stop people having concerns. Best to try and discuss it rather than shutting it down and denying it is an issue because that clearly isn't working.

The attempts by some posters to misrepresent what actually happened on the thread are laughable.

I know. The clutching of straws to misrepresent what happened here is, quite frankly, pathetic.

Also, I'm not sure who said it up thread, but there were concerned that talking of self id detracts from the real issue of abuse from people know to the victim. But in many examples the self identified transperson would be know to girls - for example in the guides and at school.

Exactly. Then NSPCC is going to have to face up to this issue properly and think very carefully about it from the top down.

Rebukes.

But in many examples the self identified transperson would be know to girls - for example in the guides and at school.

I've read accounts before where girls were already uncomfortable with the male person before their transition. I think that may have been the case with Lila Perry.

@MNHQ, any word on the pre recorded video yet?

This is the third time I’ve asked on this thread.

I’m sure rat must also been on your case about this, given her level of hyperbole about the consequences for children.

You might have been, if you hadn't chosen a time and a place that took away from more important work (more important because children are much more at risk in their own homes with their own families - not a trans issue).

Nope. The NSPCC have been asked repeatedly to clarify why their safeguarding advice disappears if someone says they are trans.

They have had 'the time and place' on other occasions.

They can't answer. Because they are petrified. Of the backlash from adult men who are intimidating anyone who doesn't toe the party line.

This isn't complicated. Does safeguarding apply to people if they say they are trans or doesn't it?

This is the terrifying simplicity of the question that everyone is too afraid to answer....

This isn't complicated. Does safeguarding apply to people if they say they are trans or doesn't it?

....and is an amazing and powerful opportunity for the NSPCC to take the lead in making sure children really do come first....

I just had a look and the webchat, but I couldn't see any aggressive questions? Can you point out one question that you found aggressive please @RatRolyPoly ?

I'm still waiting to hear how we are supposed to know (in the ladies toilets) whether a transwoman is a child abuser or non child abuser? Guesswork? Ask for proof? What?...... Rat? Anyone?

We're not supposed to know, Tilly. We're just supposed to trust that as it never ever ever happens (except for those times it does) it must necessarily be safe and then get over ourselves for wanting boundaries.

@tillytop

Why so invested in whether a transwoman is a child abuser?

I think the issue many of us have the unhealthy preoccupation with men and transwomen.

You can't know if anyone you meet is a child abuser.

The trite 'yurbut men' argument shows that some really do feel the need to describe men as the aggressive class ignoring the fact that there are much bigger issues than ensuring transwomen are marginalised.

Someone mentioned the fact that lesbian relationships are the most dangerous wrt DV and were told that 'most lesbians aren't abusive'. Why is this suggestion never allowed in 'debates' like this one?

Most men do not rape.
Most transwomen are not child abusers.
Most mothers don't kill their children.
Most lesbians don't beat their partners.

I don't like to use the man-hating feminists but it seems more and more apt for some (thankfully a vocal minority) Mumsnet users.

Lol, yurbut NAMALT. I'm invested in safeguarding, which manages risks to women and children.

Males commit the vast vast vast majority of sex offenses and violent crimes. Vast.
Doesn't matter what they're wearing or how feminine they feel. Still male, still vast. Thus, a risk to be managed.

Silly man haters, trying to keep children safe. You're probably hairy and bitter too.

ALittleBitofVitriol

There's a certain type of person who's invested in safeguarding. They aren't intelligent or successful or actually good at their role. They're people who think they know best and usually have a bee in their bonnet and a blinkered view of the world. They even have a certain way of walking. I know. I have to meet many.*

I'm yet to meet one that wasn't so wrapped up in their belief that men are bad that they ignored other threats.

"Safeguarding issue" is a catch-all term for the hard of thinking.

I have no idea why you think I'm hairy and bitter. I don't know if that was an auto correct mistake.

*I'm a close protection specialist for rich kids, in case you wondered.

why so invested in whether a transwoman is a child abuser? There are many concerns surrounding the transgender issue. As I said further upthread, I'm just sticking to one concern in order to make it simpler for the hard of thinking. You appear to be one of those people................ Because the thread is about NSPCC, I'm concentrating on the risk to girls in the ladies toilets. The risk to boys in the mens wouldn't change. The miniscule risk (if any) to girls from a possible female child molester wouldn't change. For a male child molester it is impossible at this time to enter the ladies unnoticed................... Are you with me so far because next comes the difficult bit?.................. With the proposed changes, it would be the absolute ideal opportunity for a male child molester to pretend to be a transwoman, enter the ladies toilets and molest young girls...........
Unless there is a way we could all distinguish a non child molesting transwoman (and I'm sure there are many) from an actual child molesting transwoman?
There isn't is there?...................... Most of us don't want to put girls at risk, what about you?

......some really do feel the need to describe men as the aggressive class That could be because statistics show they are? Duh!!