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

"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?"

are there................... what ways can we .................... distinguish these people?

We can ............................. check to see if they've comitted ......................... crimes in the past but there's ........................... no way of telling what would happen .............................. in the future.

"Because the thread is about NSPCC, I'm concentrating on the risk to girls in the ladies toilets. "

I'm sure those two things follow each other clearly in your head. I get that you and a few other posters like to concentrate on a single issue and forget the rest. I do like the way you keep talking about toilets. Most of your ilk keep saying "it isn't about toilets".

"Are you with me so far because next comes the difficult bit?"

Not really ........................ your style of writing isn't especially easy to follow. Dungarees hoiked up to high? Cutting off the circulation.

"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."

You seem like a perfect example of the kind of blinkered idiot I mentioned previously. Whilst I'm sure you "think" you're on the right track you get obsessed with how bad men are and the children you're responsible for (you don't have any actual responsibility, do you) are put at risk. Profiling has its place but not at the expense of actually thinking.

missusZee, as for your post to ALittleBitofVitriol, I can't make that out at all? Wtf! "they even have a certain way of walking"? You're a "protection specialist for rich kids"? I hope to God you are joking or those "rich kids" are in trouble!

Yep, your last post confirms you are in fact an idiot who has no concerns whatsoever for the safety of children. Have fun, goodbye.

"I can't make that out at all?"

Why is this a question? Try reading slowly. Run your finger under each word as you go.

Yes, 'safeguarding leads' can be spotted from a distance. They like clipboards, have a strange little waddle and have faces like Dot Cotton sucking piss of a nettle. Back to the original point though, every single one thinks women pose no risk but men are [trigger warning] Schroedinger's rapist. If you can't see why this blinkered and intelligent monomania endangers children then you're even more fucked up than I suspected.

Oh, and "idiot" is anti-disablist.

Address your language.

Missuszee, you say you can check what people did in the past, but you can't with tramspeople, can you? You can't ask for propf, you can't know their previous name and all documentation has been changed.
And as you say no guarantee for the future. So why have a sex offfender list? Why keep tabs on people with a past? Not necessary then either.
And as NAMALT, why then have any safegaurding in place. Just take our chances, right? I mean, teachers, coaches, priests, men who want to abuse don't take any steps to make sure they have access, right?

All's good in the world.

Proof, not propf. I don't even know what propf is...

"
Why is this a question? Try reading slowly. Run your finger under each word as you go"
Why are you.................. Talking like this, and then have the nerve to patronise someone else?

If its anti-disablist then surely that's fine. Check your language.

You actually can't string a sentence together.

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?

You TRAs/MRAs love to wheel out this myth, don't you? This comes from this research (www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf) which reads (on page 30):

The survey found that same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Among women, 39.2 percent of the same-sex cohabitants and 21.7 percent of the opposite sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabiting partner at some time in their lifetime. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent (exhibit 8).

At first glance, these findings suggest that both male and female same-sex couples experience more intimate partner violence than do opposite sex couples. However, a comparison of intimate partner victimization rates among same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants by perpetrator gender produced some interesting findings: 30.4 percent of same-sex cohabiting women reported being victimized by a male partner, whereas 11.4 percent reported being victimized by a female partner. Thus, same-sex cohabiting women were nearly three times more likely to report being victimized by a male partner than by a female partner. Moreover, opposite-sex cohabiting women were nearly twice as likely to report being victimized by a male partner than were same-sex cohabiting women by a female partner(20.3 percent and 11.4 percent).

But obviously MRAs/TRAs choose to ignore the second paragraph which says that this is disproportionately male violence. Much better to misrepresent the survey findings and blame men's behaviour on lesbians. You can now deflect from men's behaviour, shut down attempts to discuss the specific problem of male violence against women and you get to slur those uppity lesbians too!

Unfortunately, this will only get worse now that heterosexual men can 'be' lesbians and their sex crimes are being reported as being female-on-female.

@StealthPolarBear

I was ........... emulating the person I was addressing.

Diablist, anti-disablist, ablist, anti-ablist; I'll admit to being entirely un-woke on the terminology du jour.

Just to let people know, I'm on a phone which doesn't make paragraphs. I used all the dots to space it out, to make it easier for missusZee to understand. Obviously didn't work.

OK replace disablist with racist. Presumably you can see that anti racism is a good thing. It's basic language, not terminology du jour madame.

@auntethel

The multiple dots didn't make it any easier to read; you're correct. Neither do the random commas.

@PolarBear

Yet ablism and disablism seem somewhat interchangeable.

As you mentioned racism, coloured used to be fine, then racist and now those who think they're correct say 'people of colour'.

This isn't about the terminology. It's basic rules of grammar.

Anyway let's drop it. I don't seem to be making myself clear, my fault I'm sure. If a word is anti-disablist, then by definition it is fine. Nothing to do with woke or terminology changing. Everything to do with sentence structure and double negatives.

missusZee
Just have the lady balls to say you think I'm thick! Word salad is so boring.

The hairy and bitter was a joke, usually trolls who accuse women of being man haters follow it up with hairy and bitter (as if they're insults)
Joke ruined because I had to explain it.

Maybe you, close protection specialist, can tell us what the bigger issues around child protection are? What is a bigger issue than male violence in keeping women and children safe. Please, enlighten me.

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

So a bodyguard, basically? Not surprised you have a different take on these issues, missusZee. I imagine the hazards to the DC of the super rich are somewhat different.

Apparently all we need to do to keep women and children safe, is to check what people did in the past. Easy!

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

Fascinating. Do an AMA. It's of very limited relevance here.

Why would kids need close protection in the first place if there are no threats to kids out there?

Sounds a cushy number to me.

Brilliant idea, Ereshkigal.

Why not consider it, missusZee? An AMA from a close protection specialists would be interesting to lots of people, I'd imagine.

@ALittleBitofVitriol

I suspect you're averagely intelligent. Misguided and blinkered more than "thick".

"What is a bigger issue than male violence in keeping women and children safe"

Blinkered views of the world. Two years ago, one of those strange-walking safeguarding leads (and yes, they fucking loved their clipboard and the power they thought it gave them) had absolutely no issue with my walking into any area of the school. They thought I was no threat because of my sex [I'm a woman] and took the same view of all parents and visitors splitting them into men / women or threat / no threat. My male colleague was told what areas he could access or not. It took a long time to explain to them that anyone could be a threat to anyone and that relying on statistics did them no good and stopped us doing our job.

The threat depends on the situation. In a female only situation, the only possible threat can come from women. I know it's a fallacy-full example but in lesbian relationships, all abusers are women therefore women are the biggest threat.

To my mind (personal and professional) the biggest threats are when people let their guard down. It could be because you trust a certain Aunt or teacher or place or situation or sex. This is foolish. Despite (because of) my job, I remain quite stoic and completely rational.

@Prawnofthepatriarchy

Basically although I am mainly the advance team now.

I'm also reasonably intelligent and a mother so am more than capable of making up my own mind balanced on personal and professional opinions.

I think that someone who struggles with @ on here really shouldnt be taking a pop at anybody else's intelligence

I think that mistakes happen in posting and lack of clarity doesnt indicate lack of intelligence etc...but it is a bit of an own goal