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

And yet you can come up with nothing better than check their past. How exactly is that going to work?

Now I know what you do for a living your perspective makes sense missusZee. If you're protecting the child of a head of state and there are only women around then any potential assassin or kidnapper has got to be female. It's logical. It is your job to consider all the angles - however unlikely.

The rest of us use different parameters. Statistically men pose a very much higher risk if you're talking sex or violent crime. Families are more cautious about men than they are of women for sound reasons.

In a female only situation, the only possible threat can come from women. So you agree with us then? To reduce risk, keep female only spaces?

And yet you can come up with nothing better than check their past. How exactly is that going to work?

Don't know but it looks awfully clear to me that their role is toddling round with a clipboard.

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

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

... and other comments...

It seems you are resorting to insults missusZee - don't you have any actual arguments?

@Prawnofthepatriarchy

Who mentioned there only being women around.

I work on short-term contracts. Rarely single-sex environments.

"Families are more cautious about men than they are of women for sound reasons."

I agree that this can be the case although MN 'stats' seem entirely skewed with regard to 'safeguarding issues', victims etc. However, when you have a blinkered view ie. distrust of men, you can be caught entirely off guard. I think that danger comes from letting your guard down. I say this as a mother as well as professionally.

@tillytop

I don't know what the fuck you're reading but it certainly isn't my replies. In a female only space then 100% of the risk comes from women. You have to be a complete moron to think that this is support of sex-segregated spaces.

@ShrodingersSturdyPyjamas

Yes, a clipboard. Yesterday I also had a Glock 19 with hollow points (less chance of ricochet in a school corridor) 2 knives and CS spray. HTH

This thread is now officially insane. I'm out

Ignore the MRA derail.

@Ereshkiga

Me?

I'm yet to understand what's wrong with being an MRA or why people like you prefer to ignore anyone who disagrees with you.

Interesting that you don't deny it!

MRA?

I don't activate for anything. Male or female. Because I don't see men and their rights as inherently bad, why would I deny it?

It's feminism which has a massive backlash with more and more of both sexes not wishing to be labeled as such. I think it's important to have an MRA viewpoint. Otherwise any discussion becomes an echo chamber of idiots telling others to ignore opposing views.

is echo chamber the collective noun?

I wouldn't want to derail a thread but don't shy away from attempting to get my point across.

So, why is MRA an insult and why should 'we' ignore someone who doesn't chime in with 'yes, yes, well said PP'?

So, why is MRA an insult and why should 'we' ignore someone who doesn't chime in with 'yes, yes, well said PP'

As far as I can tell, you have not been ignored. Posters have responded to you and there has been debate. You have posted quite a few insults though and intimated that people who don't agree with you are 'idiots'. You have also boasted about carrying firearms. For some reason, all this puts me in mind of male rights activists and misogynists more generally who tend to categorise any woman who disagrees with them as 'an idiot' and who views such disagreement not as simple disagreement but as a threat to their manhood and status more generally.

I haven't boasted about carrying firearms. I mentioned it as it was pertinent. Anyone who carries them or has used them professionally certainly wouldn't boast. 4lb of pressure is nothing.

When someone asked if I thought they were thick I said no.

I haven't been ignored and I've also answered any direct questions (despite insults towards me). I didn't say I had been. I asked why this poster was saying I should be. I think some posts are idiotic but I think that anyone who can coherently explain their standpoint is, at worst, wrong. They have the intelligence to explain why they think they're correct and that's my personal goal.

I see you're someone who is 'put in mind' of the whole sisterhood under attack by men. Why would I feel threatened on an Internet forum? This bit really confuses me. The two sexes are not an homogeneous blob of agreement.

Literally no one is impressed by this irrelevant derailing posturing

In a female only situation, the only possible threat can come from women.

missusZee I think this is an interesting & important point. It does though depend on what is meant by a 'woman'.
How do you define woman?

Are people here really transphobic? I don't read the comments as being anti-transpeople. To me it reads more that some people here on MN are worried about predatory men who are seeing an access opportunity in self ID.
If it's any comfort to TRA reading this post, even after reading some of the threads I still don't believe that trans people are dangerous, just because they are trans. But predatory men pretending to be trans, using self ID to prey on the vulnerable, should offend both sides of this argument.

But predatory men pretending to be trans, using self ID to prey on the vulnerable, should offend both sides of this argument.

If this hasn't occurred to people, after the numerous times of it being pointed out - then you have to wonder what their agenda is, don't you?

If this hasn't occurred to people, after the numerous times of it being pointed out - then you have to wonder what their agenda is, don't you?

Especially as these are the very predators the trans people they are defending are at risk from. It's not feminists battering them after all is it. So do these predators exist or not?

They don't have to 'pretend' to be trans, under the definition of stonewall AGP's and fetishists fit in quite nicely, ditto men wanting to go into sex segregated spaces since they believe you can be a woman part time. It's important to make it clear trans should mean transsexual, not transgender as that now seems to include pretty much everyone alive at some point or other.

Examples of how some with influence are characterising Mumsnet & the NSPCC event:

TELI (Trans Equality Legal Initiative) www.teli.org.uk/
has had a great deal of influence and representation as per their stated intentions:
"Through TELI, we hope to bring together human rights lawyers, third sector trans activist organisations, academics, equality and diversity experts and members of the trans, non-binary and queer community to pool our knowledge, expertise and skill base to inform both strategic litigation and to assist in lobbying for clear and concrete measures to secure equality and safety for members of the trans community. We also hope to consolidate expertise in this area of law to help inform practitioners and activists.

Strategic litigation is often a tool of last resort but can, when used appropriately, effect real change in how the Government responds and addresses wide scale discrimination. The founders recognise from their own practices that it is only through working cohesively and strategically from both a policy and legal standpoint that real and substantive change is made. The founders are committed to realising this change."
co-founders include Jess Bradley (currently suspended by NUS over allegations of flashing), Tara Hewitt (diversity consultatnt to NHS) Michelle Brewer (providing legal answers to GRA at WEP conference this weekend)
threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3325882-WEP-conference-questions-for-panel-of-trans-rights-advocating-barristers
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3325623-Jess-Bradley-a-government-advisor-on-womens-rights-suspended-by-NUS-over-indecent-blog-Part-iii
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3320513-Jess-Bradley-first-transgender-student-officer-suspended-after-flashing-photos
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3321764-Jess-Bradley-suspended-Part-II
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3323623-Who-is-really-funding-Jess-Bradleys-defence

The small green vegetable Twitter account has been actively involved in targetting women, transexxuals and women's groups and seems well-connected to some TRAs on SM.

Dr Christian is of course a well-known TV personality.

This MRA derail is fascinating. At least they have a different twist to 'you hairy dungaree wearing lesbians hate men'...as they can go on about carrying guns! How brilliant, I am so jealous

Anyway, its ridiculous to deny that men, as a class, are fucking dangerous. The stats prove exactly that, so its entirely sensible to be wary of male people. Of course that doesn't mean all men are dangerous, but a lot of them are.

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing. So NSPCC cancelled a chat because they didn't want to explain their safegaurding policies and risk assesments on letting men and boys identify themselves into spaces reserved for women and girls and now it is MN-ers fault? For what, asking questions about safegaurding and boundaries? Or was that MN-ers were worries about girls and oh dear, the poor transgirls/boys who identify as girls?

What's depressing is that you lot have gone and done it again, and shut down what could have been a really beneficial chat with Stella Creasey about making misogyny a hate crime.

But, you know, she's only trying to do right by women. Won't say trans women are men? Then she shall say nothing at all!!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/guest_posts/3355761-Stella-Creasy-guest-post-If-MNers-act-today-you-can-help-make-street-harassment-a-hate-crime

Noone asked stella to say transwomen were men.

The MN "We're hiding this thread" message on the Stella Creasy thread says it all:

Thanks to everyone who (broadly) followed the MNHQ request not to continue to post the GRA point again and again. Clearly we've got some way to go before it beds in ... but we think it's a reasonable ask, in certain circumstances, to allow other issues to get a look in.

This really is getting bloody ridiculous. It's not as if anyone ever has anything original to say on the topic on these threads anyway.