AIBU to think that the NSPCC should not have tweeted this...

[ChickenonaMug]

The NSPCC tweeted last night "Consent means actively saying yes, using both words and body language. You should explain to your child that they should always check to ensure the other person is happy to have sex or take part in sexual activity of any kind.

AIBU to think that this is an extremely badly worded tweet and the NSPCC really should know better. This tweet seems to demonstrates a really poor understanding of the grooming and sexual abuse of children. Many abusers will aim to convince a child that she or he consented to 'sex' (rape/sexual abuse) and I expect that it is relatively easy for an abuser to groom a child to say the word 'yes'.

I was groomed and sexually abused for many years of my childhood and my abuser always tried to convince me that the abuse was something I had consented to and that I wanted. Nowhere in the NSPCC's tweet about consent do they point out that children cannot consent to sex with an "other person'.

Children who have been sexually abused will often blame themselves or feel as though they will be blamed by others for what they have been subjected to and the shame that they are feeling stops them being able to talk to anyone about it. The attitude behind the tweet by the NSPCC really concerns me and it is not the only thing they have worded badly. Another example is the definition of sexual abuse they teach children in the Speak Out, Stay Safe assemblies which is "when a child is being made, asked or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them - or being made to do this to someone else." (my bolding). learning.nspcc.org.uk/services/speak-out-stay-safe#article-top . Again this wording does not seem to take into account the grooming of children into believing that they have wanted or consented to the sexual abuse nor does the NSPCC seem to recognise that a sexually abused child may absorb this definition and then think that it is she (or he) who is the problem because she did not react with fear like a 'normal' child is supposed to. This will then back up what the abuser is telling her, which is that she wanted or consented to the abuse and will lead her to not disclosing her abuse for fear of being seen as sexually deviant or stupid for not reacting with fear.

Even the title of the NSPCC "Speak Out, Stay Safe campaign is deeply problematic because it places the responsibility on the child to keep themselves safe from abuse.

The NSPCC are also describing kissing and hugging by young children as normal 'sexual behaviours'. I think it is wrong and very unwise to see young children as sexual beings especially as this is an attitude shared with abusers, for example the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) lobbied to have children seen as sexual beings with sexual rights and the ability to consent from a very young age. IMO the NSPCC need to undertake a serious review of their recent practice.

This tweet by Safe Schools Alliance UK describes what I am trying to say: twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1285868833891377152

@LastTrainEast

Rwoolley I was speaking of children under the age of consent. Granted there's some room for misunderstanding there since adulthood is 18 and if someone was taking them to court for saying what they said they could use that as a defence, but that is beside the point isn't it as no one is. I already said that I don't think they meant that the way it sounded. I just think they have a responsibility not to send mixed messages and provide ammunition for MAPS

But a blanket children can't consent is simply not true

Children can consent to teens their own age and face little to no legal consequence

Children over 16 can consent to anyone with no consequence

The post from the NSPCC saying children in regards to consent is not false

Yanbu

It's really worrying how the NSPCC have lost their way.

Actual safeguarding seems like a fuddy duddy uncool concept.

The post from the NSPCC saying children in regards to consent is not false

It may not be strictly false legally but it omits some key information and appears to have paid no heed to the wider safeguarding context. Weird for a charity that should have safeguarding at the heart of everything they do. Also weird given the distrust that many of us now feel towards the NSPCC in the light of their recent behaviour around rubberman.

@Binterested

The post from the NSPCC saying children in regards to consent is not false

It may not be strictly false legally but it omits some key information and appears to have paid no heed to the wider safeguarding context. Weird for a charity that should have safeguarding at the heart of everything they do. Also weird given the distrust that many of us now feel towards the NSPCC in the light of their recent behaviour around rubberman.

Not everything they post is about safeguarding though. The sometimes post about leaving children unattended, this post was a simple, teach your kids about consent

Pretty simple and definitely not worthy of the uproar

Children should be taught about consent, it's not wrong to teach that or push parents to teach that. It doesn't give any form of mixed or even confusing message. The law is clear and how it's used is clear. Someone reading this post couldn't use it in court if they as a 50 year old went and had sex with a 14 year old even if they said yes.

But they didn’t help people teach their kids about consent. They missed out key information.

@Binterested

But they didn’t help people teach their kids about consent. They missed out key information.

What key information did they miss out

They clearly put consent should be both physical and verbal

You can't put millions of words in a social post

Then don’t tweet it. If you can’t cover key facts then don’t tweet.

I will explicitly be telling my children that their consent to sexual activity with someone over a certain age will be deemed inadmissible in court. It helps them understand that however they think they feel at the time, the adult will be doing something wrong. It helps them to know that. The law has their back. Society has their back. Even when they are making suboptimal decisions. Because they are children engaging with adults.

You’d think the NSPCC would also have children’s backs.

And I’m not sure why there’s a need to disagree. The NSPCC clearly think they should have done better.

@Binterested

Then don’t tweet it. If you can’t cover key facts then don’t tweet.

I will explicitly be telling my children that their consent to sexual activity with someone over a certain age will be deemed inadmissible in court. It helps them understand that however they think they feel at the time, the adult will be doing something wrong. It helps them to know that. The law has their back. Society has their back. Even when they are making suboptimal decisions. Because they are children engaging with adults.

You’d think the NSPCC would also have children’s backs.

If you actually look at the tweet there is a find out more link which takes you to a whole page of information

They can't put every eventuality on one post, it doesn't work like that.

Their post was factual and helpful for many parents

@Binterested

And I’m not sure why there’s a need to disagree. The NSPCC clearly think they should have done better.

They don't though

They pulled the post because of backlash not because they disagree with it. The same wording is still used on their about consent articles online.

It would have gone through many layers of sign off before being put live.

It would have gone through many layers of sign off before being put live

Ha! Like the tweet accusing people of homophobia for being concerned about Rubberman and his antics? NSPCC are on a warning - they should do better.

If the word ‘child’ was removed & this message referred to anyone, would that be ok, op? I think it’s so important to teach teens, adults etc, about consent

Well yes. but the NSPCC is about children. It's in the name. It would be outside of their charitable purpose to advise adults on consent between adults. And if you want to talk about teenagers, be specific.

@Binterested

Well yes. but the NSPCC is about children. It's in the name. It would be outside of their charitable purpose to advise adults on consent between adults. And if you want to talk about teenagers, be specific.

Are you saying Teenagers aren't children?

Because they are

@Binterested

It would have gone through many layers of sign off before being put live

Ha! Like the tweet accusing people of homophobia for being concerned about Rubberman and his antics? NSPCC are on a warning - they should do better.

You're reaching on this tbh

The tweets were homophobic. They had every right to speak out about the abuse their staff were receiving.

Oh this is tedious. As I clearly said, if you want to talk about teenagers, be specific. But you should also tell them at 15 that any consent they may give to an older adult will be disregarded in a court of law. for their protection.

Once we have that out of the way we can talk about how children and teenagers should seek and give consent.

Really no idea why you are so invested in defending a pretty crummy tweet from an organisation with a history of dodgy tweeting.

Objecting to a man dressed in rubber fetish gear in the NSPCC toilets uploading videos of himself on their premises and identifying himself as being at work at the NSPCC while doing so - is homophobic?

What do you think gay people do at work all day?

@Binterested

Objecting to a man dressed in rubber fetish gear in the NSPCC toilets uploading videos of himself on their premises and identifying himself as being at work at the NSPCC while doing so - is homophobic?

What do you think gay people do at work all day?

A lot of the posts were homophobic.

Many were comparing him being gay to being a threat to children.

Yeah gross to film sex videos at work, but it's not ok to blast or even imply that man is a sex offender or a predator due to his sexual orientation or even fetish unless it involves children.

Yanbu. Yes it's important to teach children and young people about consent, but this tweet was extremely badly worded and misleading, and in the context of last year's fails, I really don't have much trust in the Nspcc any more.

The NSPCC's first response was to protect him. And to accuse people who complained - like me - of homophobia.

This is not the kind of attitude a safeguarding charity can afford to have. He was only belatedly "let go". Not even sure if he was fired.

It's more than gross to film sex videos at work and then upload them for wider consumption. We really don't have to stop and ask anything about this person's sexuality - that is irrelevant. It is so far beyond ok that the CEO should have immediately jumped in a dealt with it. The fact that he didn't shows that the NSPCC has lost its way.

There may well have been some objectionable tweets to the NSPCC as a result of Makings' behaviour. That's not good. But it's also irrelevant. The NSPCC fucked up - including in the eyes of people like me who complained in good faith. They have statutory responsibilities and they fucked up.

@Binterested

The NSPCC's first response was to protect him. And to accuse people who complained - like me - of homophobia.

This is not the kind of attitude a safeguarding charity can afford to have. He was only belatedly "let go". Not even sure if he was fired.

It's more than gross to film sex videos at work and then upload them for wider consumption. We really don't have to stop and ask anything about this person's sexuality - that is irrelevant. It is so far beyond ok that the CEO should have immediately jumped in a dealt with it. The fact that he didn't shows that the NSPCC has lost its way.

There may well have been some objectionable tweets to the NSPCC as a result of Makings' behaviour. That's not good. But it's also irrelevant. The NSPCC fucked up - including in the eyes of people like me who complained in good faith. They have statutory responsibilities and they fucked up.

You don't have a right to complain about it though. And many people were using his sexuality as ammunition to complain. Just because you weren't doesn't mean they can't speak out about the homophobic abuse their staff are receiving.

People do bad shit at work all the time and they are dealt with by the business as per their contracts and behavior protocols.

Also rubber man was a celeb booker he would have had no input into content on the NSPCC social channels so that point is moot as well.

OMG! I can't get my head round some f the repsonses here.

That is a submission by the NSPCC. They know better. They bloody should do. They need to do far better than that. The wording implies that a child, any child can consent to sexual activity. Which is just not true!

Where the fuck ahve all the real grown ups gone? The people who sat down and thought about the wording of such things, the implications of what they say?

And trying to say that Rubberman was not innapropriate and shouldn't have been obejcted to is ridiculous! A childrens charity and a man chooses to film his sexual fetish at work and then publish those images, bragging about it? If your brain is not screaming SAFEGUARDING then you need to have a long think... and then maybe another one!

Between this and the guy who got caught wanking at work not getting instantly fired, I am very sceptical of the NSPCC at the moment.
If this was meant to be referring to teenagers over the age of consent, it should have been very clear about that.

You don't have a right to complain about it though. Erm... yes, we do! Some of us are professionally obliged to raise safeguarding issues whenever and wherever we see them. Most other people feel morally obligated!

He did a strange thing, he publicised it, people raised the issue and the NSPCCs initial reaction was to ignore the issues, issues they had a hand in bringing to law, ffs!

I'm not seeing the problem. Clearly the intention is to encourage adults to have age appropriate conversations about consent with their children. It is a topic that every parent should be regularly dropping into conversations with their children, many years before the child becomes sexually active.