Those Playground jezebels taunting men with their handstands

[HeavenHotel]

englishheadline.com/primary-schools-tell-girls-aged-four-to-wear-modesty-shorts-amid-accusations-of-body-shaming-englishheadline/

For the fucking love of god ... words fail me

Simon Bailey, chief constable of Norfolk and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, has lent his support to the idea of wearing modesty shorts

Hey Simon maybe women should wear chastity belts when they hit puberty, that would bring down rape numbers.

The lead for child protection and this is the best he comes up with.

Ridiculous. Practical uniforms for kids would help.. let them wear trousers and shorts and comfortable trainers..

‘While we do not want to give children messages that they are responsible for the actions of others, we cannot stand by while children’s actions may attract inappropriate attention from members of the public but did not act to protect them.’

Oh my god. I cannot believe what I’m reading. Children’s actions “attracting” trouble? Now paedophilia is girls’ fault for being immodest? Words fail me.

Some of the quote Lazy gave was from a (male) primary school headteacher.
This is the source: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-accuse-schools-of-body-shaming-as-girls-are-told-to-wear-shorts-under-skirts-hj6v2bdbl

Does anyone have a share token? Today’s Times.

Rather than address the appalling rates of conviction for rape and sexual assault let's indoctrinate girls early to understand they are responsible for the behaviour of adult men.

We are going backwards.

At this age I would have preferred a cotton dress in a non-air conditioned school and a fairly bare (so no shade) playground. Many hot countries prefer loose fitting clothes rather than trousers.

oneepisode it's also in The Fail, but didn't want to put the link, and didn't have share token for The Tines

In a local park an item of play equipment attracted paedophiles, partly because little girls climbed on it and swung from it whilst wearing short skirts and dresses. It was thus easy for a person with a sexual interest in children to sit on a nearby bench and take upskirt films and photos.

At least one such offender was caught taking upskirt photos and was arrested at the park.

Of course none of this is the fault or responsibility of the little girls.

Of course little girls should be able to play in short skirs and not be violated via upskirt photos.

However if I had a little girl who wanted to play there she would be wearing trousers or, if she wanted to wear a dress or skirt, she would be wearing shorts underneath it. Not because she is a "Jezebel", just because it means she is less likely to be perved over by a predator than if he can see her knickers.

I saw this and was fuming. Let's victim blame 4+ year olds and say how it is all there fault for doing a handstand. For fucks sake, let children be bloody children. Everything is covered its just knickers.

I would say that this has become more common in last few years, certainly in my small area of the world. I had a conversation/ complaint from a mother that other children had commented on ‘her daughter’s modesty shorts.’ ( the mother’s terminology not mine) when changing for PE and she didn’t want to wear them.

Now, quite a few of the younger girls wear them, not all. A pity as it gives them no more freedom to climb as they still wear skirts. I can understand older girls perhaps wanting to wear when they are climbing or tumbling outside as other kids can make daft remarks.

Personally, I feel shorts and trousers give children more freedom to play but such a shame that these shorts are being linked with preventing sexualised behaviour. Again, why is the onus on girls to prevent inappropriate behaviour? These are tiny little girls.

In all my life I only remember one girl removing her underwear to perform handstands, aged about 8. I often wonder why she did this? These days this would raise huge alarm bells.

This sort of news brings out my inner Stalinist. What happened to the man arrested for taking upskirt photos of small children? Happily carrying on his little hobby somewhere else, I expect. We need the sort of penalties that would seriously frighten these predators off. God rot them.

Share token for the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/16e61506-c57b-11eb-a80c-dfb0d2172f4f?shareToken=07986f41602f2e0dd2c9f50efbbb6e7f

Also, just the phrase ‘modesty’ shorts, eurgh.

Why the hell should girls have to learn to be modest to prevent the vile attentions of adults?

Can’t they just be called shorts, and actually can’t girls just wear regular shorts, same as boys?

I wish I'd been allowed to wear shorts under my dresses when I was a kid. I loved doing handstands, hated showing my knickers.
This was the wrong way to address it though. Of course the little girls are not responsible for the disgusting behaviour of predatory adults, no matter what they're wearing.
Personally I think they shouldn't be called modesty shorts either. Something like playshorts would be better.

This made me fucking angry today too

@LazyHorizon

‘While we do not want to give children messages that they are responsible for the actions of others, we cannot stand by while children’s actions may attract inappropriate attention from members of the public but did not act to protect them.’

Oh my god. I cannot believe what I’m reading. Children’s actions “attracting” trouble? Now paedophilia is girls’ fault for being immodest? Words fail me.

All too reminiscent of the victim-blaming in this thread about girls who were raped or sexually assaulted in schools:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3364173-Our-kids-were-raped-by-classmates-DfE-wont-listen

They have to wear knickers over their knickers to stop perves?

Not sure how as quoted in the article clothing can stop upskirting tbh.

It's all very spotlight off the actual problem.

I think culottes are fab but that's just me!

It's not the 4yo girls who are the problem here.

“Modesty shorts” urghhhhh what a horrible phrase. Just by using that phrase it’s already sexualised ffs!

The best solution would be a sensible uniform in the first place. Loose shorts and tops for example. (I did manage to get my DDs gingham shorts one year! )

Primary uniforms should be designed for playing. Nothing to do with perverts...

That story is terrifying Embarrassing

@LazyHorizon

That story is terrifying Embarrassing

It still gives me such visceral anger that I experience nausea when I think about it.

If there are paedos hanging around the school playground, hoping to catch sight of a 4 year olds's knickers, you patrol the fences and arrest the perverts surely?

@hoodathunkit

In a local park an item of play equipment attracted paedophiles, partly because little girls climbed on it and swung from it whilst wearing short skirts and dresses. It was thus easy for a person with a sexual interest in children to sit on a nearby bench and take upskirt films and photos.

At least one such offender was caught taking upskirt photos and was arrested at the park.

Of course none of this is the fault or responsibility of the little girls.

Of course little girls should be able to play in short skirs and not be violated via upskirt photos.

However if I had a little girl who wanted to play there she would be wearing trousers or, if she wanted to wear a dress or skirt, she would be wearing shorts underneath it. Not because she is a "Jezebel", just because it means she is less likely to be perved over by a predator than if he can see her knickers.

I completely agree with this and I think it comes down to your own perception. We often wore shorts under our skirts at school. We could climb, play football, run around without being restricted by the skirt lifting and having to pull it back down to cover ourselves. The shorts made it more practical for play.

It ideally shouldn't have to come to strict measures due to predators and how could it possibly be a child's fault, but the threat is there and children are vulnerable from these predators, especially the girls in this instance as the boys are covered.

I wouldn't allow dc to show underwear if I was there, I would have no qualms with shorts being worn under a skirt.

I liked wearing shorts under my skirt in primary- I did on PE days, but not in the rest of the week. I can remember, towards the end of primary when I was self-conscious, wanting to practice cartwheels at break but as I didn't have shorts on that day, feeling too shy to do so. (It never occurred to me to just wear shorts every day!)

But making them compulsory is really backwards. It will point out to the girls that their bodies are something to be ashamed of and hidden.

The Times article says "Retailers including Next and River Island market trunk-style underwear or cycling shorts as “modesty shorts”, while Gap calls them “cartwheel shorts to layer under dresses”. Next sells its “modesty shorts” for girls as young as two, while River Island sells them for those aged five and over."
I like the term "cartwheel shorts" better than "modesty" (which is gross), but they turn out to be made of polyester. Tight polyester shorts, all day every schoolday, does not seem healthy. I had a search and M&S do cotton jersey kids' cycle shorts (in the PE kit section; no weird modesty labelling) which do at least come in white, which would probably work best under summer dresses.

I agree that having proper shorts as part of the uniform, and normalising girls wearing them, would be much better than forcing them to wear an extra layer.

Shouldn't primary-aged kids normally have an adult out supervising them in the playground anyway, which should stop perverts hanging around or taking pictures or generally being inappropriate?

Simon Bailey, chief constable of Norfolk and the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, backed the idea of compulsory shorts under dresses.

Or perhaps he could back the compulsory criminalisation of paedophiles, rapists and upskirters.

Fuck him for shaming young girls.

Reminds of something I vaguely remember. It was a victorian courtroom and the judge remarked on how the 11 year old girl 'corrupted' the man on trial (who I presume abused her in some way).

Simon Bailey is a thundering disgrace of a man to suggest that a child has to take measures so that a paedophile won't be led astray by the child merely playing. That by playing in a normal way (and with clothes covering her anyway), she would be a corrupting influence.

I think shorts are probably more suitable for all children in any event. However Simon Bailey is being an apologist for men who groom abuse and rape children by implying there is something other than those men responsible (even in a tiny way) for their crimes.