Facebook Live about talking to kids about staying safe from abuse with NSPCC

[RachelMumsnet]

We’re running a facebook live with NSPCC about talking to kids about staying safe from abuse. The NSPCC have developed programme called Speak out. Stay safe delivered in primary schools across the UK. Volunteers visit schools where they run workshops and assemblies to teach children how to stay safe from abuse and what to do if they have any concerns. The NSPCC are also running a campaign called PANTS that teaches parents how to talk to young children about staying safe from sexual abuse in an age appropriate and non-scary way.

Lidl say: "'Last year Lidl UK employees voted to make the NSPCC their new national charity partner for a three year period. During this period, this partnership will aim to raise £3 million to keep 1 million primary school children safe through the NSPCC’s Speak out. Stay safe programme. This vital programme helps to empower a generation of children with the knowledge they need to stay safe. With at least 2 children in the average primary school class having suffered abuse or neglect, it’s vital that the NSPCC has the resources to visit primary schools across the UK to teach children that abuse is never OK."

Join the NSPCC live next week on Thursday 30 August at 12.30pm on Mumsnet Facebook or post up a question on this thread that we will put to the NSPCC during the live stream. We’ll link to the stream next week on this thread.

WeWantJustice

Link here.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6112399/amp/The-epidemic-sexual-assaults-schools.html

"In September 2015, a BBC investigation revealed that, over the previous three years, more than 5,500 sexual offences had been reported to police as having happened in UK schools. The figures included more than 600 rapes."

"Allowing for the average length of the school term, that’s around one rape a day. And because reporting rates are low for sexual offences, the real figure is likely to be higher."

The one adult the child disclosed to becomes "holder of the secret." Which has the potential to go spectacularly tits-up if that adult is not trustworthy.

Obviously that statement is not transphobic. The adult in the situation most likely doesn't identify as trans. That would be the child, who could be at risk from the adult.

I've just read the whole thread through and am utterly horrified by how it has unfolded and the response from the NSPCC.

The NSPCC now takes the top spot in displays of extreme cowardice and acting contrary to the aims of their own organisation. I thought the WEP was a hard one to beat on that score but NSPCC you truly take the .

I hope those woke cookies taste good because you clearly have no answers or arguments to the many pertinent questions about safeguarding and the obvious loopholes in your own campaigns.

There's no safeguarding issue if we're telling young girls that they must ignore the presence of male bodied people in places where they're vulnerable?

WTF NSPCC? Are you being so open minded you've let your collective brains fall out?

Gas lighting girls by telling them they must accept "female penises" is the opposite of safeguarding.

What everyone else said. Utter failure of the NSPCC to uphold even basic child safeguarding.

I've given a monthly donation to them by direct debit since 2002. That will be stopped tomorrow, and given to a charity that doesn't just throw out all child protection guidelines in favour of a gender identity ideology.

GC women are constantly made out to be grateful transphobes, yet no one ever addresses our specific concerns. We've had Caroline Lucas and now the NSPCC put out general statements basically saying "your concerns aren't valid because reasons". But if our concerns really aren't valid, answer the questions! If we've nothing to worry about it should be easy enough to explain why. But they can't so instead they issue a blanket statement which addresses nothing, imaging that to respond to specific questions would be to engage in transphobia.

Shame on you NSPCC. You're sending children down a fucking shitty creek without a paddle, especially girls. How dare you imply that no one will be at risk. In what other situation are safeguarding concerns completely ignored? It makes a mockery of safeguarding.

This agenda is becoming terrifyingly sinister. We're being dictated to with no right of reply.

hateful not grateful of course.

sigh and imaging is implying. It's early and I'm angry!

Btw, NSPCC, I, like many others, have archived this thread and your appalling statement.

In a few years, when this whole thing explodes, you guys will probably trot out the standard "how could we have known?!?" excuse that you always do when things are exposed.

But this time, you did know. We have proof that you know. You will have no excuse for you ignorance this time.

The thing about "trans young people being at particular risk of abuse and turning to strangers online"

Has it occurred to you that mentally ill children, and children who are gay and lesbian (particularly lesbian) are truing to trans organisations online. Adults who then exploit them Adults which the NSPCC has chosen to trust to supply them with their advice. Adults like AC and JB

"If they say they are female, then they are female and there is no safeguarding risk"

James Copeland, NSPCC

He then took to Twitter and called this mother of a Guide a TERF.

He was also quoting the wrong legislation. I'm totally reassured.

CertainHalfDesertedStreets

I am glad you said that. I have been on MN for years. I talk about Baby Names, GCSEs, TV programmes and take part in risible heated debates on AIBU. We are women from all walks of life who have taken the time to think about this and in some cases challenge our own thinking. Some of us have children; some of us work with children. This is the biggest online audience of parents in the world and you dismiss our concerns with a derisory statement

No particular issues, except it goes against your own advice on your own website

So NSPCC, why wouldn’t you recommend mixed sex sleeping arrangements over the age of 10? Specifically why not?

See tweet

GirlsSCout

So professional.

As for Cursed E, sorry, Sisters

We are talking about 49% of the population being able to opt into the female sex class with no gatekeeping. That IS Self ID.

This DISSOLVES all safeguarding structures, processes and laws we need to keep women and kids safe. It also takes away the language we need to talk about it.

Secondly, as per studies of offenders in the USA and the warnings of prison experts and forensic pyschologists in the UK we already know that crossdressing and transgender fetish is the most common paraphilia in sadistic, serial sex offenders, that nefarious men will and already are exploiting current rules to access women and kids. Self ID is a very SERIOUS loophole for predatory males.

To say again ANYONE, under self ID, can pretend to be the opposite sex on their own say so, and access spaces and services for women and kids.

Anyone saying otherwise is either so open minded their brain has fallen out or a NONCE.

What could a bunch of mum's and professionals who work with women and kids possibly have to be worried about with this sex offenders' charter?????

Oh yes we're bigots. Got it. Saying anything to raise the alarm is "hate" meanwhile unprofessional organisations, with scant knowledge of the law and safeguarding protocols, mainly run by crossdressing men, are going into schools and institutions and grooming are kids that their boundaries don't matter. That their perception of reality is wrong. That is unhealthily obsessed with kids' genitals in the name of "civil rights".

Genuine trans people are as disgusted and alarmed by this as we are!! Self ID does NOTHING for trans people except set them up for a backlash.

NSPCC, we're not going away, you might as well thrash this out with us. As you've noticed, we're good at media, it's in your own interests to engage with us as the alternative won't be pretty.

Plus you'd think NSPCC would have connected the fact that a history of trauma and sexual abuse is highly correlated with ROGD, which means kids, out of the blue, identifying as trans is a massive safeguarding RED FLAG.

But no, they are for the affirmation model, delivering said kids into the hands of organisations mainly staffed by mainly crossdressing fetishistic males who do NOT and never did have dysphoria.

Self ID is a campaign to remove the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the process of legally changing sex. Why would a bunch of crossdressing fetishists, who currently would be rejected for a GRC possibly want that? Any ideas?

Nothing to see here.

Do you know what pisses me off too. #MeToo Every single adult woman knows sexual harassment and has been groped, leered at, attacked online. My all girls' school was beset by flashers, the tube involves being rubbed against. Night clubs, porn.

We all know what men can be, at their worst. We know. So we don't want this for our daughters (or sons - mine is gay so male predators there too.

We know. And when men and their handmaidens and woke bros tell us to shut up, be nice to the poor men, we know they are protecting their dirty little secrets. So, so angry.

GirlScout72

That James Copeland tweet!! What position does he hold at the NSPCC?

He says FML in relation to having to be polte to worried mothers. 'Fuck My Life' is what my teenage son says in a hormonal strop. And even he's grown out of it now.

Who are these arrogant, ignorance children tweeting their nonsense to the world?

PippaPepperpot

But if our concerns really aren't valid, answer the questions! If we've nothing to worry about it should be easy enough to explain why. But they can't so instead they issue a blanket statement which addresses nothing, imaging that to respond to specific questions would be to engage in transphobia.

Exactly.

Answering a question means addressing the content. Not waving it away.

When I first wrote to my MP, I was told that the existence of autogynephilia was 'controversial.'

Despite linking to numerous examples, quoting what AGPs say, providing screenshots of numerous examples and showing fetishistic transvestism being in the DSM-V.

Just complete avoidance of my issue. Stunningly weak.

GirlScout

Excellent post.

Plus you'd think NSPCC would have connected the fact that a history of trauma and sexual abuse is highly correlated with ROGD, which means kids, out of the blue, identifying as trans is a massive safeguarding RED FLAG. But no, they are for the affirmation model, delivering said kids into the hands of organisations mainly staffed by mainly crossdressing fetishistic males who do NOT and never did have dysphoria.Self ID is a campaign to remove the diagnosis of gender dysphoria in the process of legally changing sex. Why would a bunch of crossdressing fetishists, who currently would be rejected for a GRC possibly want that? Any ideas?

Nothing to see here.

James is in their Northern Ireland office, he was suspended for that tweet but even so he WAS their trans expert, and he was quoting 1999 legislation which was superceded by the Equality Act. He also didn't know that the protected characteristic of gender reassignment confers no rights on a male child as a female, ditto adults (his comment was in reference to male adults being Guide Leaders).

Concerned mum then escalated complaint to the board and was then dealt with by Zoe Parrott (she of this thread) and John Cameron, head of helplines.

I've seen those emails too. Zoe's emails were pretty much word for word the same as the NSPCC statement on this thread. John Cameron thinks trans is a "sexual identity" - it's deeply concerning the NSPCC are ascribing sexual identities to young kids (plus that's not what "trans" is anyway).

John Cameron's tetchy email to concerned mum, where he refused to engage with her any further, said that safeguarding, in the NSPCC's opinion was solved by children of "opposite gender identities" not sharing dorms or toileting or washing facilities. This means the NSPCC has already committed to writing that it sees No risk with mixed sex facilities, or parents not being told.

As far as I'm aware they have consistently failed to address concerns regarding adult leaders. I believe concerned mum has once again escalated it back to board and trustees at NSPCC.

Meanwhile I've seen an FOI to the DBS service and things really are as much of a shambles as we think they are.

Interestingly, John Cameron's first, initial response was to totally get mum's concerns. His later response was almost robotic.

This is entirely speculation on my part, but if I was to take a punt,bit read like a trans lobby group had written it. Can't prove that obviously but it surprises me NSPCC doesn't appear to have looked very hard at the organisations from which they are buying consultancy services.

I should point out too that 3 independent barristers and five I dependent senior child safeguarding experts all looked at our side's concerns with this whole mess with NSPCC and Girl Guides and all agreed "we" were right on the law and on our safeguarding concerns.

So once again, I insist NSPCC makes public it's Equality Impact Assessments and Safeguarding review which they were obliged to undertake before endorsing gender identity and Self ID.

Really interesting info there, GS.

Btw concerned mum posted a lot of the NSPCC emails on some of the GirlGuides threads on MN back when the Sunday Times first ran the story about rebel leaders. They are still there.

Girl Scout, can you give more info about James Copeland?

Do you have the first thing he said about there being no safeguarding risk as a screenshot? And who is he in NSPCC? His twitter account doesn’t seem to exist any more.