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.

Sorry x post

Concerned mum put his emails on MN in their entirety. I don't have time to go and find them and link them but they're on MN.

GirlScout72
Thread with emails:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3350778-My-letter-to-NSPCC

Girlscout your post at 6.07 is a fabulous rant.

This thread is the most chilling one I have ever read. NSPCC - you had one job. One.

This is worse than the fox saying he is a chicken to get it into the henhouse. This is the company that installed the chicken wire fence around the henhouse coming and removing it to ensure the new chicken can get in.

I am not a hate-filled bigot - mum of 3, until this issue blew up I posted on Aibu about cleaners and mother in laws and cheeky fuckers, used recipe and style and beauty threads as a lurker, and bought many things including holidays on the back of recommendations here. And in real life, I attend probably four fundraisers for the NSPCC a year and have done for 20 years. I am saving this thread as proof of your cowardice and culpability. And you don’t get a penny more from me. Until you do the job you are meant to be.

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

Yes.

"James is in their Northern Ireland office, [. . .] but even so he WAS their trans expert, and he was quoting 1999 legislation which was superceded by the Equality Act."

Northern Ireland isn't covered by the Equality Act. Instead, in cases like this, it's covered by the Sex Discrimination Gender Reassignment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. If you can't get the basics right, what else did you get wrong in your post?

Just read all the emails with the NSPCC on the linked thread that R0 posted below.

And the disingenuousness of trans lobby groups is staggering. This is from GIRES but it could be from any of them. They know perfectly well the difference between sex and gender www.gires.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/GIRES-Monitoring-Note-May-2018.pdf

And yet they go into schools, charities, government, companies and spread this obsfucating bullshit about gender ID and safeguarding.

The irony of course is the NSPCC does some excellent work compiling data on perpetrators and victims (the former usually male, the latter disproportionately female) and yet in the next breath NSPCC say your internal sense of gender ID is what makes you a man or a woman and we should organise safeguarding on that basis.

NSPCC have been HAD ... hoodwinked. That, or there's a more sinister explanation.

The enquiry to James was passed from London HQ about a situation in ENGLAND.

If James Copeland is giving advice pertinent to safeguarding in England then one would assume he'd know the fucking law in England.

Eresh The emails by Tunataka and the replies from NSPCC are very important reading. They should be considered seriously by a wider audience.

It was quite enlightening to me to watch the oral evidence to the trans enquiry, read the report and read the government response to it. This is where the sleight of hand started vis a vis women's spaces. As recently as 2016.

There was much more acknowledgement that female spaces were a tricky issue back then in the mists of time in 2015 (sarcasm). The trans enquiry was concluded and the report was produced. One of things asked for was to abolish the provision that even males with a GRC could be excluded from a small number of female spaces. Also recognition of non binary etc in EA.

The government said no they weren't planning to change the EA, but to placate the trans lobby that non binary people could claim discrimination under the EA, and that documents would be produced for both service providers and employers in consultation with written by trans advocacy groups. IIRC this was Gendered Intelligence. So this is important to how we have got where we are.

"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."

One could perhaps argue that our concern that safeguarding advice is being disregarded for trans identifying children shows that actually we give more of a shit about said children than the organisations speaking on their behalf... and the NSPCC

proponents of self ID cannot see that is a huge loophole for predatory males. Either their minds are so open their brains have fallen out, OR I feel I have no other logical explanation but to conclude their motivations are sinister.

Yes. And rather than addressing our concerns and allaying our fears (which should be easy to do if we are so wrong) they run away and hide under their duvet with their fingers in their ears.

Exactly.

The single most important thing any of us can do is fill in the Government consultation. Fair Play for Women have easy to follow step by step guidance on their website that walks you through how to do it www.fairplayforwomen.com - it's on the homepage.

Also you'll shortly be able to order free booklets, postcards and flyers (small charge to cover postage) so you can tell your family and friends. Some of it is designed for total beginners to this topic, in easy to understand language.

We have to say no to Self ID.

I strongly believe that it was the government allowing trans lobbying organisations to write their guidelines that is the huge problem here and what has happened is a form of "scope creep". And a sleight of hand by them, as I said.

John Cameron thinks trans is a "sexual identity"

Eh? A sexual identity that leaves children permanently sterile and with no sex life.

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.

What does this even mean?
Like so much of this shit it's absolute bollocks.

Children of the opposite gender identities. So everyone who feels feminine in one room and everyone who feels masculine in another?

How the fucking fuck does that solve safeguarding issues!!

And (no eye roll big enough) how do you check??

Because Ian Huntley feels 'feminine' enough, doesn't he?

God, it's so, so, so stupid.

Take a whole set of stereotypes and call them feminine.

Then say people with those stereotypes are no threat to anybody. Claim that men can acquire those stereotypes and therefore be no threat.

But then watch, with your own eyes, those men display the most toxic masculinity possible!

People with an agenda, I can understand. People buying the agenda are just thick.

Datun

This stuff keeps me awake at night. It really really is THAT insane.

This is the NSPCC, and they believe that on the say so of largely non dysphoric fetishistic males, who, as explained eruditely above,vhave crept to prominence because they've been feted and taken on face value by the Government, the EHRC, the GEO, Maria Miller et al without a shred of due diligence.

These people are intent on dissolving mature safeguarding systems and processes in a democracy. Compounded by austerity where older professionals who get it have been pushed out and young professionals are graduates of PoMoShire University!!!

Like I said, I don't sleep much.

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.

Well, Facebook lists 73 gender identities & I think New York legally recognise 37. Are they going to provide facilities for each one?

Why can't there be three options - women, men and trans? Surely that's the obvious solution?

I wanted to add further, that NSPCC will never receive another penny from me. I will divert the funds I would have used for them to a suitable childrens counselling service, because let's face it, it's going to be needed in the not too distant future.

The NSPCC are actually going to enable predators to access children, allow the blatant abuse of children, by stealth, under the guise of being inclusive. You could not make this shit up.