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.

cyberwanderlust comment from NSPCC letter thread:
"What Lisa [Muggeridge] said about NSPCC here> www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLxCZ38NG_0&t=4s made me look at who sponsored NSPCC in the case of the advert about child abuse in 2002. The advert is on YouTube now: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEotHOoBAQw and it was sponsored by Microsoft Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Follow this www.thirdsector.co.uk/national-media-briefing-headway-war-want-nspcc-barnardos-eastern-congo-initiative-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/communications/article/1180180

And this> www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10019617/School-pupils-should-be-taught-not-all-porn-is-bad-advise-experts.html(Teachers should be aware that “not all pornography is bad” when taking sex education classes, according to guidance made available to schools.)

And this> to see what they're doing. "

I find it strange that the NSPCC expected to control a question and answer session, or steer the session onto the subject that the NSPCC wanted to promote.

Perhaps they've confused question and answer sessions with PR or marketing?

This. It really stood out to me in their response.

I'm just flabbergasted by all this.

I've had a DD with the NSPCC for years and like many pps thought that they were trustworthy and knew what they were doing wrt safeguarding and protection of children. Looks like I was stupidly naive to say the least

I had no idea they had the powers to remove children, GirlScout72 post is a real eye opener. And that video from LM (who is an utter fucking shero) is damning in the extreme.

What a shit show.

I find it strange that the NSPCC expected to control a question and answer session, or steer the session onto the subject that the NSPCC wanted to promote.

Perhaps they've confused question and answer sessions with PR or marketing?

It would be interesting to know the position / qualifications of the NSPCC representative who was due to respond to the live chat. Was this mentioned at all?

That video from Lisa M is so powerful.

Yes. Thank you for your guts Lisa.

"I find it strange that the NSPCC expected to control a question and answer session, or steer the session onto the subject that the NSPCC wanted to promote. "

Indeed, why did the NSPCC think they'd be able to have a rational discussion about child safeguarding on a forum that is clearly obsessed with one thing and one thing only.

They know better now, at least. www.gaystarnews.com/article/nspcc-mumsnet-child-abuse-transphobia

That video from Lisa M is so powerful.

It really shows why affirmation is such a bad thing, and why organisations who are supposed to safeguard should be asking questions about why a child is presenting as 'trans' rather than trying to get them into the brownies.

The point is flying past Gaystar News at 50,000 feet there.

A familiar occurrence I suspect.

And past the poster who helpfully posted their link.

I don't know if this has been linked

The NSPCC should watch this: Why it matters that Aimee Challoner is Trans.

Come back to us NSPCC and tell us there are no safeguarding concerns around a child adopting a trans identity. I dare you.

idgeofreason.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/video-why-it-matters-a-great-deal-that-aimee-challoner-was-trans/

Oh and by the way, I refer you to my question on page 1 of this non-chat

Indeed, why did the NSPCC think they'd be able to have a rational discussion about child safeguarding on a forum that is clearly obsessed with one thing and one thing only

I completely agree with you. 👍🏻

So many Mumsnetters are clearly obsessed with the protection of children, especially when many organisations, such as the NSPCC are willing to sacrifice them in order to pander to the TRA. Some one has to try to protect the children from this misogynistic cult.

Yep, Mumsnet is a parenting website, and the ultimate concern of parents is the safety and well-being of their children.

Funny how that seems to be a problem these days.

The NSPCC doesn’t consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to trans-inclusive policies.

A charity that's existed since 1884, has had awareness of all the ways children can be abused for 134 years, cannot think of even one specific child protection issue in relation to trans-inclusive policies?

How about the specific child protection issue of a girl not being allowed to say "no" to a male-bodied person being next to her when changing after swimming? Because that's what trans-inclusive policies can result in: a girl not being allowed to say "no".

(And how on earth could NSPCC and MNHQ be so naive as to not realise what kind of questions would be asked.)

I'll reprise my comment of earlier in the thread:

You're a disgrace. Let me remind you. Girls' boundaries are a child protection concern in and of themselves.

I'm actually pretty embarrassed for NSPCC.

The thing with being a publicly funded charity that is opening a discussion up is that by only choosing to address issues you preplanned to discuss, you are marginalising others opinions, queries and questions.

It may not be a big issue for the NSPCC but clearly it is for parents and young vulnerable children - the people they purport to help.

So if it's not to address the fears of their demographic then what is the point?

I am really interested in what Lisa said in her video about NSPCC. That they win contracts and then dont provide the services. Is this true? I would like more information about this. What are the contracts? What services do they provide? What are the targets and objectives? What are the measures of effectiveness? This i am sure is information which is available to the public but i dont know where to find it?

That'll be the last time they ever get any money out of me.

Irts not that they outright dont provide the service its that they a- Make referral criteria SO narrow and processes so long that you cant get a service. b) they cherry pick cases, only pick cases where there will be success c) they shut the cases they do open at the first sign of trouble. Their workers are VERY middle class and the whole ethos of NSPCC is that, improving the poor and rescuing children. They function well at govt level, have huge lobbying power and hoover up contracts and your heart sinks when one of the big three or four charitries picks up a contract cos the power dynamics inherent are just such that you basically know that there will be no service. You can get media comment immediately but getting services out of them is a nightmare. They have been primary beneficiary of privatisation and promote and benefit from it. Just that noone else does. They pay well.

Lisa

I wan to say directly to you: thank you. I can see what a toll this is taking on you your anger mirrors our

Jeez! your anger mirrors ours

Lisa, thank you so much for your videos - I have watched quite a few over the last few days, and they are eye-opening, and passionate, and just bloody brilliant.

What you say about making the referrals process so long (locked filing cabinet in an unlit basement down a broken staircase with a "beware of the leopard" sign), and closing cases that are too hard is fascinating, especially in the light of the David Challenor case. It seems like DC and TC's children may have been returned to the parental home due to a mixture of the fuss the parents made online, and multi-agency failures - but your video makes me wonder who child protection was sub-contracted to in Coventry.