MNHQ We Have a Problem

[DioneTheDiabolist]

In the past week, we have had the NSPCC pull out of a Web chat about their Speak Out Stay Safe (teaching children how to stay safe from abuse and what to do if they have any concerns) and PANTS (teaching parents how to talk to young children about staying safe from sexual abuse in an age appropriate way) programmes.

We have also had Stella Creasey MP pull out of a Web chat about making misogyny a hate crime.

As I am interested and invested in the safety and wellbeing of women and children, I am disappointed that these Web chats did not take place, seemingly because the views of the NSPCC and Stella Creasey regarding Trans issues do not align with some GC MNetters.

I want to ask MNHQ, what are you doing/can be done to prevent this from happening again? Plenty of women and parents here would like to hear what they have to say about keeping our children safe and legislation being drafted to protect women.

I've stopped reading or posting on any FWR thread because it's turned into single-minded transphobia, so I guess I'll be hiding this too

Go ahead if that suits you. There's nothing transphobic here though. I guess the bigger question is why you bother to click on the thread in the first place.

I’m not transphobic.

If the NSPCC, a huge national charity, with masses of "expert" advice from Stonewall, solicitors etc, cannot come onto Mumsnet (an online parenting forum) and robustly defend their own safeguarding policies, then they are the ones with the problem. We are the ones bringing up our children and with the most to lose for our children. Why shouldn't we have questions? Why is it OK for them just to pull the plug but we get the blame because we asked a few questions that they obviously cannot defend?

"I've stopped reading or posting on any FWR thread because it's turned into single-minded transphobia, so I guess I'll be hiding this too"
Can you highlight the transphobia on this thread please?

Thanks for the thread Dione, I also think we have a growing problem.

Organisations and individuals come on to Mumsnet to promote their own endeavours. Now I don't know if this is a commercial arrangement or simply an exercise in mutual promotion, but as with the NSPCC and Stella Creasey a lot of those endeavours are philanthropic and have the potential to be hugely beneficial to both those posting here and those searching the internet.

If MN stops being a platform from which these parties can reach their target audience then that is going to be bad for the audience and bad for Mumsnet.

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that people like the NSPCC don't come here to be taught a thing or two about safeguarding from a bunch of anonymous internet handles. They come here as part of the valuable work they do informing people about how to safeguard children - and if they are prevented from doing that then nobody wins.

Sure, ask a tough question here and there about your own personal agenda, but when it becomes apparent that the visiting guest is no longer able to do the thing they came here to do you really have to know when to stop. MNHQ, for your own benefit and the benefit of those who support the causes of people like the NSPCC, how can you possibly enforce this?

If they don't want to engage with all of MN, why try to start a webchat. They could just take out a load of adverts directing us their new guidance and that would prevent us asking any questions they don't want to answer.

It seems certain guests want to control the narrative and not have a genuine open discussion about concerns that large numbers of (usually) female parents have.

It seems certain guests want to control the narrative

Well yes.... they come here to talk about a certain topic, usually. I suppose one could call that "controlling the narrative".

How very dare mothers want to ask questions to politicians and national children’s charities amid concerns over the biggest legal challenge to women’s rights ever? Silly mummies. They should just accept that no one wants to discuss it, and concentrate on pretending that their biggest concern is biscuits. Let those grown ups carry on destroying safeguarding and rolling back women’s rights in peace. Just be NICE, ladies.

That's a lovely propaganda image you're trying to paint there Mamaryllis, but it's not actually what anybody's saying.

I thought they were taking about safeguarding and the PANTS thing they have going on

But when people asked questions relating to those there werent the right questions

It started to go tits up by the end of page two and although similar questions were in the majority there were posts expressing an interest in answers and a few posts on more general safeguarding

What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that people like the NSPCC don't come here to be taught a thing or two about safeguarding from a bunch of anonymous internet handles.

Actually it seems that they should do, frankly. Many of the "anonymous internet handles" of which you speak have considerable experience of safeguarding children.

As pointed out on the other thread, their stance on this completely contradicts the PANTS concept. On every point. You can't expect people not to ask questions and comment on that.

Well yes.... they come here to talk about a certain topic, usually. I suppose one could call that "controlling the narrative".

Indeed, don't badge it as an open Q and A if you're not willing to engage with the questions put to you.

If they don't want to engage with all of MN, why try to start a webchat. They could just take out a load of adverts directing us their new guidance and that would prevent us asking any questions they don't want to answer.

This.

I wonder why it could possibly be? 🙄.

Agree that there is a growing problem. Mnhq know it. They are being tested to the limit by the GC posters, but then, they've been saying that for a long time now and the limit seems to keep stretching.

For what it's worth, the NSPCC thing wasn't a webchat, it was a scheduled Facebook live, and he thread was to submit prequestions so if you couldn't make it live you still had the chance to ask.

It wouldn't have mattered if the thread was empty, the live could have happened anyway with questions out to them during the live.

Instead, the GC posters rolled in with their single issue agenda, made it clear that they would be demanding and swamped the whole thing. And now they're cross with mnhq, the NSPCC, and are blaming all the posters who didn't post a prequestion.

It's bad enough losing FWR to the GC crew, but now it seems to be spreading to AIBU and chat more frequently, and now these two valuable events, hugely relevant to parent said of all stripes, have been cancelled due to their belligerence.

I hope mnhq will up their game but I fear it is too late. The GC crew have been permitted to claim ownership of FWR and have so normalised their transphobia that they can't even recognise it for what it is.

The NSPCC were scheduled to talk about specific initiatives. Not to robustly defend themselves or be derailed from the discussion proposed by those who wish to control the narrative and make it all about their particular single issue agenda.

MNHQ

Can you please ignore my first post (you probably will anyway as it wasnt very interesting )

I thought this was supposed to be a 'shit thats unfortunate how can we move forward with future webchats' type thread and its obviously not

Hope you get some answers dione

The NSPCC were scheduled to talk about specific initiatives

This was billed as an open Q&A about safeguarding, Dione. Didn't actually see you there with your questions?

derailed from the discussion

It wasn't a derail. The questions asked were perfectly valid in the context.

It wouldn't have mattered if the thread was empty

So what you think is that the only posters who bothered to ask questions as asked for should not have done? Your bias is showing.

You didn't see anyone there Ereshkigal. It didn't happen.

On the thread, Dione.

If I'd worked hard on a policy that contradicts parts of my previous one, I would expect people who've been charged with implementation to ask how they can resolve the contradictions.

IME, it's the people at the sharp end of implementation who have the most questions, and the people who have nothing to do with it who don't. Ergo...

GRA reform will harm safeguarding. It’s already done so.

The lobby groups now in schools are advocating practices which go against safeguarding

These groups are ‘educating’ by giving out scientifically incorrect information and reinforcing rigid gender stereotypes.

This isn’t pearl clutching or transphobia. This is women pointing out that massive stonking great loopholes are being created in our safeguarding framework. That will let predators access children. The right of ALL children to be safe is far more important than anyone’s feelings.

This is important stuff. The NSPCC need to be aware