Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

My letter to NSPCC

145 replies

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 09:52

Dear NSPCC Trustees and Board Members,

I have been writing to you for the last couple of years regarding the safeguarding implications of gender self identity and the abandoning of sex-class as a basis for safeguarding.

After a number of ridiculous replies from various staff members, I received a reply from Peter Wanless on behalf of you all. This can be read, below. The NSPCC chose to ignore any safeguarding risks posed by Trans Identified Males (TIMs), deeming that existing safeguarding policies and risk assessments are adequate.

There have been some recent developments which means that you must review the NSPCC position on this.

  1. Jess Bradley (JB)is a trans identified male. He is the National Union of Students LGBTQ representative and he has advised Government on numerous occassions. JB is the Director of an organisation called Action for Trans Health, which receives Government funding and has trained NHS staff. JB also gave evidence at Maria Miller's Transgender Equality Inquiry.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/action-for-trans-health-activists-want-free-sex-change-hormones-for-children-dhvv5c52v

At the same times that JB was influencing the Government and major UK institutions such as the NUS and NHS over issues relating to children and young people; he was running a tumblr account which showcased photographs of JB flashing his penis in public places and challenging his followers to do the same. Many of the photos and videos of masturbation are taken in schools, in classrooms and the toilets. There is also a lot of paedophilic, rape, incestuous and child abuse imagery. JB has now removed the tumblr account, but the content has been captured on twitter and in archives;

mobile.twitter.com/xNoMoreSilencex/status/1021093767489695745

  1. Aimee Challenor is a TIM. He is the LGBT Green Party Representative in Coventry and is standing for Deputy Leadership of the Green Party (now stepped down following media revelations). Aimee is part of Trans Action for Health, along with Jess Bradley. He is also a member of the Stonewall Transgender Advisory Committee who train teachers and inform school policy across the UK. Aimee appointed his father (David/Baloo Challenor) as his election agent since 2016, after being arrested and whilst under police investigation. Last week David Challenor was sentenced to 22 years in prison for the torture and rape of a 10 year old girl in the attic of the house where he lived with Aimee.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rising-greens-star-aimee-challenor-will-not-quit-over-rapist-father-kngjwc8l5

The registered Green Party Address in the West Midlands is the crime scene where the child abuse took place. Whilst torturing and raping the child, David Callenor would cross-dress as a girl, calling himself Lucy and wearing adult sized baby dresses and nappies. Using Stonewalls definitions, both Aimee and David Challenor are Transgender. It is important to understand that the definition of 'Trans' has changed. It used to refer to a small number of individuals who are transexual. They suffer from gender dysphoria and commonly desire 'sex change' operations. 'Transgender' is a much broader umbrella term which includes transvestites and cross-dressers (full definition can be found on the Stonewall website). This includes a very significant number of men motivated by the sexual fetishisation of women and girls (autogynephiles). Over 80% of trans identified men retain their male genitalia.

David Challenor also was a Scout Leader (remember, my initial concern was the Girl Guides Association) and ran a gymnastic club for girls. David and Aimee have worked together over the last 3 years to promote gender self-identity in national politics and in schools and to erradicate female only spaces. Aimee developed software, known as 'TERF Blocker' which effectively blocked 50,000 women from voicing concerns or taking part in discussions, on social media.

CLEARLY, current safeguarding policy and risk assessments fall VERY far short of being sufficient in protecting girls from risks posed by TIMs; given that these 3 dangerous individuals have had access to children and vulnerable young people through the Scouts, Sports Clubs and the NUS and have been influencing policy further via Stonewall, UK Schools, the NHS, local politics, national politics and Central Government.

The consultation on reforms to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 closes in October 2018. If proposals are approved then self identification will become lawful. This will effectively remove all female only spaces and provisions. It will change the definition of female to include men. It is imperative that you speak out, to prevent this from happening. This is the responsibility of the NSPCC.

I would really like you to watch the following video on the subject, made by Lisa Muggeridge. Lisa was a social worker involved with the Yorkshire child sexual exploitation scandal. She is also formerly, a cared-for child. As such, she has a unique perspective on this and some warnings, which need heeding;

Regards

XX

(Even disregarding the recent developments; The reply belows yet again, fails to address the issues i raised and appears to illustrate a lack of understanding of safeguarding. My previous emails go in to great detail. But in summary;

  1. TIMs do not pose a risk because they are 'trans', but because they are males. I am sure that the NSPCC does not see every male as a risk to girls and women. Yet, you advocate single sex accomodation for under 18s and same sex chaperones for over night trips. You issue guidance on siblings of the opposite sex not sharing bedrooms.

  2. it is not simply a matter of 'embarrassment' for girls that you force them to share accomodation and facilities with males. You are removing their ability to give informed consent around their bodies and their ability to set their own boundaries)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
LemonJello · 30/08/2018 10:24

Excellent letter Tuna 👏👏👏

Let us know when you hear back?

loveyouradvice · 30/08/2018 10:38

Just wanted to say WELL DONE... fab letter, beautifully argued.... so hope this makes them think

LangCleg · 30/08/2018 10:47

Well said!

Wanderabout · 30/08/2018 11:15

This is fantastic. Do you mind posting the response you mention from the NSPCC too?

ArkeNOTen · 30/08/2018 11:19

Brilliant. I think this should be a petition

PositivelyPERF · 30/08/2018 11:28

Fantastic letter and I’m really glad you posted it on here. Any chance you can send it by registered post, OP? That way, when the shit hits the fan, which it eventually will, they can’t pretend they’re innocents in all of the future abuse of children. If anyone thinks children won’t be abused because of the decisions that these organisations are making today, to permit males into female spaces, then wise the fuck up.

There will be no room for ‘lessons will be learnt’. GC women are telling you what will happen. We keep warning you all about the risks to women and children, but you’re so eager to please men, that you’re willing to risk the physical and mental health of females and children. Shame on you all.

DodoPatrol · 30/08/2018 11:29

That's well put.

I hope they actually read it.

I'm trying to think of a short enough version to get into conversation without being interrupted a dozen times, or to get read by someone with a million emails to get through - something like, 'Have you done thorough background checking into the bodies advising you on any safeguarding changes, to make sure all their members are above board?'

SingeBuggerCack · 30/08/2018 11:47

I wonder if any of the papers would post something similar as an open letter?

SingeBuggerCack · 30/08/2018 11:48

Oh, and excellent letter, OP Blush

stealthsquirrelnutkin · 30/08/2018 14:53

Thank you Tuna, that letter is very clear. There is no way anyone at the NSPCC can pretend they were unaware of the potential risks after reading it.
I second the suggestion that it be sent to the papers as an open letter, because the public needs to know who is complicit in dismantling child protection regulation.

IAmLurkacus · 30/08/2018 15:00

Excellent letter, definitely needs to go to papers.

NSPCC have well and truly drunk the Kool aid, I reported concerns to them recently and was asked if the ‘sex’ of the child I was referring to was ‘male’ ‘Female’ or ‘transgender’

Angryresister · 30/08/2018 15:13

This is a fantastic letter...really well argued...it will be very interesting to see the response. I like the idea of an open letter but perhaps you don't need to expose yourself any more.

HermioneWeasley · 30/08/2018 15:15

Excellent letter

tiredandweary · 30/08/2018 15:17

Well done OP.
On another thread the NSPCC have failed to turn up for a webchat answering questions about safeguarding - likely because they are being asked precisely these questions. And of course, they don't have answers as safeguarding is being eroded by trans groups - in plain sight and clearly evidenced.

PyeWackets · 30/08/2018 15:20

Well said.

happydappy2 · 30/08/2018 15:24

Great letter-could you send to The Times?

BesmirchingMotherhood · 30/08/2018 15:57

That’s a great letter; complexly clear, well-argued. Well done. Flowers

LadybirdsAreBirds · 30/08/2018 16:03

Great letter. Brava!

grasspigeons · 30/08/2018 16:09

Very clear. It's petryifing these people have been influential in shaping policy.

R0wantrees · 30/08/2018 16:17

@Tunataka Are you aware of the MN NSPCC live chat that is due today? Its been held up so perhaps worth posting should you wish to put your concerns on record there too.

Great letter Flowers

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_facebook_live/a3343961-Facebook-Live-about-talking-to-kids-about-staying-safe-from-abuse-with-NSPCC

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 16:27

Yes Rowan i was aware. I was interested to see their replies as Zoe Parrot was the individual who spoke with the Girl Guides about the issues i raised. Her answer to me was very non-specific, just a generic 'current safeguarding and risk assessments are adequate'

I will post the emails that went back and forth, when i get to a PC (am on my phone)

OP posts:
Ereshkigal · 30/08/2018 16:30

Brilliant letter. Thank you. Oh dear NSPCC.

R0wantrees · 30/08/2018 16:34

That's great Tunataka

My increasingly held belief is that those who make generic statements about 'risk assessments being adequate' have very little actual experience in assessing risk and working with this.

R0wantrees · 30/08/2018 16:38

NSPCC statement from the live chat thread, now cancelled.

"However, in view of the questions asked in this thread, we asked the NSPCC for a statement:

The NSPCC doesn’t consider there to be specific child protection concerns in relation to trans-inclusive policies. Any space and activity involving children should have strong safeguarding policies in place, with a proper risk assessment to minimise the risks to all children involved. And every adult working with children should undergo rigorous safety checks and vetting procedures to ensure that young people are safe in their care.

Trans young people are at particular risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse from peers. This can heighten the risk of abuse by adults as children turn online for support and access to networks of those sharing similar views and feelings. There should be high-quality, statutory relationships and sex education, alongside strong school safeguarding policies, to ensure that all children are kept safe in schools."

Tunataka · 30/08/2018 19:46

Its is completely impossible to conduct a 'proper risk assessment to minimise the risks to all children involved; if you are putting boys in with girls but not telling/asking for permission from the girls or their parents. You cannot possibly KNOW what impact that will have on the individual girls

I cant believe it is legal. I WISH someone would do a juidical review

OP posts: