My letter to NSPCC

[Tunataka]

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

2. 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)

Tunatak great letter. So disappointed in the NSPCC.

Redshoeblueshoe:

Frazzled maybe you should write back and say after careful consideration you will stop the DD until they can give you a satisfactory response.

Yes, a very reasonable response. Stop the DD and put the ball firmly back in the NSPCC court, rather than having them stringing you along.

I would have expected out of all organisations that the NSPCC would understand the numbers of girls who are dealing with CSA and grooming, and to understand their need for single sex spaces, boundaries and consent.

There's a lot of these charity/orgs who are going to look, at best, utterly incompetent in the very near future. I include Girl Guides in that too. If any of them had even a shred of integrity, they'd be considering all these points & the legal implications for girls & their role in disregarding their rights. But, it seems too many of them are more concerned with appearing 'woke' than their legal responsibilities. When the 'told you so' starts, I'm hoping all those arrogant arseholes who think they can act like girls are of no consequence when they dismantle their safeguarding protocols, all get sacked for the gross incompetence they are doubling down on, cos they shouldn't be within 5ft of any of these organisations.

I wonder where they get their advice from.

I dont know. But it feels as if Stonewall have their ear, as they have the ears of both political parties, central Government departments, and swathes of private and third sector organisations.

And where does Stonewall expertise come from. Its Trans advisory committee, including the Secretary Aimee Challenor?
Though in fairness she has first hand experience of child protection and the care system.

I hope I am wrong.

Would a FOI request be possible, to find out who has delivered any transgender training to/at the NSPCC? Some of their material leads me to think a particular organisation has had influence.

If you had sound on Mumsnet, you would hear the sound of my head being banged repeatedly against a brick wall at the stupidity of the NSPCC and indeed all the institutions who have swallowed uncritically the trans ideology. Male predators will take any opportunity to gain access to women and girls especially girls. Self ID gives them the key to the door and welcomes them in with a smile as we look away. Are they truly so thick they cannot see what every woman in the world (I am writing from NZ) saw when the self ID proposal was put forward with no need for change in appearance, no need for medical diagnosis etc. Flashing lights and alarm bells went off immediately. This is still largely unknown here as it seems to be in Britain. The fight for some common sense and rational thinking seems unending but it must be, there is too much at stake.

continued, I meant to add 'but it must be".

The reduced length of their responses suggests that you are a threat to them OP. They can see you have raised valid points and so do not want to say too much for fear that you will pick holes and expose them (which you are doing). Least said soonest mended and all that.

I wonder what a subject access request would show. Emails like that will have been compiled by the legal teams with lots of too'ing and fro'ing to discuss how best to respond. My DH once raised payroll issues with an ex employer and they accidentally cc'ed him in on some correspondence between their legal team and payroll - we got the whole backlog of correspondence between themselves discussing how best to sort out their catastrophic fuck up that they wanted to cover up.

Good God, I’m speechless. Thank God for people like you Op who are well informed and articulate and are willing to question the NSPCC on this. Thank you!

I imagine the NSPCC understands the threat to safeguarding perfectly well. The problem they have is that they don't want to upset Stonewall or Mermaids or GIRES or any of the rest of them because they've seen what happens to people who do get on the wrong side of those organisations. And perhaps they're so daft that they think the risk of being on the wrong side of Stonewall et al is worse than the risk that children will be harmed as a result of their policy.

Self-id, when coupled with existing data protection and potential clampdowns on dead-naming, will make life much easier for people with the wrong motivations.

The fact that our leading charity responsible for protecting children, does not say "hey, wait a minute, we need to look at this in more detail, to ensure childrens rights are not compromised" is shocking.

Stonewall are a lobbying organisation representing rainbow folk and interests. The NSPCC represent childrens interests. Sensible and mature organisations ought to be able to go through the detail of proposed legislation to ensure that one group is not disproportionately/unacceptably impacted. Perhaps the next time Peter Wanless passes through an airport he should buy a copy of the classic "Getting to Yes" negotiating textbook. It is not wrong to assert your interests. As transexuals and intersex people have pointed out, it does their progress on social acceptance no good at all if the impact of TRA lobbying generates resentment.

Instead Stonewall say acceptance without exception and #nodebate, and the NSPCC swallow the 'transphobia' line whole. The NSPCC job is child protection, not protecting/facilititating those on the extremes of the Stonewall umbrella.

Their failure to address the detail of GRA reform, to ensure that any legislation maintains, or improves, child protection is incompetent at best. So 'wrong side of history'. What are they up to?

Thanks OP. They are only to happy to write to me asking for money. Time I wrote to them explaining why I have no intention at all in giving them any, or of supporting fundraising that donates to them.

drawing a comparison about why we do not judge the whole from the actions of a few.

So why have safeguarding policies at all?

Why have a policy on single sex bedrooms?

I think the bottom line is that they sound confused, predators take advantage of confusion and in this case there are already examples of people using a trans identity (whether valid or not) to shield themselves from charges of abuse.

Most worryingly, people like JB and AC aren't random odd balls who nobody has heard of, but people who are apparently trusted by high profile people with a lot of power.

Apparently the NSPCC are vulnerable to grooming.

[email protected]

for those inspired by OP.

Apparently his previous job was CEO for The Big Lottery Fund for five years The circularity goes on.

In your next reply:

Statement along the lines of ‘my concerns are thus .... in the event of a serious case review I will be able to show via this email exchange that NSPCC were aware of, and dismissed, these concerns.’

Bowlofbabelfish
This is such an important point about keeping the evidence. The ability of predators to access children is currently being aided and enabled by organisations failing to observe the most basic of safeguarding procedures and by government departments ignoring the evidence that this is happening.
This time, unlike Savile, when the inevitable scandals happen, everything is well documented. I have seen some awful letters from the Secretary of State Education ( Damien Hinds ) and from David Gauke (Sec State Justice) in response to people who wrote raising safeguarding issues. Their complacency and denials are frightening. The letters will have been written by the woke bros in their departments modelling TWAW rhetoric in the face of serious safety issues. And these fools just sign them off. I know these letters have been saved as clear evidence that this government is deliberately choosing to ignore safeguarding. They will never be able to say they didn't know

The whole point of safeguarding is that blanket rules are imposed based on the actions of a few bad apples. Eg. Laws around disclosure of criminal records were changed after the Soham murders; rules regarding revalidation of drs were changed after Shipman. They’v ignored the bit where you quite clearly said that you advocate rules for TIMs in line with those for other men in line with normal safeguarding rules. They ought to explain why they think TIMs get to opt out of the blanket rules that apply to others.

gah. I want to say that this is nonsense and that I don't believe a word of it. Well, to be fair it is nonsense.

We need to join these dots up.

Record, use archival online tools as needed.

Because some poor kid is going to fall through one of these loopholes, and when that happens, I want every single person who parroted TWAW for woke points at the expense of the safety of children to be made to face what they said. Which was basically ‘fuck off, silly bigoted women.’

Record, use archival online tools as needed.

It seems that GDPR is (perhaps) an unintentional accomplice in this regard. There is a right to be forgotten and this embraces people with a record never mind those for whom there is no investigation/conviction.

It's notable that it's difficult to retrieve news stories about some individuals (including those who are imprisoned) where particular conditions are met.

It will become increasingly difficult to join dots in an official manner. There is a possibility that relevant records will literally be removed in an official capacity.

It feels as if we'll need living repositories of information in the same way that people learned books to be libraries in Fahrenheit 451