Mail online criticises Manchester MORF charity for distributing binders to young teens

[Needmoresleep]

A detailed article with quotes from David Davies MP.

dailym.ai/2DV13Nf

Apparently binders are sent to young teenagers in plain packaging behind parents backs. The health implications sound horrific. Where is acknowledgement of parents safeguarding responsibilities?

Could this be prosecuted as FGM? Breasts are a reproductive organ and they are facilitating mutilation.

Interesting question. There's some regions in Africa (forgot where) where they iron girls' breasts to stop growth so that the girls won't be molested by men too early. Sheer desperation, I guess, but if they then emigrate to the UK, there might be legislation about mutilating the breasts due to this "tradition".
(Anything misogynist, as we know, is only perceived as bad when foreigners do it)

You might get them with those laws.

Regular FGM, I don't think. Breasts are a secondary sex organ, not a primary one, there's probably a difference in legislation.

There's probably also more general laws about encouraging children to self-harm that might apply, but you'd have to get a judge to apply them to something that is to do with transgenderism, the holy cow of modern society.

Or they could be prosecuted because these are actually medical devices being given out without presecription?

The article is by Sanchez Manning, who has written quite a few articles on related topics and also did an interview with Helen Watts about the Girl Guides trans policies.

The Mail and MOS have been running decidedly gender-critical pieces for months now, certainly as far back as when the Man Fridays started up.

The comments are usually interesting.

Absolutely fucking unbelievable. Barry here is allowed to talk to young teen girls about the size of their breasts, harvest their personal contact details and keep their secrets for them. And that's all before we even get to sending them self-harm equipment. Who do we think might find it a really great idea to go and volunteer for Barry's org?

MORF certainly has an interesting list of first name only male committee members.

I always find it concerning when they only list first names - why don't they want people looking them up?

How interesting that one of the comments says that children need to be safe and protected. This statement of fact has received 7 downvotes.

Yeah I just mentioned on the other thread that the response from the charity to the mail at no point does the charity use the word. Children

They are sending binders out to children

And reassuring the children that the stuff they are sending out will not be able to/3 identified by their parents
Grooming
And they receive funding to groom children

Thanks for posting OP. I really hate that we are relying on the Mail to cover this, but they are doing a Stirling job!
Lily Maynard blogger wrote about this last year. She successfully obtained a binder for free from this organisation despite telling them that she was 14, had asthma and her parents objected!

https://lilymaynard.wordpress.com/2017/10/28/im-feeling-ecstatic-and-scared-and-mums-feeling-sick-young-women-binding/amp/?twitterr_impression=true

When you look at the "support and resources" page on that website, 10 of the 13 resources listed signpost towards support for mental health issues - eating disorders, anxiety, OCD, suicide, alcohol issues.

This tells me that they know how exactly how damaged and vulnerable their target audience is and they STILL think that sending them harmful medical devices is in some way helpful.

It's indescribably awful

MoS...

Allsorts one week, MORF this, and both with mentions of Mermaids and friends. With mention of public funding. I am crossing my fingers that there is more to come.

Interesting also that in yesterday's article in the Mail about teenagers buying hormones on-line, the Mermaid quote appeared to be more reassuring to parents than the policy that appears on their website. I wonder if there is an increasing awareness that funding is under threat if these organisations remain too far out of step with public opinion.

The first name only committee also sounds familiar. Throughout all of this there is a pattern of avoiding transparents. Deadnaming = hate, so Twitter bans anyone who dares shine a light on possible ulterior motives; Stonewall allows members of its transgender policy group, who are hugely influential in developing Government, school and corporate policy, to remain anonymous; and MORF only uses first names for their Committee.

Neither Morf nor Allsorts appear to publish their safeguarding policies. If they were a sports club, Sport England and many Local Authorities would expect them to publish details of safeguarding and other policies on their website, plus details of their insurers and lots, lots more. www.sportenglandclubmatters.com/club-mark/ We all know why clear and transparent safeguarding policies are important in youth sports. Why the hell are charities and public bodies allowing lower standards for organisations working with potentially vulnerable youth.

How interesting that one of the comments says that children need to be safe and protected. This statement of fact has received 7 downvotes.

God, you're right Biologymatters.

Dear lord.

It's distressingly blatant, isn't it? Children's safety is an inconvenience to the ideology.

As they say on My Favourite Murder: You're in a cult. Call your dad.

Further to my post, my advice to parents whose children are getting support from MORF, would be to ask to see their public liability insurance. I think it will be needed.

If none is in place, or it is insufficient to cover their activities, I wonder if there could be valid claims in the future against funders such as the Department of Health or The Big Lottery Fund for not undertaking due dilligence.

This is horrific. Those poor children and their families. How can this possibly be defended!

Well done the Daily Mail for two excellent articles!

As they say on My Favourite Murder: You're in a cult. Call your dad.

This.

Oh.

Gosh.

The whole thing is a safeguarding black hole.

Hide the page, on a website asking for kids details to encourage transition. Yes, this is grooming and our taxes are supporting it.

Hide the page.

First names only for the people who run the organisation, but they'll take your name, address and bra size over the phone in order send you self-harming equipment, even if you say you're a child. In a plain wrapper, so that your parents are not alerted.

They hold meetings where they say This session will not be open to SOFFA’s... SOFFA’s is significant others, friends, family and allies.

If they are genuinely interested in helping young people, why all the secrecy?

Can we not lobby IICSA about all this?

www.manchestersafeguardingboards.co.uk/children-young-people/

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/applications/children/