Julia Long asking Munro Bergdorf about child exploitation

[happydappy2]

Julia Long was asked to leave the venue, after asking MB if it was normal that an 11yr old child dancing in front of adults, has money thrown at them by grown men. This was at Transmission & was deemed an offensive question....video footage on twitter of the incident.....worth a watch, sorry I can’t link to it but hope someone else can.

[Edited by MNHQ to add video link]

There's a point in this where maintaining neutrality becomes support for the unspeakably awful. MNHQ are sailing pretty bloody close to the wind on this one.

I concur. This is a parenting website, for heavens sake.

I think MNHQ owe us all a big apology and a row back on this one. We shouldn't be walking on eggshells (video, hint hint, video) on the topic of child exploitation.

This is how Saville got away with it - intimidated everyone into silence.

There was definitely a lessons learnt, never again vibe when the Saville stuff came out. Seems not, though.

It's not a failure to understand safeguarding, it's a failure to give a damn about it therefore disregard it entirely.

There are too many people invested in exploiting children to stop anything that weakens safeguarding.

Much of trans ideology is driven by people who are at best niave and at worst too self obsessed to care about the effects of their actions on others. This is an ideal opportunity for predators to support “oppressed” minorities whilst furthering their own agendas. The fact that so many of the vocal TRAs go into self defence mode when critisced is incredibly helpful to anyone who wishes to have access to children.

I don’t believe the big players in this have any interest in children or their rights at all. They’re just another prop in their self obsession and they genuinely are unable to conceive that anyone but them matters.

That women and children’s rights can be demolished is of no concern because it doesn’t affect them.

Transideology is driven by the virtue-signalling social justice warrior woke brigade who are obsessed with identity politics.

Child exploitation is rife. It's always been the case. In every walk of life. When I was reading about #MeToo, I came across the Shirley Temple story:

www.ranker.com/list/tragic-shirley-temple-stories/rob-chirico

From the first time she appeared on the screen in 1932, she was mistreated and abused both psychologically and sexually. Hollywood tried to hide the flagrant abuses, but many have been well-documented.

The only thing we have standing between children and exploitation (by whoever - be it parents, priests, scoutmasters, music teachers etc) is safeguarding measures and child protection legislation. This is so clearly being eroded in so many areas right now.

Given how much women are no platformed and censored across the board. And given the rank sexism amongst even quite decent people, the current observable pushback is a testament to the sheer number of people, albeit mostly women, who are talking about this.

There has to be a massively overwhelming number of people who disagree with it.

I think the most shocking thing - right here, on this thread - is that moderators are demonstrating just how easy it is for people to be intimidated into silence.

Behind just about every story of child exploitation and abuse - from Jimmy Saville to Victoria Climbie to Rotherham - is a history of people either looking the other way, or being intimidated into silence.

MNHQ have been intimidated into deleting links and posts on this thread which are raising concerns about child protection. I'm not even sure why those links were deleted - was it misgendering? Do we now put adults' feeling above child safety concerns?

And this - on a parenting forum. And people in the audience booed Julia, who was raising concerns about child protection. What hope is there?

Behind just about every story of child exploitation and abuse - from Jimmy Saville to Victoria Climbie to Rotherham - is a history of people either looking the other way, or being intimidated into silence

I know people who won't speak up about R Kelly's sexual exploitation of minor because he is black and they don't want to seen as "dragging down" a black man.

Yeah, it's so much better to be a social justice warrior than to speak up against sexual abuse of children.

There is datun
I was talking to American teens last night and they said they didn’t believe all this stuff about non binary and guys suddenly becoming women

Much of trans ideology is driven by people who are at best niave and at worst too self obsessed to care about the effects of their actions on others. This is an ideal opportunity for predators to support “oppressed” minorities whilst furthering their own agendas. The fact that so many of the vocal TRAs go into self defence mode when critisced is incredibly helpful to anyone who wishes to have access to children.

Munroe Bergdoff doesn't have to be a paedophile to damage children through the support of child abuse. You don't have to have the end of safeguarding as your acknowledged aim to weaken it and put vulnerable people at risk.

AWAs don't have to be moustache twirling pantomime villains - they can be clueless, wide eyed, well meaning, myopic fools who just want to be nice.

Or they can run parenting websites and let those who support child abuse dictate their moderating policy.

I’m not suggesting anyone is a paedophile just that predators exploit the vain and foolish as well.

I'm suggesting that some people are indeed paedophiles, but that you don't need to be one to assist them. I'm not disagreeing, I am seeing red at the behaviour on display on MN right now. I have absolutely reached my limit of watching child abuse and those who support it being excused and protected.

I’m not suggesting anyone is a paedophile just that predators exploit the vain and foolish as well.

Absolutely.

Munroe, for some reason, has decided to run the gauntlet of "children should be allowed to express themselves".

Desmond - we're told, likes to dress up and perform. Well, fine.

How that translates to Desmond performing a drag act in a night club in front of grown men, and being thrown money - is completely beyond me. This is child exploitation.

I have an 11yr old who likes to dress up and perform. She does so in age-appropriate dance groups and performs on stage in shows. With her friends. Her dance groups are run by CRB checked professionals. THIS is safeguarding. Would I - should I - allow her to perform at 4am in a strip club? Of course not.

word of warning, I got deleted for making a similar point.

That's very helpful Floral thankyou.

I will keep that one up my sleeve for my next conversation.

I mean my next irl conversation!

Sorry Floral, it’s chaotic here and I’m reading fast and don’t always interpret things correctly.

Tech plays such a massive part in this. We have issues at work (I work with young ppl) and the internet and there’s so much grooming out their. Social media and acceptance of children knowing what is right for them (they don’t always as any parent is aware) is a dangerous cocktail.

How did the scandal of TV entertainers grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of Catholic priests grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

How did the scandal of on-street gangs grooming and exploiting children get so bad before anything was done?

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how.

Safeguarding 101: concerns about child safety must always come above the feelings of adults.

I hope MNHQ remember that.

Because if you create a sacred caste of any group and silence anyone asking questions about individuals on behalf of the sacred caste, abusers will see, infiltrate, and groom and exploit children. That''s how.

This! This is exactly what is happening here.

Lang has it spot on.

sacred caste is absolutely right, perfect phrase. They really can do no wrong in some people's eyes.

The Serious Case review questions. Found as the root of the issue in so many serious case reviews where serious harm has come to a child, often with multiple agencies involved, and both the Baby P and Daniel Pelka reviews mentioned that despite the white paper identifying these issues for Victoria Climbie, progress isn't being made.

a) professionals prioritise a good relationship with the adults involved, which often boils down to wanting to keep them on side, and to being afraid to provoke challenging people with difficult behaviour because that behaviour can become very stressful and hard to manage. Especially when that person has the protection of being a customer, and multiple routes for complaints and allegations towards someone who upsets them, as well as phone and email access.

b) unwillingness for professionals to ask difficult questions - which usually means in context, ready acceptance of what adults said without considering could that adult be lying and not checking up or challenging stories because it upsets those adults and seems rude/ spoils good relations/ causes those adults to become challenging; Wondering could that adult not have genuinely good intentions, and if they didn't what might be happening to the child that no one is seeing?

c) Professionals becoming distracted and preoccupied with meeting the needs and feelings and best interests of the adults, who are often vulnerable and very good at getting their needs met, at the expense of time, attention and focus on the child in the situation.

Lang, as always has it spot on.