Munroe - Childline 's first LGBT+ campaigner.

[HandsOffMyRights]

Words fail me today

It’s “Victorian feminism” to be concerned about all this, according to Alison Phipps

twitter.com/alisonphipps/status/1139089631364993024?s=21

The NSPCC just told you everything in that single tweet:

Right now we are focused on the LGBTQ+ community internally and externally and that's our priority

And THEN

so that we can be there to support and protect children.

Children are NOT the focus nor the priority.

They are the afterthought.

Yes children can be LGB and gender questioning, BUT the priority is always safeguarding and making sure they are not exposed to harm and exploitation.

If the LGBTQ+ community internally (and just to point out that means staff coming before the interests of vulnerable children) and externally are the priority then children are in danger of being thrown under the bus in order to achieve that priority.

I think the last few days have been a very clear demonstration of this corruption of what their priorities are, and that tweet merely sums it up.

This is not a simple ‘bad apple’ situation, but looks like it has revealed a complex systemic problem showing that the whole tree has been gradually undermined at its roots.

Agree. It's really unsurprising that this has happened given that they don't seem to be able to coherently explain their policies and practices.

I think the last few days have been a very clear demonstration of this corruption of what their priorities are, and that tweet merely sums it up.

Yes it does.

Was it "Victorian feminism" that complained about this kind of thing?

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4287184/pregnant-ten-year-old-girl-victorian-street-kids/

Perhaps some people would like us to go back there. Where everything was a big free for all (and by all I mean men).

What is revealed are some of the inevitable consequences.
The more significant & very serious conseqences which have & will impact children are not being seen... yet.

There are of course visible consequences but they are being ignored by those with responsibility:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3324578-Vunerabilities-of-Looked-After-Children-Social-Work-CP-restricted-by-affirmation-requirement-Trans-Youth-in-Care-Toolkit

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3583675-Foster-children-3-and-7-transitioning-Times-article

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3582478-Judge-over-rules-social-services-concerns

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3448221-Recommendation-that-Butterfly-used-as-training-material-for-social-workers

Lisa Muggeridge comments:
'Why this crisis is significant for Looked After Children.'

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAWNWRF-o4

Whistle blown serious Safeguarding, Duy of Care & ethical concerns by senior professionals:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3553935-Times-article-calls-to-end-transgender-experiment-on-children

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3515980-Times-article-Governor-quits-blinkered-Tavistock-clinic

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3517199-R4-Today-about-the-Tavistock-report-resignation

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145612-Tavistock-psychologist-is-worried-about-rush-to-label-kids-as-trans

See important panel at the House of Lords recentl discussing these serious issues with appropriate treatment of vulnerable children:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3583824-Let-your-MP-know-about-this-asap

I am reminded of something Lisa Muggeridge used to say:

*Without adequate safeguarding, children in a market economy are commodities for sex or labour."

If the Woke Twatterati want to die on this hill, well - that tells me all I need to know about them.

There’s been a 4000% increase in teen ftm gender referrals and yet a transwoman is the one they chose to represent young people

A very salient point raised on twitter.

It’s “Victorian feminism”

Ahh, another euphemism to try and guilt and shame people for being 'prudish'.

As in aggressively attacking them for having their own personal boundaries and understanding safeguarding protocol.

The NSPCC were set up in the Victorian Era in response to appalling treatment of children and set out to educate the public that this was not ok. So I'm pretty ok with the history here, and don't see the 'victorian feminism' as a bad thing even though the comment is meant as a slur and to suggest backward thinking. It took 5 years of campaigning to get the first laws passed to protect children in 1889.

The NSPCC also hasn't been ashamed of its Victorian History in the past - For its centenary in 1884:
To help advertise for the NSPCC, a poster was created that highlighted the faces of two abused children, one from 1884 and the other from 1984. The message that was written along with the picture was "The faces change, the bruises don't."

And I think that sums it up to me. The times might change, but abuse doesn't. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you spin it, distort language or try and pretend its not a problem, if it causes harm its abuse.

Safeguarding as such is not something that is anti-progressiveness. And that's what is being suggested here.

Just before this thread reaches the 1000 post cut-off, I'd like to thank Monroe Bergdorf for starting off this story

Without MB's input, most of us would never have heard of James Makings and the latest safeguarding concerns at the NSPCC.

Meanwhile, over on the BBC website the story of Stacey Dooley and Comic Relief is being given prominence AGAIN.

It's odd that the same people who get so outraged by the wider cultural, social and political implications of a white female celebrity being photographed with a disadvantaged child of colour leap to defend a man with a rampant fetish wanking while he should be giving his time and attention to working on behalf of abused and vulnerable children.

(I'm not commenting about the ethics of the Stacey Dooley photograph, btw, except to say that I don't think it is in the same league of problematic as publicly-shared rubberware work wanking at the NSPCC. And yet, the BBC don't seem to think it's worth a mention.)

Be interesting to see what the Guardian eventually make out of this request:

twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1138815208712003584

It’s “Victorian feminism” to be concerned about all this, according to Alison Phipps

Phipps is a professor in Gender Studies.

Social Media is demonstrating where Safeguarding is not recognised/respected

This is one of the consequences of the proliferation of Queer Theory + Post Modernism teaching in academia.

For context & background see recent WPUK speech by Professor Selina Todd:

(extract)
Among our demands are women’s right to same-sex spaces, and to self-organisation. They are vital in themselves, but also as means of destroying women’s oppression by men – an oppression that is based on our biological sex, and which socialises us in gendered ways. Working collectively to change this, is what feminism is all about. And as feminists, we have a long and proud tradition to draw on, which I want to talk about tonight.

But feminism, like the definition of woman, is an object of suspicion for the opponents of women’s sex-based rights. I want to talk briefly about where this hostility comes from, drawing on what’s been taught in UK and US universities over the past thirty years. Some of what I say may sound esoteric, but two, almost three generations of students have been educated to see the world a certain way. They are now the teachers, journalists, civil servants and politicians seeking to negotiate the current debate over women’s rights. We need to understand how their education has influenced their worldview, if we are to set the record straight. (continues)

Who holds power?

This analysis of power – who holds it, how and why – is often lacking in university teaching. Power is presented as diffuse and operated through language. (continues)

womansplaceuk.org/2019/05/21/feminism-postmodernism-and-womens-oppression/

Safeguarding is concerned with the abuse of power over those most vulnerable. People who do not recognise, understand or prioritise power dynamics will not understand or respect Safeguarding Frameworks. As such they represent increased risk to children, vulnerable adults and women

Also, child protection was driven by a number of Christian groups. Who are now viewed as somehow being villians.

So neglect and exploitation may have existed but were accepted. What about cruelty, then - was that deemed unacceptable? Again, no. Much cruelty took place in families and schools, and was justified in the name of discipline. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" was the predominant social and religious ethic. John Wesley's mother advocated iron discipline - backed up by whipping, if necessary: "Break their will betimes.....make him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it..."

Parental rights were paramount. Parents knew what was best for their own children, and they could delegate the responsibility to others if they chose. Physical punishment was essential to establish obedience - everybody knew that. The family was a sacred enclave into which no legislator dared to tread. Even as the impetus that led to the establishment of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was taking off, a reformer Whatley Cooke-Taylor wrote: "I would far rather see even a higher rate of infant mortality prevailing.... than intrude one iota on the sanctity of the domestic hearth."

We now have another creeping authoritarianism in which the stated priority is LGBTQ+ interests ahead of the child.

It might be viewed as progressive and liberal, but the key thing is the focus and this idea of authoritarianism in which the sacred value of LGBTQ+ interests can not be questioned.

Its a REVERSE of what the NSPCC was set up to do... focus on the kids ahead of the ideology.

Lisa Muggeridge explains very clearly:

'Duties to Children'

Lisa Muggeridge
'Duties to and protection of vulnerable adults'

What a mess the NSPCC are in. They'll find themselves in an even bigger shitstorm if they ask Makings to leave and so I expect they'll keep him on after having a quiet word. Maybe there'll be some very bland public comment about "lack of awareness of policies" and "appropriate discussion". But I would expect him to move on after not too long.

Of course, if they take this path they'll be disregarding their own internal policies and processes. But better that than enabling Owen Jones and his mob to scream at them even more loudly. Which would be ironic given this week's report on Oxfam and the criticism of a charity putting its own self-interest first.

Important contact details:

"Children's Commissioner, Anne Longfield promotes and protects the rights of children, especially the most vulnerable, and stands up for their views and interests.

The Children’s Commissioner for England is Anne Longfield OBE.
She speaks up for children and young people so that policymakers and the people who have an impact on their lives take their views and interests into account when making decisions about them.

Independent of Government and Parliament, the Children’s Commissioner has unique powers to help bring about long-term change and improvements for all children, particularly the most vulnerable.

She does this by first gathering evidence: talking to children and young people, requesting information from public institutions and then carrying out research and compiling information on the wide range of things that affect children’s lives.

She is the ‘eyes and ears’ of children in the system and the country as a whole and is expected to carry out her duties ‘without fear or favour’ of Government, children’s agencies, and the voluntary and private sectors.

She also provides advice to children who are in or leaving care, living away from home or working with social services through her advice line, Help at Hand.

“I want all children to have the brightest future possible. I will advocate for positive change for all children and particularly those who are most disadvantaged.” – Anne Longfield, Children’s Commissioner for England.

The history of the Children’s Commissioner for England role
The post of Children’s Commissioner was created following a recommendation made by Lord Laming in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry. The role was initially established under the Children Act 2004 which gave the Commissioner responsibility for promoting awareness of the views and interests of children. The Commissioner’s statutory remit includes understanding what children and young people think about things that affect them and encouraging decision makers to always take their best interests into account. Her unique data gathering powers and powers of entry to talk with children and gain evidence, enable her to help bring about long-term change and improvements for children, particularly the most vulnerable.

The Children and Families Act 2014 further strengthened the remit, powers and independence of the Commissioner, and gave her special responsibility for the rights of children who are in or leaving care, living away from home or receiving social care services. She also speaks for wider groups of children on non-devolved issues including immigration (for the whole of the UK) and youth justice (for England and Wales).

As well as a team of staff, the Commissioner is supported by an advisory group, an audit and risk committee and children’s groups, stakeholders and specialists."

General enquiries
If you have a general enquiry, or to get in touch with the Commissioner, please email [email protected] or call 020 7783 8330.

www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/about-us/contact/

More Pre-NSPCC and child protection thinking. Which the Victorians sought to stop...

A letter to The Times in 1849 reported on the attempt of "an old man dressed in the garb of a gentleman" to accost a young girl. He apparently "asked her to go with him to a house in Oxenden-street", and, as the letter writer comments, "you can easily conjecture the object." At the insistence of the writer, a Constable warned the girl and suggested she go home "but in a few moments afterwards we observed the hoary old sinner already referred to in hot chase after his prey." The Police Constable, "behaved with exceeding propriety, and appeared to be quite alive to the grossness of the affair, but he said he had no right to interfere."

Although the writer's intentions were of the best, and he goes on to ask that the Police be allowed to "address parties" who were engaged in such practices, he goes no further and reflects his own class values and his committment to his view of the family when he tells readers, "I could very accurately describe the personal appearance and dress of this person, so as to lead to his identification, if I did not fear that the superannuated scoundrel might have a wife or child whom the relation of his misconduct might shock." So, rather than place his emphasis on protecting children from abuse, he puts a higher value on protecting middle-class matrons and their children from exposure to an unpleasant reality.

There's that rather middle class 'properness' rearing its head again. It is more important and proper to be seen to be woke than give exposure to an unpleasant reality.

Why in 2019 are we still so adverse to admitting reality of life? Fundamental issues do not disappear if you ignore them or spin them or try to cover them up.

And yet we condemn Victorians as being bad for seeing this is a moral issue that needed to be tackled?

That one has got me pissed as trying to claim and rewrite history is a dangerous game.

Is this really the title of the video?? and people are defending this behaviour???

Amateur Fetish Porn at Childrens Charity premises".

Reposting The NSPCC CEO statement from February 2018 when he was talking about Oxfam & government Safeguarding failings:

"Peter Wanless: The building blocks of safeguarding must be in place
23 February 2018
(extract)
"Recent allegations against Oxfam show the importance of having proper safeguarding policies in place, says the chief executive of the NSPCC

Keeping children safe from sexual abuse is one of our key missions at the NSPCC. But preventing sexual abuse is not just a job for our charity – it is the responsibility of absolutely everyone.

Allegations of abuse at Oxfam, overseas and in its UK shops, demonstrate how vital this is to the protection of children and public confidence in an organisation. This is another moment for every charity, organisation or business where adults are in a position of trust over children to reflect and to get this right.

The building blocks of safeguarding must be in place. There must be proper vetting. That means taking proper references and carrying out Disclosure and Barring Service checks. If someone has been sacked from their role because of child protection concerns, they cannot be allowed to jump from job to job and repeat their harmful behaviour. A culture of zero tolerance of sexual abuse must be embedded in the organisation, led from the top at executive and trustee level.

The fundamental importance of safeguarding must be communicated clearly to all staff from the outset. Staff and children need to know how to recognise abuse and who they can go to with concerns or reports. Comprehensive training should be in place and the systems must be there to back that up. Where concerning behaviour is reported, it must always be followed up so that employees and victims feel listened to and confident that appropriate action will be taken.

It is unacceptable for whistleblowers to be undermined or face losing their jobs, and there need to be consequences if there’s evidence that this has happened.

And beyond each individual and each organisation, there is more the government can do. At present, only adults working in education, care and youth justice are deemed by the law to be in positions of trust.

That is clearly not good enough.

Whether children are volunteering in charity shops, playing sports or are part of a local religious group, the NSPCC’s Trust to Lead campaign is calling for them to be protected in law from adults in positions of trust over them.

Government has promised to make progress in this area, but it has yet to materialise.

As a society we now have a culture that is slowly moving towards a place where victims feel able to speak out about what they have experienced, instead of suffering in silence. But if sexual abuse is swept under the carpet by organisations – or individuals within those organisations – putting their reputation first, we fail those victims and risk setting child protection back by decades." (continues)
www.thirdsector.co.uk/peter-wanless-building-blocks-safeguarding-place/management/article/1457898

Is this really the title of the video??

No, I don't think it was uploaded by the creator with that title though he did label it as being at work.

I wouldn't expect newspapers to touch the story unless there is proof that the man in question is in such a video. At the moment there's been a lot of joining the dots but that probably won't be enough for newspapers.

mobile.twitter.com/Chris_Hubris/status/1139112757058560000

They really don’t get it, do they?

[Phipps works in "Gender Studies" at Sussex University!]

"It’s “Victorian feminism” to be concerned about all this, according to Alison Phipps

Phipps is a professor in Gender Studies.

Social Media is demonstrating where Safeguarding is not recognised/respected

This is one of the consequences of the proliferation of Queer Theory + Post Modernism teaching in academia. "

Dr EM wrote some interesting articles about Queer Theory recently.

The Trojan Unicorn: Queer Theory and Paedophilia Parts I to IV

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-a0cf30ef7bfa

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-qt-and-paedophilia-part-ii-ee94e132fb5d

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-qt-and-paedophilia-part-iii-f20b09012e54

medium.com/@doctorEm/the-trojan-unicorn-qt-and-paedophilia-part-iv-e39ee252cbc3