Munroe - Childline 's first LGBT+ campaigner.

[HandsOffMyRights]

Words fail me today

That's terrible ChickenonaMug! It's basically implying that children can consent to abuse - if it upsets you it's abuse, but if it doesn't then what, it's fine? fucking mental! I've heard so many stories of children who didn't realise they were being abused until they were teenagers because their abusers just told them it was normal and everyone did it. Did you write to them about it? I'm sure they don't mean it like that (I hope) but it's very very poorly phrased!

but if it doesn't then what, it's fine?

This is basically what is wanted.

Where do young potentially gay and lesbian children go.

What's the difference between Anne Widdecombe and Childline?

Give me a clue.

Lily Maynard @lilylilymaynard
Re Munroe Bergdorf's appointment as a Childline rep, I suppose the million dollar question is “Who at the @NSPCC looked at this and thought ‘Yes! There’s our next Childline representative!’”

[there is an image that I'm not going to post here cos, well, it's NSFW]

One thing we can be sure of, no woman who posed like this would ever, EVER be chosen to represent a children’s charity.

This is not about prudery, it’s about appropriate behaviour for an ambassador for children. Kids that call childline are often already incredibly vulnerable.

How is this happening? How has porn culture come to be celebrated by the @nspcc?

Introducing kids to the idea that soft porn, fake body parts and plastic surgery can help them be more ‘authentic’ is just a horrendous idea.

Kid hears of Bergdorf, and go to Google them... Gets suspended from school for looking at images of Bergdorf.

Yep that's helpful.

It's almost as if vulnerable kids are being deliberately targeted to be represented by completely inappropriate people and the charities are encouraging it.

Apart from all the points about the image projected by Munroe, she has form for not being diplomatic as an ambassador for L'Oreal and Labour. Has anybody at the NSPCC done any background research?

There was a reason for having a devil's advocate when deciding who should be a saint. (Certainly not implying it was failsafe, just that it does not help an organisation's reputation when their ambassadors are open to criticism).

Interestingly a previous ambassador (not sure if she still is) was Cheryl ( formerly Cole).

Munroe had a spat with Cheryl over the Loreal advertising they both did.
www.shemazing.net/munroe-bergdorf-has-dragged-cheryl-cole-into-racism-saga/

I'm not convinced Cheryl was a brilliant choice either. I have to question whether at this point Childline is actually about children or the publicity and money. It seems to be a trajectory a lot of third sector organisations end up on.

Childline are being taken to task on twitter but are saying nothing. 🦗

Excuse the terminology, but is this not like having a narcotics anonymous group led by a drug dealer?

Would this "campaigner" role be a paid role or more of a volunteer ambassador sort of thing?

Quick scribble - can't be bothered to make this more "artistic" - but it sums up my thoughts on the subject. Specific to this issue but also generally on the subject.

So it was someone violent and vacuous before? Fantastic.

Their list of celebrity endorsers includes George Michael.

Sorry celeb supporters. And wasn't tagging him on to the Cheryl thing, going back to the original question about LGBTABCDEFGH^¿$ק

Asides from all the awful shit MB says, would ANY woman who dressed like that be allowed NEAR childline? I very much doubt it.

Pathetic. The race to be woke, as usual kids and women will be affected.

Showing my age here. Is it worth trying to contact Esther Rantzen?

avalonuk.com/clients/dame-esther-rantzan-dbe/

The definition does not seem to inform children that sexual abuse is happening to them regardless of how they feel about it, making it sound as though sexual abuse is not happening to a child if they have been groomed to have no understanding or concerns that what is happening to them is wrong.

This is horrifying. Anybody who understands how sexual abusers work is aware that children, even teenagers, often have no idea that they are being used. The whole point of grooming is that the abuser claims to be your friend and convinces you to lower your boundaries without you ever realising that something is wrong. Surely an organisation as big as the NSPCC understands this? It beggars belief.

Are the NSPCC aware of the links between sexual abuse/harrassment of girls and their rejection of their female body?

How are such girls supposed to relate to Bergdorf's highly sexualised persona and depiction of trans girly-hood?

I have to conclude that the NSPCC are aware of the topless and spread-legs photos, and just don't care.

This is horrifying. Anybody who understands how sexual abusers work is aware that children, even teenagers, often have no idea that they are being used. The whole point of grooming is that the abuser claims to be your friend and convinces you to lower your boundaries without you ever realising that something is wrong. Surely an organisation as big as the NSPCC understands this? It beggars belief.

NSPCC is lost, I'm afraid. I don't think even a change in leadership would help matters now.

The scale of this disaster should be understood fully: NSPCC is the UK's only child protection charity with statutory power.

Surely an organisation as big as the NSPCC understands this?
They understand it, but have been infiltrated by those that do it.

Where would a complaint be be best lodged? I feel very strongly about this, Childline are acting completely irresponsible, Bergdorf has openly encouraged 'gender questioning' children to contact they via direct message on twitter and instagram; a grown adult male, asking kids to message them! It goes against every fucking piece of safeguarding and online safety training we try to teach children. What kind of message does that send.

Are the NSPCC aware of the links between sexual abuse/harrassment of girls and their rejection of their female body?

Those who work front line for the charity likely will do.
Those who make policy, manage publicity, fundraise or manage media seem not to. This is a very serious issue. The disconnect and disregard for established best practice, Safeguarding & Child Protection Frameworks puts children at risk.

Sent this email to NSPCC:

Good morning,

I am writing to voice my concern and disappointment of Munroe Bergdorf as Childline's LGBT+ campaigner.

I would like to enquire as to how someone with such a controversial past has been appointed to this prominent position within a children's charity whose aim is to help vulnerable children.

There has been extensive media coverage of incidents such as:

M. Bergdorf stating "all white people are racist" (And was fired by L'Oreal for these comments)

M. Bergdorf tweeting homophobic insults and stating they would like to 'gay bash' an actor on the US tv series Glee.

During transition, M Bergdorf established a club night called 'Pussy Palace' and has also featured in highly sexualised photo shoots that could be labelled pornographic.

M. Bergdorf has also openly tweeted asking 'gender questioning' young people to contact them via direct message on twitter and instagram. Surely this goes against all safeguarding and online safety protocols, a grown adult encouraging children they do not know to contact them online?

There are so many positive LBGT role models who would have been far more appropriate; Saffron Burrows, Julie Bindel, Patience Agbabi, Will Young to name a few.

I urge Childline and NSPCC to reconsider this disastrous appointment.

blooper

Please let us know if you get a reply. Dont hold your breath though I'm.still waiting months later....

Perhaps you should email asking how to set up a dd to donate. Seems to be the only way to get a response

Good on you for emailing though.

If nothing else you are another person who can provide evidence when the shit hits the fan.

Good message Blooper though I doubt you'll get a meaningful reply.

Are the NSPCC aware of the links between sexual abuse/harassment of girls and their rejection of their female body?

This has been really bothering me for a while because not only is children rejecting their bodies/ hating their genitalia a marker for abuse, but disconnecting children from their genitalia is an abuse tactic. That's why teaching children to accurately and confidently describe their genitals is known to deter abusers. But when you think about young children being given packers to wear and told they have a penis rather than a vulva, or padded underwear to hide their penis, that takes away all the language a child needs to describe or even recognise abuse. How do you tell a child "no one can touch your genitals" if they've been told that their genitals aren't real/ are prosthetic? How can a boy who has to tuck or hide his penis and has been treated by adults like the word "penis" is forbidden/ offensive, describe abuse if it occurs? That woman selling those padded pants for boys who got her ass handed to her on MN a few months back referred to the penis as the child's "previous gender". And in older children the euphemistic language like "front hole". It's horrific, and anyone with even the vaguest grasp of abuse tactics/ safeguarding should be able to see this.