Munroe - Childline 's first LGBT+ campaigner.

[HandsOffMyRights]

Words fail me today

You have to wonder if they are properly checking everyone elses suitability.

Is it a case of 'oh well they are trans, fab get them on board' and this gets noticed cos it's glaringly obvious there's a problem because Bergdorf has a public profile and form for being a car crash appointment.

Or do they have a systematic failure across the board to check everyone they have work for them?

And sadly, I have to say, it's liable to be the later rather than it purely being a woke desire to get some good PR in.

Shocking twitter thread

twitter.com/NurtureMyBaby/status/1114132404422287360?s=19

"We KNOW already that @NSPCC has already sacrificed key principles of child safeguarding to satisfy a dangerous ideology. What follows is some excerpts from correspondence between a concerned mother and the NSPCC starting in early 2017"

You have to wonder if they are properly checking everyone elses suitability.

Or do they have a systematic failure across the board to check everyone they have work for them?

It should be assumed (unless/until proved otherwise) that the failure is systemic.

And sadly, I have to say, it's liable to be the later rather than it purely being a woke desire to get some good PR in.

I think there is a huge problem with the gentrification of the third sector industrial complex. No information seems to feed from the bottom up; from the coal face to the leadership. It's all top down with, as you say, an eye to PR. And because it's top down, it's, well, ignorant is the least bannable descriptive I can think of.

Thanks for the link to the NSPCC statement R0wan.

This statement doesn’t clear this issue up for NSPCC however, because as noted by PP at the start of this thread NSPCC’s own advice to young people is inappropriate.

NSPCC are going way beyond what the NHS would say eg to a child referred to a gender identity clinic.

And NSPCC have no such expertise and are simply offering political posturing rather than practical help to confused kids who need support.

Eg NSPCC Statement refers parents to help their kids by:
giving them resources like Childline's advice on gender identity and sexual orientation or Young Stonewall's LGBTQ info.

I have only looked at the first one of these: the NSPCC’s own gender identity resources:

www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/your-feelings/sexual-identity/transgender-identity/

This (still) says:

Eg
‘FEELING CONFUSED ABOUT YOUR GENDER:
When we’re born people have to record whether we’re a boy or a girl. This is usually based on seeing whether we have male or female sex organs.

Being transgender or trans is when someone feels that their gender identity is different from the gender they were given at birth. Trans people might:

-feel like they’re in the ‘wrong body’ and that their genitals don’t match how they feel
-want to change their clothes to better match the gender they identify with
-be scared about telling people about how they feel.

Not everyone who’s trans wants to go from living as a boy to a girl (or the other way around). But some trans people might want to change things about themselves, such as how they look or parts of their body. It’s important to do what feels right for you.’

What?

What are the NSPCC’s credentials or evidence for advocating and talking through with kids about making physical hormonal or surgical ‘changes’ to their body?
Telling kids it’s important that they should do what they want with changing their body but giving them absolutely no clue to the risks and side effects and permanency of that (only ever adult) decision?

Why if these ‘changes’ are so benign do the NHS not give out these interventions to change their bodies to young kids?

What do the NSPCC think they are doing setting up kids’ expectations that when it comes to majorly invasive and permanent bodily interventions- the only consideration is the kid just ‘doing what feels right for them’. That’s a purely politics based not a health based or safeguarding based approach.

Kids can’t possibly comprehend the long term permanent health risks and loss of fertility involved in doing what they may feel at a time of distress is ‘right’. That is an decision for them to take after years of talking therapy as an informed adult.

The NHS pages on Gender Dysphoria are here:
www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

In the section about children it says:
’Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological, rather than medical or surgical. This is because the majority of children with suspected gender dysphoria don't have the condition once they reach puberty. Psychological support offers young people and their families a chance to discuss their thoughts and receive support to help them cope with the emotional distress of the condition, without rushing into more drastic treatments.’

This is what the NSPCC are talking about- drastic treatments.

I haven’t got time to check but I seriously doubt if when distressed children call up Childline with non-gender related eating disorders, anxiety disorders, or body dysmorphia, those children are told it’s important to just do what they think is right? Including where drastic treatments are involved.

Why is this form of distress and dysmorphia treated so very differently and without any evidence for doing so?

There’s a lot of problems with those NHS webpages but at least they are clear that we are talking about something ‘drastic’ with these interventions (which NSPCC don’t indicate) and that many children will grow out of these feelings at puberty (ditto) and that all distressed children with suspected or diagnosed dysphoria will need careful professional psychological support. Kids do not benefit from well meaning glib advice and may be harmed by it.

The NSPCC eating disorders sections have a totally different tone. Yes these are obviously different issues but it clearly shows what happens to practical and evidence based support and advice for children when there is not a strong political lobby active behind that issue.

www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/your-feelings/eating-problems/

www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/about-us/compliments-comments-complaints-policy.pdf

The NSPCC complaints policy says they will reply within a fixed amount of time. They won’t undertake to definitely handle anonymous complaints though- which doesn’t seem very consistent with dealing with whistleblowing.

I couldn’t find their own whistleblowing policy online so don’t know if they have one or not- but they do run a whole helpline for other people so it’s clearly something they are aware of:

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/report-abuse/dedicated-helplines/whistleblowing-advice-line/

‘The Whistleblowing Advice Line offers free advice and support to professionals with concerns about how child protection issues are being handled in their own or another organisation.

If you think an organisation is putting children at risk, even if you're not certain, call us today to talk through your concerns.

A chat with your partner or a mate about your concerns won’t change anything but a chat with us can change a child’s life.‘

Well, they’re quite right about the last part.

It should be assumed (unless/until proved otherwise) that the failure is systemic.

Well the NSPCC correspondence re:guiding and the employee who rants on twitter in a manner which brings the NSPCC into disrepute for unprofessional conduct, really isn't disproving the theory is it?

The NSPCC seem to be caught in a rather unthinking position as to what constitutes abuse. We have a lot of developing thought over the impact of social media and how this can lead to emotional abuse and self harm, but this isn't being applied to all areas. Just 'politically approved' areas.

There is no discussion of parental pressure over gender stereotypes and conformity (essentially homophobic bullying which may come in the guise of pushing a trans agenda) or liberal identity overreach which clashes with medical ethics and is leading to parents doing things like going to dodgy clinics to drug up their kids.

Kids have no roam for doubt or self questioning, if there is a universal affirmation policy by the NSPCC.

You can't put kids interests first, if your priority is your politics and you feel the need to crow all over social media about your woke creditials. You are utterly blind to what abuse might be being carried out under the guise of your 'progressive' policies. That's an admission of systemic failure right there.

As Chattylions points out, children are unable to make informed decisions about such complex issues, because its all being done in the bubble of 'undue pressure' from social media sources, peer sources and parental sources. And you have this bastardised, over simplified and corrupted understanding of what gillick compentence is.

If you don't define something as abuse, abuse can't be happening. Can it?

"If you think an organisation is putting children at risk, even if you're not certain, call us today to talk through your concerns.

A chat with your partner or a mate about your concerns won’t change anything but a chat with us can change a child’s life.‘

This NSPCC definition puts children at risk:

NSPCC Speak Out, Stay Safe programme, with the definition of sexual abuse is ‘when a child is being made, asked, or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them

See articles by Dr Em:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3607564-Dr-Em-The-Trojan-Unicorn-Queer-Theory-and-Paedophilia

If you don't define something as abuse, abuse can't be happening. Can it?

In abuse, creating a 'fog' is a deliberate pattern which makes it hard/sometimes impossible for the person being abused to recognise and articulate what is being done to them and how.

Eg NSPCC Statement refers parents to help their kids by:
giving them resources like Childline's advice on gender identity and sexual orientation or Young Stonewall's LGBTQ info.

Adult trans activists such as Tara Hewitt & Proud Trust (Christine Burns/Stephen Whittle etc) have also created guidance for children in the Care System, Social Care workers & Foster Carers.

This is targetted at the most vulnerable of children.
The NSPCC will be holding contracts to provide support / care for these vulnerable children & young people in addition to the helpline, online support that many at risk children access.

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

2016 article by Julian Vigo:
'When lobby groups like Mermaids dictate policy and discourse around gender identity, kids lose'
(extract)
He goes on to detail the acts of a controlling mother towards her child, M’s personal diagnosis of J’s alleged gender dysphoria, and a system which failed this child. Together, these various failures demonstrate a pattern of abuse and a mother who, Hayden writes, “deprived [her son] of his fundamental right to exercise his autonomy in its most basic way.”

What the judgment shows is that reports made by the Local Authority’s Housing Department, J’s school, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), and Social Services gave M’s behaviour towards her child (including her approach to J’s “gender presentation”) a pass simply because she was receiving support from Mermaids, a UK-based charity that claims to support parents of children who identify as transgender. Observations like these show major conflicts of interest between Mermaids and the government agencies named in the judgement." (continues)

Unless government agencies stop taking cues and training from parental support and lobby groups that are obviously not objective, the number of legal battles involving parents who do not see transitioning a child as the only option to gender dysphoria will continue to grow. Tangentially, one must also ask why only the pro-transition side to this debate is being heard by the government when we know that desistance rates for these children are at least 80 per cent.

Where Mermaids seeks to change reality through fiat and to close down debate such as the recently cancelled NSPCC debate on transgender children, we must push to open the doors of censorship to clear avenues towards dialogue and reason in the hopes that children who are suffering from issues of body dysphoria are treated with the best medical and psychological care that can be afforded to them. Equally imperative, we must undertake an ethical debate as to why there is a stigma being placed on practitioners who see viable alternatives for dealing with gender dysphoria or gender non-binarism where permanent medical intervention is not generally necessary or recommended.

www.feministcurrent.com/2016/10/26/lobby-groups-like-mermaids-dictate-policy-discourse-around-gender-identity-kids-lose/

(embedded) Pink News article by Nick Duffy October 2016 describes how NSPCC capituated to adult lobbyists over even discussing the needs of children. They did not even 'dare to debate' child protection issues.

'NSPCC scraps debate on trans children after complaints'
(extract)

"The NSPCC has cancelled a debate about transgender children after public criticism for inviting an alleged anti-trans figure to take part.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children announced earlier this week that it is holding a ‘Dare to Debate’ session on October 25, with the subject ‘Is society letting transgender children down?’.

No actual expert on transgender children was set to be part of the event, with the panel consisting of former boxing promoter Kellie Maloney, who came out as trans last year aged 61, and Sarah Ditum, a feminist writer who opponents say has a history of extreme comments about trans people.

A petition calling on Ms Ditum to be dropped from the event cited her as a person “who actively campaigns against supporting trans children with anything but conversion therapy”.

Ms Ditum denies she is an “anti-trans campaigner”, suggesting she aims to assess the “conflicted state of scientific evidence for gender identity”. (continues)

But in a statement today, it confirmed the event would be axed, after it became clear the trans community would shun the debate.

It said: “Our Dare to Debate seminars are designed to provoke debate about serious issues facing children today – child protection issues that might not otherwise get the focus that they deserve.

“The next debate in the series was intended to shine a light on the difficulties and problems that trans children face in the UK, to ask whether society is doing enough to help them and discuss what more can and should be done.

“Children and young people are increasingly raising concerns about trans issues and gender dysphoria.

“Many trans children have felt that they aren’t getting the support that they need and we wanted to explore how these young people could be more supported within our communities.

“However, the trans community have raised concerns and told us that they don’t support the NSPCC hosting this discussion.

“We have listened, and following the withdrawal of a keynote speaker, we are no longer hosting this event.”
www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/13/nspcc-scraps-debate-on-trans-children-after-complaints/

Lily Maynard excellent extended article worth reading in full as it provides important context & background into Safeguarding failings & poor decision making at both NSPCC & Childline

'Bergdorf & ChildLine – did they or didn’t they?'
(extract)
"The NSPCC’s core values are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Children must be protected from all forms of violence and exploitation
Everyone has a responsibility to support the care and protection of children
We listen to children and young people, respect their views and respond to them directly
Children should be encouraged and enabled to fulfill their potential
We challenge inequalities for children and young people
Every child must have someone to turn to
Worthy aims indeed. Undoubtedly the NSPCC has done some incredible work although in recent years it has been no stranger to controversy.

In the 1990s NSPCC provided a publication known as Satanic Indicators to social services around the country. These guidelines led to some social workers making false accusation of child sex abuse and a scandal ensued, involving accusations that the NSPCC had kept quiet in order to protect its income.

In 2002, in the wake of the Victoria Climbé case, former barrister Lee Moore said the NSPCC “seem reluctant to get involved (in child protection cases) as it might hurt their marketing campaigns… what is its priority: children or fundraising?”

In 2007 Patrick Butler wrote in the Guardian that NSPCC campaigning is “flawed and naïve” and that there is “zero evidence” that £250m the NSPCC spent on their “Full Stop” campaign between 1998-2007 actually benefited any children.

In 2014 the NSPCC claimed home education was a ‘key factor’ in child abuse cases, a position from which they were forced to backtrack after it was revealed that the children cited were all known to the authorities. 2014 FOI requests showed that home educated children are actually at lower risk than other children.

In March 2018 it was revealed that the NSPCC’s funding had fallen by nine million pounds. The more cynical among us might suspect that this is their reasoning behind jumping on the trans-train, a cash cow if ever there was one. Nine million sounds like a lot but is really just a rather large drop in the ocean: in 2017/18 the NSPCC’s total income was a whopping £118.3m and Peter Wanless, the charity’s chief executive was paid between £170,001 and £180,000." (continues)
lilymaynard.com/munroe-bergdorf-childline/

Julian Vigo is a woman

In abuse, creating a 'fog' is a deliberate pattern which makes it hard/sometimes impossible for the person being abused to recognise and articulate what is being done to them and how.

My point entirely. The abuse still exists. It just doesn't have the appropriate labelling.

Abuse is a reality which doesn't stop, just because you don't define it as abuse.

Or are not prepared to discuss or debate how abuse might be able to occur within a trans framework.

As it stands the NSPCC official line is that those who have a trans identity or push trans ideology are incapable of abuse.

The fact that it is a controversial area means we should be discussing it MORE not less.

Sorry multitasking- I thought she was anyway

My point entirely. The abuse still exists. It just doesn't have the appropriate labelling.

Abuse is a reality which doesn't stop, just because you don't define it as abuse.

Absolutely and when organisations add to the 'fog' this enables/empowers those who are intent on abusing children & vulnerable adults & disempowers further those who are the victims.

NeurotrashWarrior

She is!
Julian Vigo has written important articles and analysis.

tweets with links here: twitter.com/lubelluledotcom

That was what I took home from the "we're still here" thread/ meeting. Organised fog.

That was what I took home from the "we're still here" thread/ meeting. Organised fog.

In plain sight, with Dawn Butler MP & shadow minister for Women & Equalities in attendance as keynote speaker.

The report of TRA conference organised by Jane Fae really must be read as widely as possible:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

Sorry RO I think I misunderstood the 'he' in the extract, though I know people new to Julian are sometimes confused.

The NSPCC has cancelled a debate about transgender children after public criticism for inviting an alleged anti-trans figure to take part.

Following much more recent happenings such as the Tavistock issues, various documentaries, the veritas report, and mainstream press articles, I do wonder if (hope? False hope?) the NSPCC might dare to debate this now? There must be people within it who have concerns.

I feel organisations and SS never learn; it seems to have to take a massive failing and a child's death to ever trigger policy change.

If you don't define something as abuse, abuse can't be happening. Can it?

This is literally POMO in action though, isn't it. Abuse is a social construct arising from a discursively constructed victim/abuser juxtaposition, rather than from the real events.

This is literally POMO in action though, isn't it. Abuse is a social construct arising from a discursively constructed victim/abuser juxtaposition, rather than from the real events.

Yes.
Its incredibly dangerous & blows holes in Safeguarding & Child Protection frameworks.

As it stands the NSPCC official line is that those who have a trans identity or push trans ideology are incapable of abuse.

And we all know what happens when you create a sacred caste of people. That caste becomes a magnet for abusers. Catholic priests, TV presenters, the list is endless.

Is there anyone left who thinks the NSPCC is fit for purpose?

That Lily Maynard blog post is really excellent. I came here to post it but I see R0wan has beaten me to it.

Karen Ingala Smith is getting a bit of a pasting on Twitter today. I am blocked by Munroe (quelle surprise) but I was looking on an incognito tab and as far as I can make out Karen and Munroe were exchanging tweets earlier today. Karen's are still there, Munroe's aren't, so I can't make sense of what's happened. Munroe, however, is talking about lawyers.

Sunset - I am absolutely horrified at that thread. What is wrong with these people?