James Kirkup The Spectator:
'Munroe Bergdorf, the NSPCC and the failure of the media'
(extract)
"To be crystal clear about this, the board of the NSPCC dismissed Bergdorf because it judged that her actions breached its standards relating to child protection and would actually undermine the work of the charity (i.e. the protection of children).
NSPCC guidance to parents is that they should tell children not to contact and share personal information online with people who are not known to them:
‘Explain that it isn’t easy to identify someone online. People aren’t always who they say they are, so don’t share personal information. If it’s someone who genuinely knows your child, they shouldn’t need to ask for personal information online. Tell your child that if they’re in any doubt they should talk to you first.’
Munroe Bergdorf has, on more than one occasion, used social media channels to encourage young people to contact her to discuss their personal struggles and worries.
In a public statement, the NSPCC said that it dismissed her because of such statements. It said:
‘When appointing an ambassador we are required to consider whether the relationship supports our ability to safeguard children and be influential in safeguarding children. The board decided an ongoing relationship with Munroe was inappropriate because of her statements on the public record, which we felt would mean that she was in breach of our own risk assessments and undermine what we are here to do. These statements are specific to safeguarding and equality.’
Bergdorf has not retreated from those statements, telling the Guardian that she sees nothing wrong in encouraging children to message her ‘as a friend to turn to’. (Bergdorf is 31.) As far as I can see, she has not yet addressed the NSPCC’s point about her online conduct ‘breaching’ its guidelines. She says she has been unfairly treated and dismissed because she is transgender.
In any other context, this would a simple and uncontroversial thing for any media outlet to cover: ‘Celebrity sacked by child safety charity for undermining child safety rules’ would be how I’d expect most journalists to frame the story. Or perhaps ‘Celebrity sacked by child safety charity says she did nothing wrong.’ (continues)
concludes:
I’ll end this miserable tale with a final exam question:
Fact 1: Munroe Bergdorf was sacked by a child safety charity because the charity said she undermined its child safety work. She has since been lionised and feted, treated as a victim of injustice.
Fact 2: Janice Turner sent a single tweet to ask the charity a question about Munroe Bergdorf’s appointment, an appointment the charity has now accepted was inappropriate and mistaken. Janice Turner has since been vilified, abused and defamed.
Question: what are the differences between Munroe Bergdorf and Janice Turner that might explain the different ways in which they have been treated?"
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/06/munroe-bergdorfs-sacking-and-the-failure-of-the-media/