Intimate Care for children in school not safe

[Birdsfoottrefoil]

Special needs jungle, a webpage with blogs/information resource for parents of children with additional needs, have published muddled advise on who provides intimate care (toiletting) for kids in school. Complete with some of the normal tropes about how outdated views of men as dangerous are as obviously lesbians might get aroused looking about girls...

www.specialneedsjungle.com/who-wipes-their-bum-about-policies-on-toileting-and-disabled-children/

Wtf is this crap....

Omg unbelievable that woman wrote that

I am shocked by what she wrote

Did I just read that. She is erasing all boundaries from vulnerable children

Wow, what tosh. Who is this woman?

Very muddled and poorly written. But I thought ultimately well-meaning, if slightly misguided? @littlbrowndog can you please explain to me how She is erasing all boundaries from vulnerable children - I’m genuinely feelingly slightly thick/behind the times that I saw nothing wrong with the article aside from it being clumsily written? I‘m going to read it again - painful process! - and try to work out what I’ve missed.

And she fails to mention that a male HCP doing her smear test would request a chaperone, for their own protection as much as anything else.

If we accept, the writers assertion, that risk is assessment relies on outdated assumptions then one would expect to see evidence that men are now committing fewer sexual offences; I must have missed that report!

Shes erasing boundaries by conflating sex with gender, wanting kids told that they chose who does it when in many cases the kids wont be able to communicate very well. And it's making it that having a man provide intimate care to a little girl is no different to a lesbian doing so

And that embarrassment is actually being unkind to men as their Male teachers can be trusted and she had make gynaes so that makes it ok.

Except a male teacher sho wasnt a pervert would not provide intimate care to a girl. They just dont . To protect themselves as much as anything else.

She also suggests parents’ wishes should not be observed (only those of their, possibly very suggestible, vulnerable child). Ignoring any cultural reasons too.

From the article:

"The people employed in schools are good people, the children are safe in their hands and we trust them. Therefore regardless of age, gender, sexuality, any of it, they should be allowed to change students when required".

Oh, look, five teachers from the same school convicted of the sexual abuse of children there. www.itv.com/news/2018-07-05/two-more-christs-hospital-teachers-found-guilty-of-sex-attacks-on-pupils/

The thing that these teachers have in common is that they are all male. Utter utter bullshit that women are just as likely to sexually abuse children.

God, these idiots setting themselves up as experts when they don't have the first clue about safeguarding. It is just so dangerous.

I don't understand it. Are people really this thick?

Yes, some women have been known to commit abuse. But men are dozens of times more likely to commit sex crimes, and if the prison statistics are anything to go by then transwomen are hundreds of times more likely to commit sex crimes, than women are.

Are people just not able to process this concept of relative risk? I notice it in all the discussions about safeguarding - "well women will be raped anyway" (thanks Ruthie, but wouldn't it be great if fewer women were raped?) or "perverts could already lurk in the women's toilets" (why make it easier for them?)

You can't completely protect a vulnerable child. But what kind of parent doesn't want to minimise the risk of something bad happening to them? I have been assuming that it's wilful stupidity when TRAs miss these points in discussions of safeguarding. But this piece has me wondering. Maybe it's actual stupidity and some people just can't think that way?

The persons views are very outdated. I wonder if it was written based on what they observed/listened to a long time ago.

"Are people really this thick?"

Yes, clearly. Knowing absolutely nothing about child safeguarding and filling in the huge gaps in knowledge and understanding with your own anecdotes about how you as an adult don't care who sees your genitals.

Safeguarding = trusting adults at all times because they work in a school. Apparently.

We don't need organisations like the NSPCC presumably. Because we can always trust adults around children, no question.

No i dont think they really are that thick. But when predators and their crimes no longer just exist as strangers in dark alleys and it dawns on people that it's their husbands, their sons, their fathers and their brothers, that it's not dark allies and misunderstandings, its schools and swim lessons and health care, well they just cant bring themselves to believe it. Because admitting you need to take care means admitting their family their friends and their loved ones are a risk somehow. Because they cant see it's not personal.

I'm embarrassed by the article.
The author prefers male practitioners to do her smear tests, so then we skip too,(because these are totally comparable situations?) any teacher of any gender should be able to wipe a vulnerable special needs child's bum...?
Or is she suggesting that any teacher the child wants to wipe their bum can, or any teacher who wants to do it can if they child doesn't mind?Not to mention don't teachers have to have training for this?

Remember PB to Glinner, about males in females bathrooms, something to the effect of not all fears are well founded or reality based...
I am not suggesting anything at all about the author, but just a bit shocked at how naieve people can be. But for someone who is working with or for children why are they trying to dismantle safeguarding?
Because everyone is nice? And their male doctor is better at preforming smear tests...

Sorry about all those questions but that article is not very clear is it.

If I had a child in a special needs school, I would be seriously concerned. Does OFSTED approve of this new vision?

I've been on the website and I couldn't find an about us button anywhere. I'm on my phone so maybe it's me. I'm wondering who is behind this website.

They aren't government sponsored. They're asking for money. Shouldn't think the parents of children with significant special needs would have a lot of spare cash. When I was a carer I never did.

Ofsted would likely take advice from the nspcc.

The nspcc think mixed sex changing and sleeping is fine. And that objecting to staff wanking in fetish gear in the loos is homophobic.

There is no one who would protect the children when this shit is given the go ahead any more

It is poorly written.
Several points she hasn’t considered.
That support staff are usually female therefore the chances of a male changing someone would be less likely especially in a primary school.
That support staff should be covering their own backs by always having another member of staff present. This means there is also less risk to the child.
That children can change their mind about people from hour to hour. However I agree that if a child voices some fear or complaints that they should be listened to in case they have been abused.
What happens if that named person leaves, is on holiday or on sick leave the child would have to be changed by someone else.

Once teachers don’t wipe bums. In all my years of childcare I have only ever seen two teachers do it and they called for help.
Nursery Nurses are trained but I am not sure about TAs that are not NNs. It is mentioned in safeguarding but not actual “ wipe from front to back” type training more about the actual safeguarding like having another person present.

And using lesbians as justification to erode safeguarding, again. Dangerous and homophobic. How many lesbian sex offenders are in prison again? Lesbians I mean, not heterosexual males with a fetish.

The article is atrocious and dangerous.

And I'm reminded of Lisa M trying to tell us that it only takes one or two fools (or bad faith actors) in an org or institution to change its entire culture to disastrous effect.

This reckless nonsense must be called out wherever it appears.

And I'm reminded of Lisa M trying to tell us that it only takes one or two fools (or bad faith actors) in an org or institution to change its entire culture to disastrous effect

She was bloody right wasnt she. Look at all that's come out about who's pushing for mixed sex facilities and whos on advisory boards