Challenor showing off their 'new' birth certificate

[MrsSnippyPants]

I will never accept this 'legal fiction, it is a travesty.

Because it's outing. The legal fiction means that you cannot disclose their trans status.

How can anyone ensure that they are not discriminating against someone's protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' if they are unaware that the person has that protected characteristic?

again no one in here seems to really work in this area or the answers would not judt be around general safegurding.

Bespin - please see my detailed response above. I think you'll agree I "really work" in the kind of area that posters on this thread are concerned about, i.e. whether or not the ability to change documents like your birth certificate and erase all traces of a previous - possibly offending - past might impact on safeguarding in the specific, child protection sense.

I have very long and deep experience of safeguarding children and identifying adults who might pose a risk to children. I've dismissed and reported to the police more than one of them.

I really don't disagree thst this is a red flag but it's just thqt a flag a point to explore further and monitor. what would you do lock him up? stop him going places whats the answer if this is your only evidence?

VickyEadie

jolly good so can you explain to people that changing your birth certificate does not erase your original one and that the dbs process does have access to your previous records. becuse that I beleive is the reality of this.

I really don't disagree thst this is a red flag but it's just thqt a flag a point to explore further and monitor. what would you do lock him up? stop him going places whats the answer if this is your only evidence?

Would you allow him contact with your child?

I dint want people like this being able to change their sex and wipe out all association to this sort if behaviour.

Let's look at the transwomen in prisons that have committed sex crimes against female prisoners, this is after being sent to prison for sex related crimes. Do you think they should have any chance of rewriting history and getting into a womens prison or anywhere, where they are vulnerable women again?

I think you'll agree I "really work" in the kind of area that posters on this thread are concerned about, i.e. whether or not the ability to change documents like your birth certificate and erase all traces of a previous - possibly offending - past might impact on safeguarding in the specific, child protection sense.

Exactly.

For all those reading who are utterly horrified by some of the stuff that has been said on this thread, take heart. There is statutory guidance for school recruiting, which is based on proper safeguarding. You can find it here:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/keeping-children-safe-in-education--2

Yes, despite our best efforts, people slip through the net. But the systems are there. And they are nothing like what some here have said. This is the concern: will allowing at will identity change have negative impacts on these frameworks? Many of us here are concerned that they will.

Well said Vicky.

Whatever bespin thinks about clinical assessments etc is irrelevent. Safeguarding should work as outlined by Vicky, that is the correct procedure.

all we can do is make educated evidence based assessments of risk.

But that's the question I keep asking. Would those tweets constitute enough evidence for you to constitute a risk?

I'm not talking about locking them up. I'm talking about a specific risk if they're employed in a nursery school, or school?

unfortunately in a society where we don't know someone is going to commit an offence before they do, unless we are already aware of them and can actually undertake the levels of assessment previously discussed then no we Dont know. I know you don't like that answer but it's the reality. all we can do is make educated evidence based assessments of risk.

And that evidence includes what people say online about their fantasies of raping kids. That's the whole point of assessing the RISK not the FALLOUT.

And you call us idiots? Fucking hells bells.

I'm very heartened, and of course I already assumed, that we had robust safeguarding procedures that should be followed.

My worry is that the entire issue of transgenderism blurs them. Bespin I believe is trans, and I believe works with trans youth.

And the safeguarding, in bespin's eyes, does not appear anywhere near as robust as it does for everybody else.

It's, yet another, way where trans children appear to be being failed.

Especially as bespin thought the only way you could be a paedophile is if you actually offended.

For all those reading who are utterly horrified by some of the stuff that has been said on this thread, take heart. There is statutory guidance for school recruiting

And for those of you with teenage children attending trans groups, you might want to check those groups' understanding of safeguarding and risk assessment.

Anyway back to A.C.. I'd be interested to know the responses of orgs that potentially lose profit by men legally becoming women. Do eg car insurance co's now reduce their premiums because women as a group are safer drivers than men? I guess it's like changing from a higher-risk to lower-risk profession, although I don't know how much 'sex' is weighted in their algorithms.

Incidentally, Bespin, I used to run as in, founded and managed, alternative provision of kids who were high risk and vulnerable and had to find people to work with them, had to design and implement all risk assessments and safeguarding procedures and action safeguarding referrals. Also worked with kids who were in rehabilitation after being found guilty of all sorts of crimes from theft to rape and attempted murder.

If you had come out with any of this bollocks I'd not want you within a whisker of working with the kids we worked with, and I would have stopped the session, and asked you to leave the premises.

I'm having deja vu though as I am sure I've said this before to you. Which is why I usually skim over your nonsense.

the only way you could be a paedophile is if you actually offended.

No Datun, it's not if you offend, it's if you get caught

I ask as you all appear to know more than me on this, if they haven't been charged with offences towards children they are not infact a pedophile.

I mean I know bespin is quite hard to follow but I just want to make sure I've got this right. There are circumstances under which bespin would emply that person, in a job where he had access to children?

Is that right?

popehilarious good poibt, what happens with life insurance, surely failure to declare being trans would invalidate the insurance?

Not employ and draw the attention of others with responsibility for safeguarding, especially others to whom he might apply that in my opinion he's a real risk to children, that's what.

"That's what safeguarding requires those working with children to do, Bespin. We put children's safety way* above the feelings of adults.

I ask as you all appear to know more than me on this, if they haven't been charged with offences towards children they are not infact a pedophile.

God that's just too, too specific.

Datun that is the impression i got which is scary if they are in a possition to employ people to work with vulnerable groups.

It does seem that bespin is steadfast in the view that a person has to actually offend, be charged and convicted, before they should be considered a risk.

Which is foolish and dangerous thinking.