NSPCC Again

[SunsetBeetch]

"Head of ‘child safety’ at the NSPCC. More parts of a terrible jigsaw now falling into place. Can you see what it is yet? t.co/nJKd5nYt1B "

"Bizarre and concerning response of NSPCC to those worried about the antics of one of its employees maybe not so much a mystery now t.co/N0KNloLCxl "

One of Them? That’s not creating obvious divisions at all is it?

If he reads this thread, and I’m sure he will - it’s not good to have the mums after you when you have a senior role at the NSPCC - those pregnant women were reading FSOG in advance of their next feminist book group where they were going to discuss patriarchal culture and how it grooms women to accept sexual torture from men. Don’t make assumption Tone.

assumptions

Let us not forget the NSPCCs initial response to wanking rubber man's tweets.
People who were objecting to the content were being accused of homophobia.

While I see the link to queer theory, this business about parents and children seems to have been mainstream to me for a while in progressive circles. It was attached particularly to things like Rainbow clubs in schools, as well as this idea that schools should be teaching kids values around sexuality at all, with what was a clear implication that this should undermine what they learned at home if those views were wrong. There has in some places even been fairly heated arguments about teen minor children having access to contraception and abortion without involving parents.

The tendency I've seen over the years is for progressives to defend all or most of these ideas and to see parents taking other views as regressive and controlling. Having privacy from parents online may seem plausible for many because it is just more along the same lines - the argument that kids who are different, especially gay, may need that privacy is coming straight from the same playbook.

In the UK we have the concept of Gillick Competence, hilariously named after the religious reactionary who tried to stop it. But that is the right of young people to speak in confidence to qualified NHS clinicians, not self-appointed amateurs.

It's a moral vacuum caused by identity politics which enabled public bodies & NGOs to put the 'rights' of minorities & oppressed groups eg LGBT++ ahead of what they have been set up to do eg protect children, prevent poverty, fight injustice.

Leads to all of these mad scenarios, whereby the charity will defend a bloke's right to wear rubber & wank in a loo at work (and document it!) or defend aid workers visiting prostitutes in regions that have been decimated by a natural disaster or war.

Traditionally, charity workers & public servants were meant to be motivated by higher values & principles and were expected not to drag their employers into disrepute. I'm not saying bad stuff didn't go on, but it wasn't as brazen. Nowadays criticising someone's sexual behaviour is conflated with criticising their sexual preferences, and it's not the same thing at all.

Still no response from the NSPCC, not that I expected one.
If they ever do respond hopefully someone will post here.

Possibly one of the worst possible people for his job, given those views.

His post about how if LGB alliance is not anti trans, they should add a T and start campaigning for trans people is just ridiculous. But expected.

Does our Tone give any recommendations for reading material appropriate for the pregnant woman?

Or is it to be confinement from the very moment of conception?

Institutional capture.

Please can some one fill me in on wanking rubber man? I’m writing to the charities commission about Tony’s Twitter.

I think he totally approves of women reading sexual torture books, pregnant or not.

Here you are Novo

Sacked by the NSPCC on 12th August, www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3714849-Sacked-by-the-NSPCC-on-12th-August

Not a word from mainstream media

www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/nspcc-dismisses-celebrity-management-staff-member.html

I just watched this video from the recent CEASE conference:

It's a talk by Pat Branigan, NSPCC's 'Development & Impact Manager' on 'harmful sexual behaviour' in children.

I found this video creepy as fuck. Branigan says the constructed story of 'Brandon' is from NSPCC resources produced for primary schools. I'm going to give Branigan the benefit of the doubt here and assume this is aimed at teachers rather than directly at children, but given that context the twee childlike language used to describe Brandon's reactions to various forms of abuse seems even more misplaced.

Branigan says that in cases of children exhibiting harmful sexual behaviour, 40-50% have themselves been sexually abused.

How does this square with NSPCC's revised definition of sexual abuse:

When a child is being made, asked, or rewarded for doing anything with their body that frightens or worries them - or being made to do this to somebody else

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3611569-Is-NSPCC-school-guidance-for-kids-re-sexual-abuse-shifting-the-Overton-Window-Need-expert-advise-to-break-this-down

I don't know if I'm explaining myself properly - probably not because I'm spitting with rage and also trying very hard to not be explicit because there are sick fucks about.

NSPCC is as rotten as the Catholic Church was (I am Catholic and a former supporter of NSPCC).

Wait, can I just have a sanity check? So with this definition of abuse, if a kid isn't upset by what is being asked of them or if it is done willingly, then it is NOT (according to the NSPCC) abuse?

Correct.

Sexual abusers groom children by getting them to think it’s fun, or not a big deal, or “it doesn’t hurt so what’s the harm!?”

The NSPCC is helping them.

Wait, can I just have a sanity check? So with this definition of abuse, if a kid isn't upset by what is being asked of them or if it is done willingly, then it is NOT (according to the NSPCC) abuse?

Legally, it's abuse.

The NSPCC is now telling children only to report (tell a trusted adult) if an adult touches them and it upsets them.

The Queer Theory stuff is highly disturbing, particularly the stuff about allowing teachers to express their sexuality in the classroom.

Protest outside their head office?

Nspcc HQ: Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH.

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

Email complaint to: [email protected]

I'm aghast. This is horrifying. So not only is the NSPCC reframing for children what constitutes sexual abuse, it is employing/defending blokes who are at best lacking any sexual boundaries whilst having no doubt a fucking huge database of vulnerable children. The implications are making me feel sick.