Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

[OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg]

Because it bears repeating.

come on link, be clicky

twitter.com/WeAreFairCop/status/1214480876928667649

This is either a red flag for mh issues or someone who has a skewed view of boundaries. It's not appropriate in any situation; my point was that in either case (mh failing or blurred boundaries) it comes under safeguarding in terms of caring for colleagues or inappropriate behaviour.

Neuro Yes absolutely. Apologies as I went off on a bit of a tangent without acknowledging your important point.

The Safeguarding response has to always consider the possible impact on 'service users' first & formost which is, in the case of of a school, the children.
Adult/s who are not appropriately boundaried & also those who dont respect, don't recognise or dont underatnd the importance of making decisions about other adults conduct within a Safeguarding focus all represent risk.
Risks due to blurred boundaries or possible MH (or other welfare issues) needs are covered up & support is delayed.

The scenario you describe is quite possibly/likely indictive of framework failings within the school.Inadequacies in staff suppport, training, supervision or recruitment process all will impact the effectiveness of Safeguarding. The impact of austerity on all services supporting children & vulnerable adults is to put additional pressure on multiple points of Safeguarding frameworks.

Btw, BenGNC comments in one film
That she had never heard the word safeguarding till she read about all this in the UK but knowing about it would have helped her tremendously growing up.

How much more beneficial would RSE curriculum be if its focus was empowering children, especially girls, with such knowledge?

Thought this twitter thread about the lack of safeguarding in lgbt groups in some schools belonged on this thread: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220842147311734786.html

Clymene Thanks for sharing Malcolm Clarke's thread about, 'sex, lies and paedophiles'
(the lies referred to are apparently in a Pink News article)

This extract highlights the Safeguarding issues many people recognise whilst influential trans rights activists & lobbyists not only deny the risks but also engage in attempts to silence/smear those who speak out.

I believe Malcolm Clarke is a spokeperson for LGBAlliance. He wrote:

"The age range of many of the clubs is 11-17 yrs old. Any 11 year old is also at a distinct disadvantage to 15 & 16 yr olds in the group. Whose monitoring interactions? Stonewall recommends "anything discussed in the room stays in the room".

Err. Ok. All of this would just be vaguely concerning if we could be sure that Stonewall and the army of people it's trained to march through schools really cared about safeguarding. But here's Stonewall's Aimee Challoner talking about her work in schools

That's the same Aimee that failed to tell the Green Party her dad was on a child rape charge for which he was eventually jailed. She was later suspended from the Lib Dems after her fiancee's child sex fantasies were exposed.

And then there's the mental confusion caused by other Stonewall so-called mentors. Believe it or not Alex Drummond the bearded lesbian goes into schools where "she" elucidates the mysteries of being "gender-queer and gender-fluid". To 11 year olds?

Meet Grrl Alex, the gender non conforming trans woman from Wales
Meet the marvellous Alex, from Cardiff. Part of the My Genderation 'Patchwork' series, with All About Trans.

So what's all this got to do with my comments that Pink News botched? It only shows that all LGBTQ+ school groups may not always be safe spaces. Stonewall should surely acknowledge there may be risks. Then everyone can work together to remove them.

Denying there might be risks isn't just naive. It undermines LGBT education. If and when something goes wrong the whole enterprise will be tarred. Safeguarding of kids requires vigilance and shouldn't be lost in the rush of enthusiasm for so-called 'inclusive teaching'.

And if that's true of safeguarding around sexuality it's just as true on gender identity. Here's Elly Barnes from Educate and Celebrate explaining how they go in and "educate" teachers in the latest minutiae of gender doctrine.

And here's Relationship and Sex Education paid for and provided to schools by the BBC. At 1min 35 secs one of the teachers explains how there are over 100 genders and reveals the mysteries of "bi-gender". Yeah me neither. To 9 year olds!

Don't get me wrong. I'd have loved some more pro-gay commentary at my bigoted Ayrshire school. But Elly's breathless enthusiasm and the BBC's baffling baloney worries me. It hasn't been thought through and parental objections are being steamrollered. " (continues)

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1220842147311734786.html

This is punishing whistleblowers.

Hate crime/hate incidents are such a useful tool for people who want to silence certain people, aren't they?

Thanks R0wan. I'm posting from bed with a crushing hangover so adding in the link was the best I could do!

There are routes for Governors within & without the Local Authority depending on the specifics of the issues.

Are there? If an LA wants to force a school to do something what exactly do you think governors can do about it?

Ultimately, the LA holds the power over a maintained school. They can remove the governing body if they want to - what can the governing body do to stop that?

This is what scares the hell out of me. Governors may well try to make a stand against a policy that they consider detrimental but if the LA disagrees then they have the ability to remove the governors and engineer an IEB who will do what the LA want. It might sound tin foil gat brigade but I've witnessed it happening.

Governors are in a difficult position in maintained schools - do you stand by your principles, get removed and then leave the school exposed or do you compromise, maybe do some things that you aren't comfortable but in the hope that remain in post to try to do your best to act in the pupils best interests?

Well done Malcom Clarke for speaking out about these groups. There is a massive naivety about this. As he points out, they are about discussing sex and sexuality, not origami or sport and the lack of boundaries is a huge red safeguarding flag.

Yes thanks clym, that's a good thread.

The No Outsiders chap doesn't get it and don't even get me started on Professor Glazzard Leeds Beckett, a teacher training college, and his LGBTQ+ quality mark for primary schools.

Oh and his teachers hand books on LGBTQ+ word salad inclusion in schools, including primary, but particularly the one on the early years foundation stage.

Don't get me wrong, gay/ lesbian relationships should be par for the course as a "it's completely normal for a child to have two mummies."

It's the relevance of the TQ+ at an age when kids dress up how they want and shouldn't be forced into gender stereotyped pigeon holes.

(Haven't read it yet but other bits by him and others there don't fill me with much hope.)

Do they disclose who pays for these people to go into the schools to market transitioning to children?

Governors are in a difficult position in maintained schools - do you stand by your principles, get removed and then leave the school exposed or do you compromise, maybe do some things that you aren't comfortable but in the hope that remain in post to try to do your best to act in the pupils best interests?

The thread is discussing core principles of Safeguarding.
These are not matters of principle or negotiation but statuatory obligations within clear frameworks.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779401/Working_Together_to_Safeguard-Children.pdf

From the screenshot in OP, LangCleg wrote:

"If you want to protect children who question their gender - and all the other children, if you can manage to care about them too - then you never break this cardinal first rule of safeguarding. You never invite private contact with a child. You never offer to keep its secrets. Because you don't break down children's boundaries: you build them up.

Any adult who does this is therefore unsuited to any role in child protection or to have any connection with child protection organisations.

Any person who defends another person doing this is therefore unsuited to ever speak of what or what is not appropriate in child protection matters."

Do they disclose who pays for these people to go into the schools to market transitioning to children?

I can only speak from experience in my primary school but usually there's a budget within a school for for the subject areas and/ or pots of funding from the LA available to schools, this is usually PE and Music and usually spent on things run by the LA or buying in external providers. This is because you often need skilled musicians and sports specialists to deliver what the children need.

I know locally in the case of No Outsiders the local council bought it in as part of a wider strategy tackling community unity, racism, homophobia etc.

I also have recently discovered that in the case of issues such as yp dealing with "identities" - sexual orientation or transgender identity (love the fact that auto correct offers ideology first there) who may be being seen by GPs and CAHMs, a there are commissioning doctors who can fund certain interventions in schools.

So for example, with autism, they might, supported by advice from speech and language services, buy in really good programmes such as Early Bird which supports staff, pupils and parents in schools with certain strategies.

I know though, as a Gp friend has told me, they can arrange funding for LGBTQ things eg quality marks for areas of schools or counselling support services.

But from what I can see people think stonewall for example are gold standard, so the routes in are multiple. Also, unless you have your head buried in this here, and are switched on to the potential harms, many of these people are completely naïve to the issues this could cause.

High profile cases such as Selina Todd and Sue Evans are going to be very important here, but there's still a lot of dots to be joined for people.

@MNHQ

Considering what many so posters have pointed out regarding schools and safeguarding on this thread, and the complexity of how organisations trying to project their ideas on to children can come into schools or access children, do you not think its is appropriate to reinstate Lang?

Lang explained safeguarding in ways that cut to the point and I certainly, a teacher appreciated it hugely, as,even with countless safeguarding training, the amount of information we have to digest on a daily basis, alongside the latest tracking trends and re writing the curriculum to appease ofsted yet again, is huge and people can only hold and apply so much info, and dots often have to be explicitly joined.

Repeatedly highlighting the safeguarding issues Lang had, over an over, has provided clarity for many here. She pointed things out I hadn't considered.

The numbers of young people who regret taking cross sex hormones are growing.

Young people in positions of "power" in organisations such as stonewall etc do not have the foresight to understand the negative impact they may have on yp exploring their identities, and indeed many project their own experiences.

The guidance in trans tool kits around children being able to access single sex spaces of the opposite sex is real and shocking.

Councils have been captured; vying to get awards for being ultra 'trans inclusive' and then trickling this down to schools at the expense of girls privacy and safeguarding.

Teachers and social workers working on the coal face have to deal with difficult situations daily that are also potentially physically harm them, let alone be verbally abused. I take a poor view of mods who struggle to deal with some words typed by someone with passion for trying to safeguard yp when some of us witness and deal with worse in the work place.

The thread is discussing core principles of Safeguarding.
These are not matters of principle or negotiation but statuatory obligations within clear frameworks.

And many schools adopt their LA policy, as I said earlier.

The issue of funding is critical. As is the fact that this government both signposts and funds some of this dangerous advice going into schools.
This needs to be turned round but as the revelation about the new CPS hate crime "guidance" for schools demonstrates, this movement has massive funds and influence.

Uncompromisingwoman
Your point connecting safeguarding and the recent CPS 'hate crime' guidance highlights the importance of trawling through all aspects of safeguarding because it is going in the wrong direction.

Uncompromisingwoman
I meant to say...
Your point is extremely relevant.

Thank you WrathofAsyouwereKIop
Working in safeguarding is often about joining up the dots. Getting the balance between being sceptical and paranoid.

At the moment there is a relentless assault on children and their safety and boundaries. Adult groups undermining safeguarding in plain sight. Isolating children from their parents. Grooming children into removing their boundaries about who they should undress in front of. Insisting that the sexes must sleep, toilet and undress together. Openly advocating and talking with children about extreme porn. Grooming children that they can be born in the wrong body and minimising the effects of toxic drugs and self harming behaviour - presenting it (even to the youngest of children) as harmless and 'normal' .....and so much more

It feels overwhelming at times.

Yes and it's the small things that go unnoticed.

It feels overwhelming at times.

Yes.

And many schools adopt their LA policy, as I said earlier.

March 2019 relevent thread OP LangCleg on 'Regulatory Capture':
"We've also discussed the way in which the policy-setting leadership of other companies, state institutions (for example the police and the NHS), charities (for example NSPCC) and third sector orgs (for example Girl Guides) have enforced the top-down imposition of Gender Identity ideology despite obvious practical and ethical issues and conflicts of rights.

I came across someone remarking about the concept of regulatory capture on Twitter in relation to all this and, since we've also been discussing the actual power relations behind various oppression narratives, I wonder what everyone thought.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies".

There are two basic types of regulatory capture and the second rings a few bells:

Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry.

What do we think? Are there parallels?"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3541908-Regulatory-capture

See also James Kirkup's Spectator article on the Dentons/IYGLO document ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’
www.iglyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/IGLYO_v3-1.pdf
December 2019 'The document that reveals the remarkable tactics of trans lobbyists'
(extract)
"Here’s a broad observation from the report about the best way to enact a pro-trans agenda:

‘While cultural and political factors play a key role in the approach to be taken, there are certain techniques that emerge as being effective in progressing trans rights in the “good practice” countries.’

Among those techniques: ‘Get ahead of the Government agenda.’

What does that mean? Here it is in more detail:

‘In many of the NGO advocacy campaigns that we studied, there were clear benefits where NGOs managed to get ahead of the government and publish progressive legislative proposal before the government had time to develop their own. NGOs need to intervene early in the legislative process and ideally before it has even started. This will give them far greater ability to shape the government agenda and the ultimate proposal than if they intervene after the government has already started to develop its own proposals.’ (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/

I wanted to say that I've been reading threads like this for a while and feeling very overwhelmed. I'm a stay at home mum at the moment. I've had a great career and have contributed to society. I have been watching and listening and slowly speaking to members of my family and local community about concerns. Today I spoke to my 70 year old mum about my child being taught things in school. She said "oh darling this has been going on since year dot and they want to keep you out.. Why do you think that?" 30 years ago she spoke up in a school about sex Ed and was vilified as a hate figure, her brother is gay. She said she had no problems with a good decent honest education for children.. She was unhappy that we were being told not to go to mum. She was terrified that children were being led into a secret society of abuse. I believe we must be honest with our children and I believe anyone telling them to keep a secret does not have our children's best interests at heart. Honesty and kindness is the way we walk forward. Whatever the current doctrine is it can never come before children being safe from abuse. Abuse is like a mushroom it grows in the dark and its prevalent. I'm not sure if this is the right thread to say this. I believe being a feminist is about standing up for each other and the vulnerable.

Abuse is like a mushroom it grows in the dark and its prevalent.

Excellent point Mammatino

I believe we must be honest with our children and I believe anyone telling them to keep a secret does not have our children's best interests at heart. Honesty and kindness is the way we walk forward. Whatever the current doctrine is it can never come before children being safe from abuse

Absolutely Mammatino, as your mum says, that there are those who want to undermine Safeguarding is nothing new. Nor that there are many who through lack of understanding or recklessness fail to maintain what safeguards exist.
Its not kind to put children's welfare at risk.
Its not kind to smear, silence or frighten women motivated to safeguard children & vulnerable adults or protect their sex-based rights.