NSPCC again

[Imnobody4]

I'm not sure whether to be heartened by this or not.
NSPCC put out a tweet implying children can consent to sex.
Lots of complaints and outcry concerning safeguarding.
NSPCC withdraw for rewrite. No accusations of bigotry etc
I am wrong to think this is progress of sorts?

[DeaconBoo]

[quote ThinEndoftheWedge]NSPCC not able to recognise/name planned rape of an 8 year old, as rape.

mobile.twitter.com/adulthumanfem10/status/1303762125500960773[/quote]
In case people haven't read the full thread, the initial OP was about the 'consent' tweet, and the latest revive is about this tweet.

Would help awfully to make things clear if posters could mention which one they're commenting on.

[Hotwaterbottlelove]

I actually don't like the start of the tweet either. 'Consent means saying yes...' Well no consenting to sex means wanting and agreeing to it in that moment. Also you don't have to give your consent, you can deny it too. The whole thing is just clumsy.

[imjustanerd]

I'm more concerned about who they employ to write this stuff (as well as who they employ full stop).

You would think a children's charity would be checking, double checking, triple checking the wording of anything they put out.

[Thingybob]

Is it just me or is CatCowMeow creepy?

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

It's almost like NSPCC = PIE

There has to be a root and branch 'adjustment', it can't carry on like that!

[littlbrowndog]

And yes I saw that tweet from nspcc saying 8 year old girl being meet by a paedophilic to have sex.

8 years old

[littlbrowndog]

It’s 16 in Scotland when you can get married without parents say so

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Did anyone get screenshot of whatever it was that's now been deleted?

Yes, it's in the link @ThinEndoftheWedge posted

[Feminist10101]

A 16 year old can leave home and get married without parental permission.

Can they? I thought it was 16 with parental permission and 18 without?

[ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings]

Did anyone get screenshot of whatever it was that's now been deleted?

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

However, I can see why it caused some confusion. That confusion was continued in the now deleted tweet abut an adult male meeting an 8 year old girl for sex.

Like it was consensual.

Like the girl was expecting and looking forward to having sex.

This is the NSPCC. A body that has some statutory powers and is supposed to protect kids not teach them to consent to sex!

[NearlyGranny]

We ought not to be surprised if - when - we see predatory male adults who are sexually attracted to children below the age of consent actively seeking out posts where they have access to children or can influence policy and practice around safeguarding and child protection.

It is a given that such people will attempt infiltration. Schools and other organisations must always be alert and whistleblowers must be protected. Nothing shows up on an enhanced DBS check if the subject has never been caught.

Even more worryingly, it seems likely that nothing will show up if the person has transitioned to the opposite sex, changed their birth certificate and their name. Convicted child sex offenders may be able to shed their past completely.

Organisations and parents have a treacherous road ahead.

[Disfordarkchocolate]

I took it as meaning that you teach this to children so they can act on it when necessary. No one needs to first learn about consent as an adult. However, I can see why it caused some confusion.

[NearlyGranny]

Dido Lamenting, the legal age for marriage without parental consent in the UK is actually 18, not 16.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Bloody hell!

They deleted it quick enough though! Unbelievable.

[ThinEndoftheWedge]

NSPCC not able to recognise/name planned rape of an 8 year old, as rape.

mobile.twitter.com/adulthumanfem10/status/1303762125500960773

[merrymouse]

Like a pp I would take this to mean talking about it with a child about their future sex life.

It's all written in the present tense.

The problem is that the audience for this tweet is not just parents of teenagers (and how many of them get parenting advice from the NSPCC twitter account?).

[HermioneWeasley]

I have written to their chairman saying their culture is rotten and they have too many people following agendas other than child protection. I’m sure I’ll get a bland response

[merrymouse]

The perfect example of why twitter is not a place for complex issues. And why safeguarding charities should not be using it.

Very much agree.

Regardless of preceding tweets or what they said afterwards or whether the tweet was later deleted, this tweet now exists as a screen grab, and whatever the intention, implies that the NSPCC believes a child can legally consent to sex.

[TopBitchoftheWitches]

No they can't, they need parental permission at 16. 18 is when they can do what they like.

[Rahres]

A 16 year old can leave home and get married without parental permission.

Yes. Still a child though.

[Aesopfable]

NSPCC

"Definitions of a child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

But their ‘technical’ definition is irrelevant when communicating with the public. The common understanding of child is someone who is younger than a teenagers and that is the way ‘child’ should be used in context such as this. To suggest they were referring to 17 year olds is either incompetent of disingenuous.

[ChattyLion]

BoomBoom has set out that England and Wales does have the offence of rape for under12’s involvement in the sexual activities described. In this field professionals have described those activities involving that age group to me as ‘statutory rape‘ so I used their term. It’s always rape under the statute by virtue of the child’s age, when a child is aged 12 or under, is my point.

So the worrying question is why is a child protection charity talking to the public about ‘your child’ having ‘sexual activity of any kind’

[truthisarevolutionaryact]

The perfect example of why twitter is not a place for complex issues. And why safeguarding charities should not be using it. And why charities should ensure that their social media is always tightly managed / supervised and never used as a vehicle for their individual staff members to advocate for their personal views - which appears to be the current situation for so many of them.