Janice Turner on safeguarding manages to name everyone succinctly in one column

[NotBadConsidering]

Cuties, Exist Loudly, Stonewall, NSPCC, Bergdorf, Tatchell, MAP...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8c46aad6-f461-11ea-9de6-a6e4d4016fb7?shareToken=e196d311d52618102baf33fd9f6a2fbd

This is why she wins writing awards. Gets so much across in a short space (waves to Janice! 👋)

@OvaHere

Some good comments under the article. This one is excellent.

Fabulous article, Janice. We need to be talking about the principles of child safeguarding a lot more. Gay and soi disant trans chiidren deserve the same levels of protect as all other children.

And by adopting them, providers protect THEMSELVES from infiltration by abusers. The arrogance of those who think that every abuser in the land isn't watching their rejection of protocols all developed in the wake of abuse scandals and thinking "this would be a great area to infiltrate next" is really quite staggering. Of course they are. That's what they do. They go where the barriers are the lowest.

Not mentioned in your article but worth pointing out. The Director General of the National Crime Agency, Lynne Owens, sent a polite tweet to the Exist Loudly organiser offering personal assistance from the online exploitation team:

"Exist Loudly - I know my team @CEOPUK would be pleased to advise you on how to achieve your aim safely for children?"

The response was to block her. Shocking indeed.

This is really chilling. If Exist Loudly's agenda was a benign one, they would happily take advice from CEOP. The fact that they blocked them tells you all you need to know.

@MillyMollyFarmer

Does India Knight write for The Times still? Eric Joyce’s partner, right? I’m surprised Janice didn’t write about that story. Maybe she did and I missed it.

Yes, IK is still there and with a higher profile if anything. Possibly some excess of loyalty going on there? They have Melanie Phillips too, who I usually can't read without getting annoyed.

A range of voices, which is what a good paper should have.

A range of voices, which is what a good paper should have.

I don’t think a range of voices should include a sex offenders partner and apologist, especially as then none of the other journalists will write about that story. As is what happened here. The praise for The Times on FWR is unwarranted as long as India Knight is there and nobody is talking about what her boyfriend did.

My DH has commented on my reading of the Times (he doesn't approve it seems) but despite not being a raging Tory, I find it one of the few publications that seems to be willing to go with a breadth of views and is fearless reporting on subjects others (I'm looking at you Guardian) no longer do without shocking bias.

So is it legitimate to have qualms about Cuties? Netflix didn’t think so, choosing paedophilic images (since pulled) for its promotional campaign. The Daily Telegraph’s critic praised its provocation “in an age so terrified of child sexuality” and tweeted gleefully that it “pissed off all the right people”

'Child sexuality'? Talking about an eleven year old twerking and touching themselves intimately? What the fuck? This is a film critic for the Telegraph. Normalisation indeed.

This week Exist Loudly, founded by a youth worker, Tanya Compas, with £100,000 crowd-funded in the wake of Black Lives Matter, asked for “queer black youth” aged 12 to 23 to contact it via private Twitter message. They will be paid for filling in a questionnaire giving intimate data — age, sexuality, location and vulnerability of housing (eg if they are sofa-surfing). Compas also said she’d pass on their contact details to interested others.

Asking for the details of 12-year-olds who are happy to discuss sexuality, and do not have the protection of a family? For money?

Dear God.

Thank you Janice.

You are granite.

Some brilliant comments.

This one is interesting:

	There seems to be a good case for an official investigation of Exist Loudly.  Apart from the obvious serious child safeguarding concerns, there are other issues.  It is not registered as a charity.  Tanya Compas registered a company of this name in 2018, naming her as a director, giving an address in Edgware, but it never filed any accounts or other documentation after registration and it was compulsorily struck off the register in February 2020. There is no website or address for the organisation, although it has a social media presence & a go fund me page. In effect, it could just be a shell with £110,000 of donations made by (hopefully) well meaning individuals.  
	
	I would urge anyone who has more detailed & specific information about Exist Loudly & has serious concerns about its operation to consider contacting the relevant authorities, such as the NSPCC or police.

Reply
26
Recommended
Report








	
	

	


J


	Jo March
	37 MINUTES AGOEdited




This is a film critic for the Telegraph

It's beyond dire. That paper has fallen off the edge of a cliff.

Still disturbing however that someone is defending the film bases on the fact that they were acting so therefore its ok

Sorry, for avoidance of confusion that comment wasn't by Jo March (who often provides excellent, informative comments) I accidentally copied her heading of the next comment below.

Does anyone know a good alternative to Netflix for children's programs? I use it a lot for kids cartoon but would love to cancel my subscription if this is the kind of content they think is acceptible.

I have not watched Cuties, nor wish to, but Janice has come at it from the right angle, is it right to ask child actors to perform in this way?

And another excellent comment:

I can remember when the outcry from feminists over 'sexy' underwear for three-year-olds being sold by a major high-street brand had it removed within a few days. The dreadful Channel 4 program Minipops was taken off after one season because of a similar outcry and an admission from the channel that they hadn't thought through the implications of the pitch.

What has happened to that alertness and collective action? Our sense of what is right and true seems to have been lost with the rise of the Activist Economy. In the 70s, PIE went a long way up the chain (because child abuse has no class, race or sexual preference), but in the end common decency won out.

Now those same people are back with a new and confusing multiple identity aimed specifically at silencing and erasing women. They have infiltrated legitimate and respected campaign groups and have gained enormous power. They have taken over institutions and organisations in most western nations and have successfully closed down the right of anyone opposed to them to speak. In the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, children have been left unprotected by the institutions of the state.

What do we do about this? Thanks to (among many others) J K Rowling, Janice Turner, Baroness Nicholson, Graham Linehan and Andrew Doyle, who keep forcing people to recognise what is happening, and The Times, honourably one of the few media platforms not in thrall to the Activist Economy, we cannot pretend to know nothing. That excuse has been used before and it ended badly. Janice Turner is right – those opposing Activism in all its forms should shrug off accusations of bigotry and keep speaking out.

@MillyMollyFarmer

A range of voices, which is what a good paper should have.

I don’t think a range of voices should include a sex offenders partner and apologist, especially as then none of the other journalists will write about that story. As is what happened here. The praise for The Times on FWR is unwarranted as long as India Knight is there and nobody is talking about what her boyfriend did.

I just googled 'Eric Joyce The Times' and there are several links. Here's an article from last month. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eric-joyce-former-mp-gets-suspended-jail-term-for-making-indecent-image-of-child-xf80cs6q3

They are not refusing to cover the story because of IK. Do you think that she should be sacked because of her husband's crimes? Or resign? I genuinely don't know what would be the best approach for her employer to take on this. I imagine that they want to support their journalist but they still need to report on the story. At the moment, they appear to be doing both things. I wonder how it will all fall out. But I don't think it's correct to claim that the paper isn't reporting on this story.

Interesting on Peter Tatchell 'distancing himself from those comments'.

This is a YouTube video of an interview that Tatchell did back in 2015. At 3:30 onwards he addresses that letter and seems to be very much defending his comments, specifically mentioning his friend Derek Jarman. No mention of being 'misinterpreted' in the letter or bits left out or anything like that.

This statement, released in July 2020, has a rather different flavour. Apparently he complained to the Guardian at the time. No mention of Derek Jarman here either, it's a little more glossed over.

www.petertatchellfoundation.org/what-peter-tatchell-really-said-about-child-sex-abuse/

Oh and apparently he doesn't have a copy of the original letter he sent to the Guardian and he complained by phone! So we just have to take his word for it that they twisted it to make him look worse than he was.

The pen is indeed mightier than the sword!

Janice is wonderful. Gets straight to the point. Safeguarding protects children from predators. Why is it being waived/weakened/ignored in any circumstances?

I have no moral dilemma about buying the Times. I'll buy whatever publication publishes a writer like Janice.

She's tremendous.

@ByGrabtharsHammerWhatASavings

Does anyone know a good alternative to Netflix for children's programs? I use it a lot for kids cartoon but would love to cancel my subscription if this is the kind of content they think is acceptible.

To be honest they all seem to have various issues whether it's Netflix, CBBC or YouTube Kids. Amazon Video seems to have some kids stuff and you can set age restrictions I believe. None of them are really fool proof unless you monitor everything being watched.

Might be easier to go back to DVDs!

They are not refusing to cover the story because of IK.

If he didn’t have a partner there, I think they would be covering it differently. Julie Burchill wrote about the lack of coverage he got on MSM the sentence and that he’s back on Twitter. This is something I’d expect Janice to write about but how could she if she bumps into him at work events or is friends with his partner. I do think it’s problematic to have a journalist on the team who supports and excuses a child abuser, yes. She didn’t leave him, her support was partly why he got a suspended sentence despite his crimes involving a baby. That’s a story in itself and no MSM covered it.

If we are going to be picky, she could have mentioned the Proud Trust’s dice game, the “Love has no age” slogan and the book with a child describing giving blow jobs, but I guess there’s only so much destruction of boundaries one can talk about on any given day.

The Daily Telegraph’s critic praised its provocation “in an age so terrified of child sexuality” and tweeted gleefully that it “pissed off all the right people”.

Wow! not envy

Mainstream media reviewers praising children being portrayed as sexual and saying isn’t it great to annoy people who seek to protect children?

Have we fallen so far?

@MillyMollyFarmer

They are not refusing to cover the story because of IK.

If he didn’t have a partner there, I think they would be covering it differently. Julie Burchill wrote about the lack of coverage he got on MSM the sentence and that he’s back on Twitter. This is something I’d expect Janice to write about but how could she if she bumps into him at work events or is friends with his partner. I do think it’s problematic to have a journalist on the team who supports and excuses a child abuser, yes. She didn’t leave him, her support was partly why he got a suspended sentence despite his crimes involving a baby. That’s a story in itself and no MSM covered it.

I do agree with this. No newspaper is beyond criticism even if I like their reporting on other issues. They've reported it factually but not had their usual opinion pieces.

Having said that I don't think IK can be fired for something her partner did even if she has stood by him after the fact.

It has put them in an awkward position.

consider contacting the relevant authorities, such as the NSPCC

Not sure that would do much good.

@NotBadConsidering

If we are going to be picky, she could have mentioned the Proud Trust’s dice game, the “Love has no age” slogan and the book with a child describing giving blow jobs, but I guess there’s only so much destruction of boundaries one can talk about on any given day.

As I said to someone the other day, you have to rein yourself in a bit, because the sheer volume of unsavoury information is absolutely overwhelming if someone is new to it!

Having said that I don't think IK can be fired for something her partner did even if she has stood by him after the fact.

No but if they had any journalistic integrity, there would be a story including her support for him. There isn’t. So if they can’t cover a story because one of their journalists is involved in a way that limits covering it, she should go. It’s the reason the BBC removed the mermaids and other trans links, they felt they couldn’t cover news involving them while raising money for them. We all applauded that.