Joint statement from Barnardo’s, NSPCC, National Children’s Bureau and The Children’s Society about gender clinic judicial review

[Toomie]

I've just seen that Barnados along with NSPCC and others have released this joint statement.

www.barnardos.org.uk/news/joint-statement-barnardos-nspcc-national-childrens-bureau-and-childrens-society-about-gender

@NiceGerbil

The nspcc having statutory powers though adds a whole other level.

It's absolutely petrifying.

What happens if the NSPCC think that parents who don't affirm their child as the opposite sex are being transphobic and abusive?

"You're not listening to your child, you are denying them agency".

Can they remove the child?

Holy shit.

That's all I've got at the moment

@SilverLetters

This is an excellent receipt to have. Very good of them to provide it for when this whole shitstorm finally collapses completely.

Will this happen? I am feeling increasingly despairing.

They can instigate proceedings I believe. Like they are SS or the police.

Probably more involved.

Will Google.

'In England, Northern Ireland and Wales the NSPCC is unique amongst charities as it has statutory powers to intervene on behalf of children.

In these nations, only local authorities and the NSPCC can apply to a court for a care, supervision, or child assessment order.'

learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/child-protection-definitions#:~:text=In%20England%2C%20Northern%20Ireland%20and,supervision%2C%20or%20child%20assessment%20order.

Oops shit link but it's on the nspcc site

Of al the scary shit that’s happened recently I find this the scariest.

So the NSPCC have released a statement about this but not about their latex-fetishist employee who recorded himself masturbating in the charity's office toilets and uploaded it online 🤔

I'm shocked. SHOCKED I say.

I agree NowtSalamander, it is terrifying .

No words. Madness has taken over.

At this point. Unsurprised.

Meanwhile, those speaking to child safeguarding- targeted, frightened, silenced and banned.

@Toomie

I know that they all follow the gender identity line but I rather naïvely supposed professional children's organisations would perhaps wait for the evidence to be heard and for the outcome of the case before making a statement.

Well, quite.

It's not, um, ideal, now is it?

Presumably their lobby group friends thought that a statement from the safeguarding charities at the beginning of the case would help sway public opinion.

I hope this blows up in their face - child safeguarding charities preempting a judicial review in order to placate adult lobby groups. Not a good look.

That's shocking. As a girl who presented as a boy who needed to be told it was okay to be myself as a girl, it frightens me that they might have persuaded me I was actually a boy.

In my personal experience I've come across people trying to be so right on about same sex relationships that they can't see the wood for the trees and insist that one thing is needed when it's been exactly the opposite of what I wanted. Some people are so awkward about it being something they feel uncomfortable about that they seemingly just can't think straight.

@Toomie

I know that they all follow the gender identity line but I rather naïvely supposed professional children's organisations would perhaps wait for the evidence to be heard and for the outcome of the case before making a statement.

Apart from the ethical consideration, I can't imagine anything so monumentally stupid. They have no way of knowing what will come up in court, to which they appear to be pre-signalling their support.

The defence has suggested that because 12-year-olds have nonconsenting sex, it means they understand what sex is, and therefore can make an informed decision about their future selves.

They are using raped children to bolster their defence of minors being able to consent.

I wonder if Barnardos, or the NSPCC will say anything, anything at all, about that?

I didn't think children were allowed hormones full stop?

Came here to say this. In fact wasn’t it recently decided that U18s weren’t allowed X sex hormones? So these charities think they should be allowed?!

I went to a talk a couple of years ago and the speaker said, and I paraphrase, that a charity's purpose was to improve the lives of those they support. If there is a safeguarding failure which causes harm, a charity is undermining is core purpose and its reason for existing.

I would love to know if those writing the statement actually believe what are writing.

It is a huge failure of safeguarding.

That is the purpose of these organisations, but they are deliberately looking away.

I was listening to Times Radio this morning, talking about the Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Enquiry that is taking place and has just brought out a report into the CofE, also JW a few days ago. They were talking about how organisations fail to see and look the other way when it disrupts their narrative and becomes a 'problem' and even reward those do not see or perpetrate, and punish the victims.

I wonder if they will start saying that the child Keira made her own choices and has to live with them?

The Post Office, which accused its postmasters of embezzlement and even got them to 'pay back' thousands, and imprisoned, rather than admit to the failings of their computer system was used as an illustration of how institutions protect themselves at the expense of the weakest.

Given the massive mermaid reverse ferret that no child is born in the wrong body & it’s not about clothes/toys etc

I wonder how Barnados et al are defining trans children

The NSPCC are no longer fit for purpose.

They really need to think about the 'well 12 year olds are having sex' defence in relation to this case. Is this really what the NSPCC endorses?

Strong commentary here from three trans guys "this is what cults do" "Mermaids is a cult" "We are mutilating a generation of children" *

*direct quotes from the video.

@Arcadia

I give to Barnados monthly. Should I contact them about this or just cancel DD?

Both

The mistake may have been thinking that organizations change and things are much better nowadays. The track records of children's charities are not necessarily full of examples of putting children's interests first. Their spokespeople of course emphasize how different everything is today, but the power dynamics that cause adults to focus on each other's wishes remain. It's actually pretty unbelievable that people working for charities with these histories position themselves as generally better judges of children's wellbeing than parents.

www.heraldscotland.com/news/15326932.child-abuse-cover-up-claims-after-barnardos-admits-systematically-destroying-files/

Apart from the ethical consideration, I can't imagine anything so monumentally stupid.

This is the part that concerns me the most. Any rational assessment of the situation should have suggested not putting the reputation of the NSPCC on the line in these circumstances when there are so many unknowns and so many awful things have already come out.

Okay, maybe they simply aren't thinking rationally, that's common when organisations are captured by TRAs. But maybe whoever is behind the decision doesn't give a shit about the reputation of the NSPCC and is using their decision making power within that organisation to further other ends.