Am I Reading This Right?... Rosie Duffield Throwing KJK Under The Bus?!

[EpicChaos]

From what i can tell, Rosie has quote tweeted a lloyd russell tweet, that is having a go at Kellie J.
Rosie it seems, has thrown Kellie under the bus by claiming, ' look i'm not like that other woman, so listen to me '! That's how i'm reading it anyway.
If so, that's the last time i hop in when it's rosie getting all the flak, she can do one!
I notice Bindle is there too!

Seconded.

Much love to you @RaininginDarling 💐

Thank you for sharing with us - hearing from survivors of childhood sexual abuse definitely helps strengthen one’s resolve in pushing back against policies that enable adult predators.

There must surely be a way to ringfence access to abortion whilst minimising the secrecy that groomers and paedos rely on to operate.

I refuse to believe that the only choices are forced birth for tweens OR total sexual autonomy from 8 years onwards.

You think that most mothers are aware and complicit when their daughter is being abused by the dad, brother, uncle or grandfather?

I don't know about most mothers but definitely some. Horribly, there is often willful blindness in this situation, especially when the mother is in a relationship with the perpetrator.

I'm so sorry you were failed by so many adults @RaininginDarling 💐

Thank you for showing what the rest of us are trying to say.

Not sure I put it well before but simply - the pill and abortion for CHILDREN is not the same as the pill and abortion for ADULTS. Conflating the two, as if adults being able to choose freely is the same as children and it's exactly the same issue to be discussed, with no mention of safeguarding, is a paedophile's agenda, frankly and anti-safeguarding.

Anyone who bangs on about 'anti-choice' when talking about safeguarding 12 year olds rather than letting them just go on the pill whenever they want is dodgy as anything and should be ashamed of throwing children under the bus for their political agenda.

I refuse to believe that the only choices are forced birth for tweens OR total sexual autonomy from 8 years onwards.

Well said, it's ludicrous and I note the people trying to force team children going on the pill with adults are not agitating for children to be able to drink and drive, open a bank account on their own or work a full-time job. Apparently it's only when it comes to sex with adults that child autonomy is important.

When one of my close in my family was raped as a child, it was indeed the grandfather and that man threatened the child if they told. The parents were unaware and would have acted quickly and decisively to stop the abuse and support the child.

In the situation with another family member, the mother was absolutely complicit in the abuse.

Assuming the worst of the parents is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Here’s how the conversation could go:

GP- are you aware that I cannot guarantee confidentiality if you disclose something which I may be obligated to raised safeguarding concerns about.

Girl- Please don’t tell my parents

GP - why don’t you want your parents to know?

Girl - they are really strict and religious- they’ll make my life hell, I am worried I will be forced to keep the baby.

or

Girl - it’s just that. It’s someone in the family and they said they’ll hurt my dog if anyone finds out.

or

Girl - my parents don’t know I’ve got a boyfriend and I don’t want them to.

So dependent on what she says, the GP can make an assessment on whether to inform the parents directly or to go through social services and let them handle it.

To have the principal that parents should be informed if their daughter is having underage sex/statutory rape doesn’t mean that the girl should be needlessly put at risk. The parents should be always be involved in these important matters unless there are safeguarding reasons for intervention and overriding of their parental responsibility in that case.

So, have we worked out yet what KJK did and did not say??

Just a reminder :

Tweets from 9/3/3023 19.27.

“The issue of consent is that one leak leads to many. When thinking about how we’ve got here, a place where schools are able to socially transition kids behind their parents back, it’s essential to rigorously examine all of the mechanisms that may have assisted.”

“This does not mean I endorse any kind of forced birth. Ever. But I cannot ignore that child traffickers have been able to exploit laws that enable vulnerable girls to be abused.I cannot ignore that it’s not only at risk under sixteen year olds that are given the pill. Without parents knowledge”

“There may well be a more appropriate way of protecting vulnerable girls without creating deceit in all families.”

”This idea of consent is dangerous and open to all sorts of abuses.”

”We should be careful to vigilantly monitor unintended consequences.”

Parents should always be part of the discussion - yes, other services and adults too, but that child still has to live with her parents. What a nightmare scenario if she is constantly having to hide the truth.

If parents are at fault, I don't see how excluding them makes that any better, it's far more likely to cause more problems. If they are involved with discussion with other adults and other services far more likely that if parents are at fault they will be held accountable. If they're overly religious, it's far more likely their stance will change if they're involved with other adults pointing out the harms this is having for their child. For most people love of their child will override most other things, especially if given the chance to be part of the conversation.

I simply don't see the benefit to the child of the parents being deliberately excluded from the conversation and it will put a burden of deceit upon her which seems almost abusive in itself.

The only situation in which I can see that not telling the parents is ok is if the parents are the ones having sex with the child in which case they should be arrested and jailed and parental responsibility removed.

If parental responsiblity is not being removed, they should be part of the conversation, anything else is a safeguarding failure. Safeguarding is meant to be a shared endeavour and if you're hiding relevant information about safeguarding (and a child going on the pill is definitely that) from one of the parties with greatest responsibility for safeguarding, you are making it impossible for them to safeguard appropriately.

Or are people going to just make attempts, either sly or overt, to present Kellie Jay Keen as not supporting abortions and other twisted interpretations?

This is relying on the girl telling the truth.

The girl knows there will be huge consequences if she discloses sexual abuse from a family member so inventing a boyfriend is a preferable option.

There isn't an easy answer.

Off-topic. Can somebody tell me if 'search' is malfunctioning or why it doesn't return any posts for the OP's name? Is that what happens when someone de-registers or has the search gone awry?

Even if she lies, social services can be involved and she has a much better chance of being protected from abuse than if the GP unquestioningly dishes out contraception and abortion referrals for children.

OP is a regular poster.

did you check there isn’t a space after the name when you search?

This is so important. It is so important to help families to function in a healthy way rather than just assuming parents are incapable of learning and understanding.

I’ve found that search doesn’t return anything if there is any extra or missed capitalisation- it’s got to be a direct replica of the username.

Dunno if that helps at all?

If parental responsiblity is not being removed, they should be part of the conversation, anything else is a safeguarding failure. Safeguarding is meant to be a shared endeavour and if you're hiding relevant information about safeguarding (and a child going on the pill is definitely that) from one of the parties with greatest responsibility for safeguarding, you are making it impossible for them to safeguard appropriately.

So much this.

See also: gender transitioning kids at school and not telling the parents.

I am actually shocked this isn't in law at the moment.

If a child needs safeguarding the parents SHOULD and MUST be part of that conversation UNLESS parental responsibility is removed.

The authorities, GPs, SS, the school need to be held accountable. If they think parents are harming a child to the extent they should not be informed about the pill / an abortion then logically they must also think that child is unsafe in their home and should be removed.

I don't actually see any grey area at all here.

If parents aren't informed these people should be prosecuted for their failure to act in the child's best interests and safeguard appropriately

I'm also shocked that politicians are so stupid about this.

Parents have legal responsibility for their children - they MUST be informed or they cannot fulfil these responsibilities. If they are unfit, their legal responsibilities should be removed for the good of the child.

We need Lisa Muggeridge.

Exactly. If the parents aren’t considered safe enough to know what’s going on with their tween/teen then don’t just keep it a secret leaving the child to cope alone in the unsafe home environment - call social services!

I'm also totally shocked that the wellbeing of children is being used for a political football to try and smear KJK.

Why are politicians focused on this one adult human female and not talking about safeguarding kids which would be a much better use of their time? I actually think it's a huge dereliction of duty for MPs to even be discussing KJKs views (except if they were to serve as a starting point for a much needed discussion about safeguarding underage children).

It's terrifying - safeguarding is catastrophically destroyed in this country. I'm sure individual schools are still doing it well / their best, but any determined groomer can apparently get around all the supposed safeguards in place and bloody idiotic MPs are enabling them with this shit.

I’m always amazed (yet not surprised) how sneaky, clever and determined paedos and other sex predators can be.
Sure, some are pure opportunists but many spend their whole lives getting into positions where they can access children, or better yet, where they can make all children everywhere easier to access. The artificial adultification of children (by arguing they have bodily autonomy despite not yet having the maturity to consent) of ‘queering’ boundaries between childhood and adulthood is all part of it.

@EndlessTea ‘s recent thread on charitable orgs in Scotland is a great example.

Some people involved aren’t sinister themselves, just useful idiots for sinister people - but it all results in the same thing, harmed children.
if people call me right wing for pointing this out a) I don’t actually give a fuck because I won’t stop pointing anyway and b) they are handing an easy win to the right by allowing the right wing to frame child safeguarding as a party political issue when it shouldn’t be one.

Every adult of all political persuasions, any religious beliefs (or none), of either sex, any age and any sexual orientation should be able to agree that the health, safety and general well-being of children is a top priority for society. For all societies.

As Lisa Muggeridge said (paraphrasing!) if your identity gets in the way of proper safeguarding practice then it’s your identity that’s the problem, not the safeguarding.

That identity can be anything, including ‘left wing’ and looking at the way the Greens and the Lib Dems reacted to the Challoners it’s not a stretch to say that a ‘progressive left wing identity’ can create a massive fucking blind spot.
Ditto the nonsense coming from Labour (especially in Wales) and obvs the SNP (who aren’t officially a left wing party but have enacted or tried to enact authoritarian left policies and nationalism seems to me to be a form of IDPOL anyway?)

Plenty of right wing nonces about too, obvs, but they don’t seem to benefit from the blind spot that left wing nonces currently operate in (historically the right wing paedos have benefitted from the class system, either by abusing children lower down the pecking order who won’t be believed or by exploiting posh institutional structures eg boarding schools).

Karen Ingala Smith nails it.

And he has got some bloody gall pretending he gives a shit about a women’s right to choose when he is arguing to keep parents out of the child safeguarding loop.

You do realise that doing so would breach the child's rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, yes?

And you do realise that what you are asking for is a de facto cessation of safeguarding girls, yes?

We have boundaries to protect children. A 12-year-old girl who seeks an abortion is a girl who has been raped. She needs to be protected from her rapist, not given access to an abortion, no questions asked. That would be irresponsible and a clear failure to safeguard the child.

Here btw is the NSPCC on the issue of safeguarding girls in this context, showing that the correct application of the Fraser Guidelines requires a safeguarding assessment:

Fraser guidelines

The Fraser guidelines apply specifically to advice and treatment about contraception and sexual health. They may be used by a range of healthcare professionals working with under 16-year-olds, including doctors and nurse practitioners.

Following a legal ruling in 2006, Fraser guidelines can also be applied to advice and treatment for sexually transmitted infections and the termination of pregnancy (Axton v The Secretary of State for Health, 2006).

Using the Fraser guidelines

Practitioners using the Fraser guidelines should be satisfied of the following:

the young person cannot be persuaded to inform their parents or carers that they are seeking this advice or treatment (or to allow the practitioner to inform their parents or carers).

the young person understands the advice being given.

the young person's physical or mental health or both are likely to suffer unless they receive the advice or treatment.

it is in the young person's best interests to receive the advice, treatment or both without their parents' or carers' consent.

the young person is very likely to continue having sex with or without contraceptive treatment.

(Gillick v West Norfolk, 1985)

Child protection concerns

When using Fraser guidelines for issues relating to sexual health, you should always consider any potential child protection concerns:

Underage sexual activity is a possible indicator of child sexual exploitation and children who have been groomed may not realise they are being abused.

Sexual activity with a child under 13 should always result in a child protection referral.

If a young person presents repeatedly about sexually transmitted infections or the termination of pregnancy this may be an indicator of child sexual abuse or exploitation.

You should always consider any previous concerns that may have been raised about the young person and explore whether there are any factors that may present a risk to their safety and wellbeing.

You must always share child protection concerns with the relevant agencies, even if a child or young person asks you not to.

learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/gillick-competence-fraser-guidelines#article-top

HTH

Yes shes spot on there