Safeguard deniers - horrific details - Vincent Chan paedophile

[dick27]

It always blows my mind when people dismiss safeguarding concerns. Horrific reminder of why safeguarding is needed.

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/abuse-at-a-north-london-nursery-the-disturbing-perplexing-case-of-vincent-chan/

Rather than call for unrealistic policies like banning men from working with children (which I would question in any event because of the implication that childcare is women's work), I would rather see increased awareness, training, safeguarding measures, and indeed research into and intervention for men who have these paraphilias to catch and treat them before they harm anyone.

That all sounds nice and sensible but in reality it’s just kicking the can down the road. There have been attempts at ‘educating’ sex offenders and society for years yet sex offending is getting worse.

As a society we have allowed ourselves to forget so many basic safeguarding principles and give predators even more access to children (and vulnerable women).

WHY would organisations be encouraging young men to join childcare and nursing? It may benefit a small number if individuals to have a man around but imo the risks far outweigh the benefits.

This man had access to at least 700 kids. One man. How many kids are we happy to suffer sexual abuse by letting men have these jobs - at the very least there should be additional and stringent safeguarding measures. That is likely to make it uneconomical to employ men in those specific jobs but isn’t the safety of children worth it?

People advocating for situations that enable male predators, with all we know about their behaviour, make me think that society is going backwards soo fast.

Are you serious?? Men sexually abusing children is not remotely equivalent to women making bad financial decisions.

I’m at the point now where I’m suspicious of the motivations if anyone who doesn’t advocate for far greater safeguarding of children in these circumstances.

Please watch this video on safeguarding made a few years ago. A group of about 70 students on a safeguarding course for social workers was told to consider that up to 3 people IN THAT ROOM or approx 5% of a given group of people will be there with the sole purpose of sexually abusing children. It’s quite horrifying.

She also points out that there has been a big push to undermine safeguarding over the last 10-15 years by trans and ‘queer theory’ activists.

We don’t need to ban men from working with all children. But certainly there is a good argument for not having men work unsupervised with pre verbal children and possibly up to the age of about 6. After this age most children are able to to be taught to draw attention to ‘untoward’ behaviour and, are not likely to need help with toileting or changing clothes, so there are far fewer opportunities to abuse sexually. Trusted male friends have warned me on various occasions while we have young children not to take on male student boarders in our home and not to employ teenaged male baby sitters. I think I’ll take these men’s word for it rather than the ‘be kind’, ‘not all men’ mostly women who put their children into risky situations with men just to prove how virtuous and inclusive they are.

Unfortunately, men find opportunities to abuse children in all sorts of settings, and in all age groups - family homes, schools, sports clubs, dance classes, hospitals, places of worship, summer camps, swimming pools, choirs, shopping centres, TV studios..

And it's not just grown men: rape and sexual assault by young boys - as young as 10 in some cases - is a growing feature in crime stats. There was a horrific sexually motivated murder of a 14 year old girl in Dublin in 2018 - the perpetrators who were two schoolmates of hers, were only 13 years old.

It's difficult to establish what and where is a safe space for women and children, as long as men and women are mixed together in so many contexts, sometimes by choice - most women choose to be in a relationship with men - and sometimes not, when formerly women-only spaces are encroached on by trans-identifying men.

I have no answers. There may be no answers. There are however a lot of hard questions to ask of men, and what they are doing to stop violence and abuse against women and children.

This group gives me some hope:
White Ribbon UK

Males should be restricted from working in early years settings. Children are too young and vulnerable. They’re often not verbal either. Safeguarding has failed in this case and many others.

As there is an increase in male workers we will see an increase jn CSA because that the trajectory the statistics show. So why anyone would be using threads like these to defend male working rights is confusing to me. A child’s welfare trumps that surely?

I don’t understand how have they undermined safeguarding as trans activists ?

Claiming that men are women and should be treated as such for all purposes fatally undermines safeguarding.

There are countless examples of this. One example is the high profile man who identifies as a woman, Debbie Hayton, who wrote schools guidance to ensure he was allowed to enter the spaces set aside for girls in schools.

Currently, if a man claims to be a woman, in many cases, all thoughts of safeguarding go out the window. We are not allowed to consider the strong possibility that his identity is driven by a sexual fetish (not conducive to working with children) and we are expected to pretend there is no material difference in statistical risk to children between him and a female member of staff.

Organisations set up for women and girls are currently in the news, devastated because they have to exclude men and boys.

Unfortunately, while the Girl Guides have finally decided to abide by the law and basic safeguarding where admitting boys is concerned, they still allow male staff or volunteers that identify as women, and sound like they intend to continue allowing these men to share sleeping and washing accommodation with young girls on trips.

One of these men helped write the guidelines for GG but left after his social media posts of him in fetish gear and posing with machine guns were publicised. He now apparently works for the Scouts.

Trans activism has broken people’s brains. Meanwhile predators have free rein.

Doesn't the article say he was suspended once arrested on the original concerns of cruelty?

The delays do mean that the families of children qhonhad been seriously sexualky assaulted won't have known this for over a year.

In this case though, he has only been caught because of the digital photographic evidence.

Without the police finding the evidence on these devices there would be no way he would have been caught and charged.

He wouldn't have not carried out the sexual assaults of children, there'd just be no evidence. The crimes he committed were not the taking of photos and making of videos alone, it was the serious sexual abuse of small children who couldn't tell anyone what happened to them.

That's the bigger issue imo.

I have no answers. There may be no answers. There are however a lot of hard questions to ask of men, and what they are doing to stop violence and abuse against women and children.
This group gives me some hope:
White Ribbon UK

Yes, I've been following discussions on a couple of other (mixed sex) forums and I've noticed that pretty much all the constructive suggestions - difficult as they are - come from women while male posters mostly complain. So thanks for the White Ribbon UK link, it's really heartening to see some men are bucking that trend.

Safeguarding does not mean judging and banning/allowing a group based on a minority of individuals who belong to that group (unless the group in question is "people who've exhibited related behaviour/committed relevant criminal offences").

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cedx2072qp7o is a female nursery worker who appears to have committed similar offences; following the logic of some here, we'd now have zero adults able to work in a nursery.

We know from other areas of life this logic is ridiculous: the are plenty of male neonatol and paediatric consultants - are they all suspect because they work with (very) young children?! Of course not, just like we don't view every male GP as a wannabe Harold Shipman or every female nurse as a wannabe Beverley Allitt.

I used to work with vulnerable children in an educational setting. All staff were required to leave their phones in their bags which were locked away.
Absolutely no photos were allowed.
We also had a policy of not being alone with a child or the door must be open so that staff and child interaction was visible.
This was to protect the children but also staff.
Limited personal care would have two staff in the room.
Even these precautions do not protect against two like minded predatory staff but it’s something.

We've gone way too far in pretending that men and women are interchangeable. Of course some women have sexually abused children.
But men are far, far more likely to commit sexual offences than women. Jobs that require giving intimate care to vulnerable women and children should be restricted to women only.
I'd take it further though, and totally stop gay male couples and single men acquiring babies and toddlers through surrogacy or adoption. And ensure that where a mother has concern about a father having access to children those concerns are taking extremely seriously.

And male GPs and paediatricians don't usually have access to unaccompanied children, but would see them either with a parent or a nurse present.

So you want ban all the male GPs from seeing female and child patients? You want to ban all male breast and o&g doctors as well? And all male neonatal and paediatric staff?

Extraordinary if so.

I'd take it further though, and totally stop gay male couples and single men acquiring babies and toddlers through surrogacy or adoption.

By the same logic, you should stop heterosexual men from acquiring babies and toddlers through relationships with women.

The majority of sexual abuse of children is by heterosexual men, who are known to, and often related to, the child, so they are a huge source of risk to children.

Why limit yourself to keeping gay men away from children, when the problem is men, not any particular kind of men?

I don’t see why it should be terribly unreasonable to exclude men from working with babies and young children when the job necessarily includes intimate care.

Nobody’s suggesting men shouldn’t be teachers, for example. Just that the risk of letting men be alone with semi-naked babies and children is too much for most of us to be OK with.

Yes, most sexual abuse happens in families. But you don’t get to hire who’s in your family. That’s not a reason not to exercise a bit of risk management in the areas where it’s easy to.

When I look at the statistics of male sex offenders compared to female sex offenders, then sadly, I can see why people are saying there should be no males as nursery nurses.
From the 2019 MOJ figures for sexual offending

76 sex offenders out of 129 trans women - 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3,812 women in prison - 3.3%
13,234 sex offenders out of 78,781 men in prison - 16.8%

That is a huge difference in offending rates.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Except that, as an eminent criminologist observed, the biggest determinant of criminality is our sex.

Don’t pretend that you don’t know that men are statistically significantly far more likely to be sex offenders. Obviously not all men but plenty. Unhelpfully for safeguarding purposes these sexual predators do not wear big badges saying ‘sex offender’ so we have to make our rules and safeguarding policies accordingly.

Obviously you can dig up the rare woman sex offender (often driven by a male in the background) but they are extremely rare. Make sex offenders sadly, are not rare.

People trying to pretend that sex is not a huge factor in behaviour and safeguarding is part of the reason why we are in this mess today.

the are plenty of male neonatol and paediatric consultants - are they all suspect because they work with (very) young children?!

Have you ever looked at the number of rapes and sexual assaults committed in hospitals? Many of the perpetrators being male staff - ie including doctors and paediatric consultants.

You appear to be blissfully unaware that some men take jobs specifically to abuse children. Even if it involves years of training or other personal sacrifice, like the priesthood.

Check this out -

David Shaw - paediatrician amassed millions of child sex abuse images

www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p471

Myles Bradbury sexually abused many young cancer patients
https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/personalinjury_news/Child_abuse_paediatrician_jailed_for_22_years_(2_December_2014).html

Michael Salmon - convicted of multiple rapes and indecent assaults
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h748

Jonathan Walsh - making 27 movies of Cat A child abuse
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-39329907?app-referrer=deep-link

These are JUST paediatricians and that was a very quick search. What were you saying about suspecting paediatric consultants again….?

Now find me an equivalent list of female paediatric consultants.

Absolutely agree.

The ‘men commit abuse in the family home so let’s give them more access to vulnerable kids outside the home’ is not the most sensible argument I’ve seen.

But similar to a trans activist argument.

So you want ban all the male GPs from seeing female and child patients

PP didn’t say that though did she.

But you raise a useful point. Yes, women and girls should be given the option to see a female GP and request a chaperone if not.

We also should have the right not to be lied to and if we request a female GP, not get a male GP calling himself female as is currently enabled. THE GMC do not support this right at the moment.

It is deeply concerning that you appear to be unable to recognise the risk presented to children by men.

(remember NAMALT but the bad ones don’t reveal themselves to us until it is too late).

You’re coming across very much like you want to prioritise men’s feelings over child safety. You do know there lots of other jobs men can do that don’t require intimate contact with women or children?

Sorry one last post.

76 sex offenders out of 129 trans women - 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3,812 women in prison - 3.3%

In 2019, the MoJ counted men with a GRC as women rather than ‘transwomen’ so the number of actual female sex offenders is lower than 125 as some of those women are male.

The thing that always annoys me about this situation is the ‘good’ men, the ones that don’t abuse children. When they hear about this the first thing they say is ‘I’m not like that’ or ‘Not all men are like that’. So even the ‘good’ men put themselves and their needs first. They don’t care primarily about the children who are being abused, they just care that their own reputation is not affected. The comments are always about not letting the few ‘bad’ men taint the image of the ‘good’ ones, because of course that is the most important thing.
We need men to stand up for us, to stand up for women and children. We’ve tried for eternity to stop them abusing us and we can’t. We need men to police men. If they don’t want their precious reputations to be tarnished then they should be coming up with the ideas and solutions. If they want to work with children then they should be suggesting how we can be sure that they are not a risk. The burden should be on them to prove themselves, not us to risk ours and our children’s safety.