Latest nspcc schools guidance

[Hoardasurass]

The nspcc has decided that men should be allowed to watch girls get changed for pe and swimming classes and then lied about why they have done it.
I can see formal complaints being made to the charity commission over this as it fails to protect children which the only thing that the nspcc were set up to do

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16128403/Fury-NSPCC-say-male-teachers-supervise-girls-changing-rooms.html

this same NSPCC:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nspccs-top-celeb-booker-filmed-20568053.amp

I'd have thought any male teacher with any sense let alone decency wouldn't be ok with doing so.

What are the NSPCC thinking of? What on earth were the discussions that happened to result in this?
They're not just a charity - they have a statutory role in safeguarding. Yet they're recommending men supervising girls undressing in schools? Unbelievable.

The spokesman added: 'It is categorically untrue to say that any updates to the NSPCC's information briefing were made as a result of external lobbying.'

So entirely their own idea then. I expect the NSPCC was targeted very early on by transactivists. What a wonderful target for them.

Well, we all know there are dodgy male teachers in schools.

At least now they will be announcing themselves as predators if they go along with this guidance.

No decent man would ever agree to do this.

Yeah, safeguarding rules are for those without a sense of decency. Sadly out of the 3 male PE teachers I knew at the school I worked at, I wouldn't have trusted 2 of them as far as I could have thrown them.

No decent man would ever agree to do this.
They will be transmen, I expect. Or transwomen. (I get confused over which they are).

I agree. And that's the precisely the point.

We all know WHY they are doing this.

Those pesky single sex rulings that stop transwomen from acting out their validation rituals.

So now theres nothing stopping 'Miss Titwank' from accompanying the girls into the changing rooms.

The NSPCC who didn't see anything wrong with a leather clad fetishist employee filming himself urinating at their offices?

And what was the other thing they did? Changed the wording on something else which made them look very dodgy.

Something like altering that a child should not be touched inappropriately, to a child should not be touched if it makes them feel uncomfortable?

I can't remember exactly, but it was definitely something to do with the child's reaction, rather than the action of the person doing it.

something very odd in the NSPCC. Very odd indeed.

Gender bollocks. What if some of the children are agender? Where are they going to get those teachers from? Or non binary? Or polygender (or whatever made up gender you want). How will the school source the correct gender of teacher for those pupils?

There’s a clear supply of male and female teachers, everyone knows who they are, everyone knows what the kids are, it’s not complicated unless you want to make it complicated.

it’s not complicated unless you want to make it complicated.

Exactly. And activists are all about making it "complicated" because "simple" is too easy to explain.

So we get

• "trans women" ( men)

• Obscure references from one obscure piece of "research" that hasn't been peer-reviewed, but makes the rounds of all the activist media

• Obscure, unverified stats from a country you've never heard of which has nothing to do with the UK or the argument

• word salad galore and made-up medical "facts" such as we are seeing on my BBC "toilets" thread right now

• activists in places like the BBC using "transgender people" instead of "men" when asking about toilets

• changing the meanings of words from "real" meanings to "lived experience" meanings

All in the service of allowing men to do whatever they want whenever they want it, even if what they want involves children, who can't consent to very much at all, and certainly not to being watched by a teacher of the opposite sex while undressing.

This will blow up for the NSPCC.

So a predator or predators have infiltrated the NSPCC then.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/nspccs-changing-room-guidance-fails-girls/

to help with the rage

We should have seen it coming really.

Lions and prey and all that. We already know they will work to get into nurseries, schools and positions of power over children.

Why not infiltrate the very organisation set up to protect them, and pervert it.

No one should be able to ever work in these positions without a thourough hard drive and phone check of their personal devices.

Thanks for this. Of course Sex Matters are onto it!

From what Sex Matters have written, it does appear that someone (or more than one someone) is determined to make the NSPCC guidance as "complicated" as possible. Now, why would they want to do that?

Lies by omission are still lies. Pretending ignorance of the law will, ultimately, be no defence.

Someone signed this off, probably hoping no one outside the NSPCC would notice. Oops... 😉

Ambiguity harms everyone

Someone signed this off, probably hoping no one outside the NSPCC would notice.

Yeah, that ship has sooo sailed.

It's far worse than just enabling transwomen to get "validation". This enables any male teacher to supervise girls changing in and out of their swimming costumes and having showers. And that man may well be the only adult in the changing room. This is a paedophile's dream. And we all know that some men are attracted to teaching because it gives them access to children.

If this doesn't ring alarm bells, then what will?

I've worked with the NSPCC back in the day and they used to be a child centred responsible organisation with safeguarding children as their main focus - and they did it well.
Now they've morphed into a dodgy outfit, deliberately obscuring the law and making the lives of schools and children more difficult. Oh, and enabling predators. My monthly sub to Sex Matters seems more worhwhile daily.

Once news of this has spread, I would expect all male teachers (not just them, but especially them) to be up in arms about this potential risk to their reputations and livelihoods. Who would want the risk of running afoul of this guidance just because they work at an activist school? If nothing else, it opens up male teachers especially to accusations. This could be used in all sorts of nefarious ways.

So, will male teachers be up in arms about this? It's the one thing I have seen since the SC ruling that I think men might actually care about, to the extent that they might do something about it.

We'll see. I definitely wouldn't want to be a male teacher with this ambiguous guidance hanging over my head. There are plenty of nasty colleagues, students, and parents out there...

This is still to facilitate TiM teachers. The NSPCC know that it would be unconscionable for Mr Smith to supervise girls who are changing but Mx Smith..? That's a whole different rainbow. If the odd school does allow Mr Smith? Well perhaps they feel that's a price worth paying and as the guidance doesn't actually right out say it would be okay maybe they'll claim it's on the school. They can make wide eyed denials.

Absolutely, but if I were a male teacher or TA, I would want clarity from my employer, in writing, before I took those odds!

Any decent man would. But also any decent man would refuse anyway.

This is what bothers me. Decent men don't want to go into these women's areas and even perverts with some sense of self prevention wouldn't. The men that would feel ok going into these places aren't safe to be around children. I don't get what NSPCC are thinking.

It is, isn’t it. I hope this gets wider attention.