Safer schools issues guidance on furries in school

So i bet the furry community absolutely leapt at the chance to go under the trans umbrella!

Girlfriends house for lunch

Hi mum thanks for inviting my new boyfriend for tea. Is it OK if we eat outside as Trevor is a furry. Oh look how cute he is eating the contents of Dad's vegetable patch. I luuuuv him so much.

Trevors house for lunch

don't be stupid Alison I'm not wearing the suit to dinner with my parents! They would disown me!

Thank you @2fallsfromSSA for addressing this.

Apart from anything else Safe Schools Alliance use plain English which is essential to effective safeguarding and 'safer schools' do not and their website is word salad.

When it comes to word salad, it always makes me very suspicious that there is something that someone is trying to hide.

First one's fairly old, second is the aforementioned spaghetti monster wedding I managed to dig up, and the third is something semi-recent :')
Almost like Instagram Model or E-Girl vibes imho.

Yes agree @Flowerly I obviously wasn't being clear. What I was trying to say is that if safeguarding is working effectively then it doesn't require in depth detailed information about the details of a fetish / craze.

Part of the point of robust safeguarding frameworks (which the statutory guidance and legislation is supposed to provide) is that no-one is above suspicion and it's not possible to have a group that's exempt. Of course, you're right, it's not working at all well in many schools which is why some of them are encouraging children to keep secrets from their parents and transing them in school etc. But part of the point of safeguarding is supposed to be acknowledging that paedophiles will go to extraordinary lengths to access children, which is why robust frameworks are necessary, but that knowledge seems to have been lost and so many adults are putting the validation of adults and ideology above kids safety. It's so worrying.

I actually like the two on the right. The left one I'm not sure I'd want that even in the loo!

I can understand why people would buy them, they are cute. But to comission them puts those peoples heads in a completely different space to mine! That would be like me getting family portraits done of everyone as smurfs! And I just wouldn't no matter how much i love the little blue creatures.I

I can imagine that the male ones do not have quite the same wholesome cutsie vibe!

How do you know it wasn't sexual for him? Do you think teenage boys would admit that to teenage girls? Or maybe keep it quiet?

Well said. The capture of social care & safeguarding organisations by the trans lobby is doing immense damage to safeguarding children and I suspect that's what we're seeing here with Gamble.
Remember the NSPCC debacle where it took them days to utter any criticism of their gay male employee masturbating in workplace toilets dressed in a rubber gimp suit (wanking rubber man)? Mermaids had a paedophile adjacent trustee openly appointed despite his history. Stonewall opened their arms to Challenor after their safeguarding disasters despite Stonewall working intensively with schools.
None of the above organisations were shut down, they all continue to work with children despite their actions.
Gamble's reluctance to openly admit an error & minimising the sexual aspects of furrydom seems similar - the sacred caste that is never be held to account and whose demands will always be a priority over children's safety and wellbeing.

But part of the point of safeguarding is supposed to be acknowledging that paedophiles will go to extraordinary lengths to access children, which is why robust frameworks are necessary, but that knowledge seems to have been lost and so many adults are putting the validation of adults and ideology above kids safety. It's so worrying.
This.
It should not matter who the adult is or which group they're part of. No adults should be considered beyond the remit of robust safeguarding procedures.

As soon as any group of adults is given a free pass or less scrutiny the people with harmful intentions will seek to join that group.
E.g. If Group A has less scrutiny then those adults with harmful intentions will seek to join Group A. If Group A no longer gives easier access to children then those adults will no longer wish to be part of Group A, but they will try Group B if it looks like Group B is exempt from robust safeguarding. If Group B tightens their safeguarding procedures, Group B will be less attractive to those seeking to harm children and those with harmful intentions will look for another group. That's how predatory adults operate. It doesn't mean that everyone on Group A or B was harmful. It just means that where safeguarding is weak, it will attract those with harmful agendas.

"I can imagine that the male ones do not have quite the same wholesome cutsie vibe!"

They most definitely do not @Boiledbeetle 😭

If there are furries at pride it is because they identify as gay/bi/etc but they aren't there because they are a furry

I feel the urge to hug you whilst going there there never mind it will be OK!I

Grim!!!

There is more knowledge about safeguarding on this thread that there appears to be in society at the moment. It is almost like there has been a deliberate and systematic attempt at dismantling it....

Completely agree. Apologies I think I got the wrong end of the stick!

I know right!

Seriously cannot believe how many people have let this all slip under the radar under a sheen of be kind, be nice, shut up and do what the predator of little children tells you.

^ That was in reply to @GCSunnyside23

Indeed. But apparently we cannot point this out.

So let me get this right MNHQ. There must be no link made to furries and sexual fetishes on this thread? They are distinct from one another?

Another sacred caste of men.

And i thought it was bad that we got deleted on another thread for daring to talk about cake.

Neither of the deletions that have just happened are warranted in my opinion. Both are truthful in their same conclusion of this issue of furries at pride.

A friend whose 18-year-old lesbian daughter attended Swansea Mini-Pride today has reported that her daughter returned home after only 15 minutes. The daughter was mobbed — her word — by furries and found the whole thing scary. She had no idea whether it was men or women in the outfits and was creeped out by it. When she pushed one of them away firmly and said no, a couple of women passing by said that there was no need to be like that. She got out of there as quickly as she could.

If there are furries at pride it is because they identify as gay/bi/etc but they aren't there because they are a furry

And how would anyone know this? Anyone can say they identify as LGB and put on an animal suit and go and grab passers-by for hugs and a bit of frottage.

Having seen that photo above, it looks very similar (although on balance scarier) to photos you see of children at Disneyland Paris interacting with 'Disney characters'.
Is there a distinction to make, if we want our children to have healthy boundaries when they grow up?

The people at Disneyworld are, I presume, employees and have had security checks and training. Disney will be anxious that nothing bad happens. At public events no one's checking.

Not a parent, but I would want my child to steer clear of furries and people in character costumes.