From safeguarding children to indoctrinating them with radical gender ideology
MATT GOODWIN
James Esses is consistently and fearlessly exposing how radical ideologies are infiltrating and influencing some of the largest and most well-known organisations in our society. From the BBC to the Financial Times, from John Lewis to our schools.
The acronym, ‘NSPCC’, stands for the ‘National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’. In Britain, the NSPCC has become a household name.
However, given the way in which radical trans ideology has now infected every layer of this once loved organisation, I would suggest that it should instead stand for ‘National Society for the Promotion of Cruelty to Children’.
I’m perhaps more interested in the NSPCC than most. Having been a former Childline counsellor, with Childline sitting under the auspices of the NSPCC, I’ve experienced first-hand just how deep the rot has set (more about that later).
Which explains my strong interest in who has been selected to replace Sir Peter Wanless, as CEO of the NSPCC. Wanless has been at the helm of the NSPCC for over a decade and the harmful pivot towards gender ideology happened under his watch.
I hoped and prayed that the replacement would be someone with expertise in child safeguarding and, crucially, who was not a radical ideologue.
But I must have prayed to the wrong God.
Why? Because a few weeks ago it was announced that the new CEO would be Chris Sherwood. Sherwood’s last role was as CEO of animal charity, the RSPCA. What animals and children have in common is lost on me.
However, of much greater concern is that it took only a cursory search online to find that Sherwood has all the hallmarks of a trans ideologue.
His online bio contains ‘he/him’ pronouns and a pride flag.
In 2023, he posted a graphic on X that read ‘#STANDWITHTRANS’ and wrote: “I am proud to support the #StandWithTrans campaign because trans and non-binary people deserve to feel safe and supported”.
He has also written about how important it is to “celebrate trans women and be an inclusive and progressive organisation”.
What I could not find evidence of, however, was a single jot of concern for the harm caused to children or women in the name of gender ideology.
I posted about Sherwood’s appointment and my phone blew up.
The post was viewed more than 360,000 times and I received many hundreds of messages from concerned parents and even former NSPCC supporters, who have said they will no longer donate to the charity.
The sad fact, however, is that while Sherwood exhibits all the hallmarks of radical gender activism he is walking straight into an organisation that is alreadyideologically captured and poses significant risks to our children, as a result.
Here are just some of the most egregious examples of this:
Childline, where I used to work, has an entire page dedicated to ‘Gender Identity’.
Even though Childline is a counselling service, it makes almost no mention of counselling. Instead, it reads more like a road map to transitioning, advising children on how to change their clothes, pronouns and names.
Childline tells children that “feeling no romantic attraction until you have formed a strong emotional bond” means they are “demiromantic” and that “feeling little to no sexual attraction” means they are “asexual”.
Remember, children accessing these services may be extremely young, often pre-pubescent, and yet Childline tells them that if they aren’t experiencing sexual attraction then they are ‘asexual’ – a label that sticks.
More chilling is the way in which Childline’s own counselling function and message boards have preyed upon the vulnerabilities of children. The Childline message boards have more than 15,000 entries under the topic of ‘gender’.
In one thread, staff have, without any moderation it appears, allowed children (we can only assume they are children because there is no age vetting process) to claim “there’s a genocide against trans people” and call to “destroy the government”.
The people leaving posts even call Rishi Sunak a “transphobic bitch” and Kemi Badenoch a “literal transphobe”. Messages that would feel more at home on an Antifa (anti-fascist) message board are instead found at Childline.
In another, a young girl who states that she feels dysphoria and wants to get a breast binder without her parents knowing, receives a message from another user advising her to do research on ways to “get free binders”.
In one thread, a 14-year-old girl describes wanting cross-sex hormones because her period makes her feel ‘dysphoric’. A ‘trans guy’ advises her to start hormones without her parents’ knowledge. Again, no Childline moderator intervenes.
Other examples include users advising vulnerable children that if they take cross-sex hormones “you won’t feel dysphoria and feel like yourself again” or children (again, we can only assume them to be children) as young as 14-years-old advising each other, in graphic detail, on how to engage in sexual acts.
Or take Childline’s ‘Ask Sam’ service, in which children write in and receive a response from Childline staff. In one piece of ‘advice’, ‘Sam’ tells a young girl concerned about infertility that if she were to medically transition she can always get a surrogate to carry the baby for her … This is truly shocking stuff.
I have previously documented, through speaking to a whistleblower within the NSPCC, that staff are forced to attend training courses which shove radical gender ideology down their throats and even dismiss women’s concerns about safe spaces.
Childline has even sought to create allegiances with nefarious organisations, such as helping radical trans activist group, Mermaids, who we looked at last week, with setting up a similar webchat service for children. The same Mermaids that sent breast binders to young girls without their parents knowing.
When ‘transwomen’ (i.e. men) began posting photos to social media of them “chestfeeding” their babies (which is both unnatural and harmful), the NSPCC went so far as to give advice that it was not a safeguarding concern and state that parents are free to ‘breastfeed’ children as they wish.
I could go on.
My own experience of counselling at Childline for over five years was that it became more and more like an activist group, rather than a neutral counselling service.
It became clear that Childline was collaborating more closely with Stonewall. The first time I became aware of this was when I attended a shift and noticed there were Stonewall posters plastered throughout the counselling room.
They read: ‘Some People Are Trans; Get Over It’.
They even started to fly the trans pride flag in the window of the counselling room in Central London (which is still flying there today, years later).
For an organisation that is meant to be ideologically neutral, this is unsettling. It sends a message to counsellors and children alike – if you believe in biological reality then you are not welcome here.
Once I started raising concerns internally around the prevalence of gender ideology within the charity and the associated risks for children, I was given the boot and told that I was not welcome to volunteer there anymore.
That was after delivering thousands of hours of counselling for children and having only ever received positive feedback for my work. This felt like a stab in the back. I even reached out to Dame Esther Rantzen, who founded Childline back in 1986, and we spoke via email and on the phone.
I told her of the various issues I had observed within the charity and implored her to use her influence to do something about it. She asked me to email the full list of safeguarding concerns to her afterwards, which I did. I never received a response. To this day, even after much chasing, I have never received a response.
The Charity Commission previously stated it was considering numerous complaints made against the NSPCC and Childline, in advance of deciding whether to conduct a formal investigation. However, there has been no update on this for well over a year.
There is something utterly tragic about the fact that harm is being done to children by an organisation whose entire purpose was to prevent children from being harmed.
Enough, in short, is enough. Somebody needs to look into these organisations and look into them now before more children are indoctrinated and harmed by the very organisations that are supposed to protect them.
If you share the concerns raised in this piece, please consider writing to the NSPCC and/or the Charity Commission.
This article (How the NSPCC let our kids down) was created and published by Matt Goodwin and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Matt Goodwin
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply