Safeguarding exceptions.

[BuntingEllacott]

This is an exhaustive list of every group who may confidently expect that they will not be affected by safeguarding, and be able to insist that their membership of a group means they have privileged access in situations involving children and vulnerable adults and may bypass the basic safeguarding protocols:

.

.

.

.

That's right. No one. Not a man, not a woman, not a single person or group can legitimately demand that safeguarding enforcement will not affect them.

Pass it on. It's important. (It includes you and me, too. Equally important.)

[Ereshkigalangcleg]

No. Sacred. Castes.

[prisencolinensinainciusol2]

Excellent (bullet) points Bunting.

[Wrongsideofhistorymyarse]

[ArabellaScott]

Yes, and when I see useful idiots arguing that some people are de facto not a risk it's concerning.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

Safeguarding is also not a personal attack.

[ArabellaScott]

If you take a police check personally, or complain about having to sign in when visiting a school, or think that childcare facilities shouldn't bother checking the history of their staff, or feel that statistics are a personal affront, or get offended by people talking about safeguarding, then ... you're a red flag.

[Winesalot]

And it is never about someone’s friends....

[Whatwouldscullydo]

And everyone is entitled to the same level of safeguarding too. There are no groups of people who aren't worthy of the basic human right of being kept safe. Sometimes people need saving from themselves

[Datun]

Excellent list.

Safeguarding isn't an opinion about a person's motives. It doesn't matter how much they want it to not apply to them. It does.

In fact the more they want it not to, the redder the flag gets.

[BuntingEllacott]

Giving this another bump. The list hasn't grown, it remains the same.

[MillieEpple]

Absolutley.

[Datun]

Yes safeguarding affects everybody. Law abiding individuals, lawbreakers. The lot. No one gets a free pass.

[Whatwouldscullydo]

Safeguarding is also for the benefit of both parties involved.

Asking for it to not be applied to protect one person's feelings also means willingly placing the other person into a situation where they can face danger or the risk of accusations. The other people have rights too. The rights not to be forced to do something against their will or against regulations and risk losing their job.

We should all be wary of those who would take a job where safeguarding can be ignored at any given time on.the request of only one person involved in the situation

[MaudTheInvincible]

@ArabellaScott

If you take a police check personally, or complain about having to sign in when visiting a school, or think that childcare facilities shouldn't bother checking the history of their staff, or feel that statistics are a personal affront, or get offended by people talking about safeguarding, then ... you're a red flag.

Hear hear! 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

[picklemewalnuts]

Safeguarding is gate keeping. If you leave the gate standing open for some then it is open for all, including predators. There is no point having a fence at all.

[persistentwoman]

Great thread. Individuals and organisations who attempt to undermine safeguarding - especially of children - diminish us all.

[highame]

Unfortunately the bullet points aren't showing up for me. Could someone c/p and see if that works. Thanks in anticipation

[PubsClosed]

Yep!

Fundamental to effective safeguarding is an attitude of 'it could happen here'. It's in every decent bit of safeguarding training.Every policy.

That doesn't mean 'everyone is a paedo or abuser' it means 'anyone could be'.

Its so fundamental to safeguarding its deeply concerning that it can be ridden over roughshod by ANY individual or group, especially on the basis of hurting feelings.

[WeeTorag]

This is brilliant OP! 👏👏👏

Good responses too, I've booked marked a few already. 🙏

[ArabellaScott]

I've seen safeguarding described as the opposite of the justice system. We don't presume everyone is innocent until proven otherwise - we put procedures in place to try to remove - or at least minimise - or at very least lessen - the possibility of having to find out.

As Scully says, it's for the benefit and safety of everyone involved.

[ArabellaScott]

Also I feel I should add, as a complete random on the internet, we don't accept people's words at face value. We seek out people who have solid experience, qualifications, knowledge, skills and credentials and look for EVIDENCE. Not emotions, not feels, not anecdotes. So we need safeguarding professionals to assess these things, not lobby groups, pressure groups, support groups etc.

[Datun]

@picklemewalnuts

Safeguarding is gate keeping. If you leave the gate standing open for some then it is open for all, including predators. There is no point having a fence at all.

Exactly.

And it means that any predator will just assume the mantle of those who fondly think safeguarding doesn't apply to them.

[Datun]

@highame

Unfortunately the bullet points aren't showing up for me. Could someone c/p and see if that works. Thanks in anticipation

There isn't anything in the bullet points. That the point. It's illustrative of the fact that there are no such bullet points of people to whom safeguarding doesn't apply.

[BuntingEllacott]

Shall we bump this again for tea-time?

Once again... there are none. No one gets a pass, not the nice, not the nasty, not the criminal, not the law-abiding. Everyone is subject to Safeguarding.

[boatyardblues]

@picklemewalnuts

Safeguarding is gate keeping. If you leave the gate standing open for some then it is open for all, including predators. There is no point having a fence at all.

Spot on.