When did no surnames become a thing?

A shockingly high number are sex offenders. That you think almost none are and you have kids is worrying OP.

If you were to look at your area or even your street and see who is living there having signed the SOR, you would be surprised.

Anything that protects even one kid should be done and when it is as simple as withholding their surname on a document that will be lining the bin in a day, why not.

This is a really good point about proportionality.

Some methods of publicising names are more risky than others. As this thread has shown, some schools restrict surnames and others don’t, so it’s not a black and white issue. But on the scale of proportionality my view is that putting full names and school details on the Mumsnet forum is indeed too risky.

I’m not shocked by the number of sex offenders. It’s a high number but in the proportion of the population I’d expect (ie a very low one). And of those sex offenders, only a small proportion have harmed children.

‘Anything that protects even one kid should be done’. I don’t think even you would actually stand by this statement if you thought about it. We allow our kids to take risks every single day, and rightly so. The key is proportionality. Obviously a little thing like names in a play programme doesn’t matter so there’s little point in taking risks in most circumstances. But to say ‘anything that protects even one child should be done’ is the kind of trite statement that leads to kids missing out on stuff and, crucially, to get parents thinking they’re protecting kids when actually they’re harming them by not thinking harder.

Kids are much more likely to come to harm by factors and people nowhere near a DBS check or the SOR. They are much more likely to experience low level violence, bullying, inappropriate behaviour etc than incidents of very serious harm. They are highly unlikely to experience serious risk in most circumstances. Yet sometimes I think that we use DBSs and safeguarding procedures etc as a crutch and to cover our own backs rather than engage in hard thinking about a proportionate balance of harms. Procedures have their place, and are of value, but they are not the be all and end all, and should be used in conjunction with a more nuanced approach to risk in my view.

Again, let me say that that’s not about names in a school play programme, but generally.

The thread has moved beyond names in a programme. As I’ve said before, if people want to restrict surnames because they think it will keep kids safe then OK, take the surnames away. I’m not sure it will actually keep kids safe but whatever, it’s a tiny thing to give up so go for it if you want. But perhaps also think about whether the real risk and the best solution have been identified.

I don’t object to DBS checks. In fact I’ve been checked several times myself for roles I’ve done eg Brownie leader.

I find it a shame that some people are put off volunteering because of the procedure.

But my main concern is that people think that DBS equals ‘job done, kids are safe’, and that ‘No DBS equals kids are unsafe therefore X activity can’t happen’. Neither of those things are true.

@VerySkilledFirefighter The reason that many actors & performers don't use their real names is because another person of that name has already been registered with Equity, and that means that nobody else can use it professionally. So they have to choose another one.

The thread has moved beyond names in a programme. As I’ve said before, if people want to restrict surnames because they think it will keep kids safe then OK, take the surnames away. I’m not sure it will actually keep kids safe but whatever, it’s a tiny thing to give up so go for it if you want. But perhaps also think about whether the real risk and the best solution have been identified.

I don’t object to DBS checks. In fact I’ve been checked several times myself for roles I’ve done eg Brownie leader.

I find it a shame that some people are put off volunteering because of the procedure.

But my main concern is that people think that DBS equals ‘job done, kids are safe’, and that ‘No DBS equals kids are unsafe therefore X activity can’t happen’. Neither of those things are true.

This is a really good point about proportionality.

Some methods of publicising names are more risky than others. As this thread has shown, some schools restrict surnames and others don’t, so it’s not a black and white issue. But on the scale of proportionality my view is that putting full names and school details on the Mumsnet forum is indeed too risky.

Perhaps I should’ve started a new thread. On this particular thing about names in play programmes, if people are bothered about safeguarding then whatever. I don’t care. Take the surnames away if you want. Slight feeling of sadness for two seconds but I get it.

But more broadly, on safeguarding generally, I think there’s a point to be made about ubiquity and proportionality, and the impact of small numbers of very difficult cases on the majority.

I’m not shocked by the number of sex offenders. It’s a high number but in the proportion of the population I’d expect (ie a very low one). And of those sex offenders, only a small proportion have harmed children.

‘Anything that protects even one kid should be done’. I don’t think even you would actually stand by this statement if you thought about it. We allow our kids to take risks every single day, and rightly so. The key is proportionality. Obviously a little thing like names in a play programme doesn’t matter so there’s little point in taking risks in most circumstances. But to say ‘anything that protects even one child should be done’ is the kind of trite statement that leads to kids missing out on stuff and, crucially, to get parents thinking they’re protecting kids when actually they’re harming them by not thinking harder.

Kids are much more likely to come to harm by factors and people nowhere near a DBS check or the SOR. They are much more likely to experience low level violence, bullying, inappropriate behaviour etc than incidents of very serious harm. They are highly unlikely to experience serious risk in most circumstances. Yet sometimes I think that we use DBSs and safeguarding procedures etc as a crutch and to cover our own backs rather than engage in hard thinking about a proportionate balance of harms. Procedures have their place, and are of value, but they are not the be all and end all, and should be used in conjunction with a more nuanced approach to risk in my view.

Again, let me say that that’s not about names in a school play programme, but generally.

Surely it’s possible to draw a link between the over-regulation of activities and mental ill health? Children miss out on activities, are conditioned to view them as dangerous, and thus develop anxiety and worse.

I am genuinely surprised that people see the risk of harm from an adult to be greater than the risk of harm to the child from
missing out.

I can understand the emotions involved, of course. But in the cold light of day 99.9999% of adults would mean children no harm whatsoever. Any adult could be a possible sex offender. But almost none actually are.

But what actually are the safeguarding risks?

I’m not doubting that they exist, but I just don’t know what they are!