Have Scouts said anything about Assistant leader 'Baloo' Challenor?

I have never said or wanted to imply that Safeguarding is pointless but I believe that people saying that it will be ok because there are polices in place and more women leaders will stop abuse and it will be ok.

I would like to see the evidence that having females in organisations reduces risk but it has not been produced.

If the evidence is there and valid then it will be useful.

Polices are great but only effective if implemented and imbedded.

So, Pride Coventry knew in 2016 and gave instructions that DC was no longer to be accepted as a volunteer.

Sweetheartneckline. This is a mind field and I see what you are saying about DC but some of the anecdotal comments do throw the debate out of sync.

I am interested in the issues for safeguarding around trans but I am also aware of offenders in position of trust who may offend in one organisation but not another.

The Scouts for example may be working with statutory agencies on a complex enquiry to establish if any offending has occurred within their organisation.

They will be damned if they tell you and damned if they don't.

I will follow this thread as said it is an area I am interested in and trying to get to grips with.

Numbkin I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think sending a polite, concerned email asking for clarification and / or a statement following extremely serious child sexual abuse, rape and torture by a man who may or may not have a) met the child through Scouts, b) have remained a Scout leader around the time of the offences and c) have remained a Scout leader following the offences coming to light, is "mob mentality".

The public (especially the Scouting community, and especially in Coventry) need to know if this was a serious lapse in safeguarding or whether the timelines completely exonerate Scouts. For all we know, Scouts may have allowed DC to be a leader after his own kids were taken into care and he was given a suspended sentence for animal cruelty - they may have kicked him out years before. If Scouts were (as I deeply hope will happen) able to clarify timelines and reassure parents it would not require speculation.

I repeat, we do not know at this stage - and not knowing is scary.

It is actually ok to give a distressed or upset child a hug.

The issue is when the adult initiates that scenario and does it in isolation.

If a Beaver child on a sleep over was upset a reassuring hug would be ok.

@Dodo
Actually the leader was well off the mark to think the dbs rules suggest anything of the sort. A bit depressing, that level of ignorance. It's as @whathaveiforgottentoday said

Taking part in a group activity in a classroom or church hall isn't the same as a sleepover situation.

Dodo. It's not forbidden to give young children a hug in any establishment. It's just needs to be appropriate i.e not in a room on your own and obviously depends on age and situation.
I would hope a leader would give a homesick young child a hug if they needed it (but not in a room on their own !!!)
Apart from the dubious advice surrounding transgender, guides take safeguarding quite seriously or at least my mentor when I was a leader in training did.

Clear safeguarding polices do not prevent abuse.

There are individuals who chose to ignore it as they can never be catered for.

I would assume that with this up roar with scouts all of you intend to write to your schools. Loads of teachers out there who abuse children either by contact or online offences. Those schools Safeguarding policies are robust ?

There are no words to describe what DC did but I do think that if you are going to target Scouts in this manner then please do the same for all the schools and sports clubs where abusers have been found. Do you still send your children to school ? Do you still send your children to a sports activity ? Do you still send your children to that music or English tutor ?

I am also concerned about the Trans gender issue with children and safeguarding but a pragmatic and common sense approach to the scout issue is required. Appears to be a mob mentality.

Doning my flame retardant jump suit.

Urghh, you've reminded me that one of my children was in Beavers with a leader who said bracingly before a sleepover, 'Now, all this CRB stuff means that I'm not really allowed to give your kids a hug if they wake up upset at night, but don't worry, if a little lad wakes up and cries, of course I'm going to give him a cuddle, unless anyone wants to tell me not to?'

No one said anything.

We should have, shouldn't we?

Mamaryllis, picklemepopcorn, this is so often the problem. Abusers can be charming and plausible. This is why a clear robust safeguarding policy is so important. In Mamaryllis's case it sounds like it has worked as intended - the rules were applied despite objections by the parents. That is the safest way.

Mamaryllis, very similar story here, though a different organisation and less obvious safeguarding issues. Same response from parents. They were happy for safeguarding restrictions to be ignored by the leader, allowing random adults to join in on sleep overs, because they liked him.

I actually just want to know if he was a current leader, and if so, have they reached out to parents of his current and previous packs appropriately. If he is no longer a leader, are they pulling records and considering in liaison with the authorities whether they need to contact those families.

We had a much more minor safeguarding issue here (a leader looked to be engaging in grooming behaviour and was ignoring policy to do so) and I reported it. Our area staff swooped in, suspended the guy, investigated, and held a parent meeting where they answered questions.
In our case, the other parents were the enemies of safeguarding, in truth. They complained vociferously that the leader was suspended (and later had his membership cancelled). They wanted scouts to look the other way and for him to be allowed to invite individual scouts off for special days out (not official scouting activities) and saw nothing wrong with him inviting a young teen boy for a week long trip.
In truth, I have no idea if his intent. But adults in a youth leadership position, accessing youth by virtue of that position, can not use that association to create special alone time with individual children.
They asked him to abide by the rules and he refused. The parents were livid that scouts sacked him.
I’m sure he’s lovely. But the parents were completely swayed by the legitimacy that being a scout leader gave him, and allowed their boys to disappear off with him, no questions asked. They assumed that a day doing x with y meant it was a scout approved activity. And taking a young boy off in your own is plain stupid even if your intentions are pure.

If you are interested in how the Scout Association handle adverse DBS information, it is described in detail at the end of this document scouts.org.uk/media/927539/The-Appointment-Process-.pdf

Scouts are a slow moving and cumbersome organisation who, when things go well, do amazing things for the kids. I have a lot of respect for uniformed organisations and their volunteers, I've held positions in Guides and Scouts.

However, I had a year-long drama with them after a safety issue involving my son who has medical needs which were not looked after because Scouting's own policies weren't followed. They could have killed him.

It was batted from pillar to post and delayed and lost and considered and consulted - for an entire year. During this time, other kids were at risk.

It was so frustrating, they were protecting Brand Scout rather than dealing with a clear cut issue which would upset some long standing Scouters. In the end I withdrew my son and my volunteer work from them and the Scouters resigned anyway.

That's why I resigned, I didn't want to be associated with an organisation which is set up for children's benefit and which also didn't mind the odd one or two getting hurt.

It's not in Scouting's interest to acknowledge anything about this case unless it transpires that the scumbag was actually a Leader when he was also hurting children. They'll ignore, ignore, ignore.

Datun you've asked whether a conviction for animal cruelty would bar you from working with children. I've said this before but it bears repeating - and hold onto your hat here - a conviction for rape doesn't automatically bar you from working with children. It shows up on a DBS but it's not an automatic bar.

HotRocker agree on not responding in haste, but I would ask very clearly:

Can you confirm then that your robust safeguarding policies worked and that a now convicted child rapist wasn't a Scout leader during the time he was on remand awaiting trial for offences including rape and torture of a ten year old girl?

Appreciate it's really scary to ask this of someone you know, you could soften it by saying 'people I'm talking to want assurances that a convicted child rapist wasn't actively leading Scouts while on remand for offences including the rape and torture of a ten year old girl, in other words they're looking for concrete assurances that safeguarding worked in this instance.'

I've had no response from the safeguarding team...

I have volunteered with scouts before until they show more leadership on real safeguarding I would not be prepared to risk my good name in being associated with them by volunteering again.

This is a real issue. Guilt by association.

Its awful, and its the kids who ultimately lose out. And thats why the Scout Association NEED to make some kind of statement to protect their leaders and volunteers.

And in response to the suggestion that all groups should have a female volunteer presumably those who agree with that are prepared to volunteer to make it happen.

Hahahahahahaha

Would you like to end the Scouts?

Honestly? Cos that's the reality for many troops who are struggling to get enough leaders full stop.

Wise not to write back in haste.

TBH, maybe he needs time to reflect and discuss this with others in the organisation too.

Well indeed, and quite frankly, anyone who dismisses concerns, having read the disturbing details of that case, gives serious pause for thought.
I’m going to sit on it for a few hours and consider my response. I don’t want to respond in haste because 1, I’m annoyed, and 2, I’d like some guidance and input from others.
This is not a path I’ve ever trodden before, and I know this man personally, so it’s a bit scary to tell you the truth.

We don't know when he left scouts and if this was voluntary or as a result of their robust safeguarding. Scouts refused to allow Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane Shooting) any involvement despite this being before any of the regular checking. They were the first organisation to keep a list of unacceptable people generated by going through court reports, considerably before it was common to check.

And in response to the suggestion that all groups should have a female volunteer presumably those who agree with that are prepared to volunteer to make it happen.

Thats its not just about tge policies but about people's (in this case, parents) trust in those policies. A statement is needed.