Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

For those posters who are too afraid to look into the depths of what "ordinary" people can do when safeguarding measures fail, or when individuals are so malevolent they squeeze around them.

A colleague used to teach at a primary school where the caretaker was found to have installed a camera in one of the stalls in the girls toilets.

A primary teacher, young, much loved and respected by staff and children, was found to have hundreds of images of young boys changing after swimming. They were allowed in there to help them get ready.

An acquaintance of mine, the Deputy Head of a primary school, was filmed online meeting with boys as young as 14 for sex in their car.

All of these events have since gone to court and been concluded. They happened in the last five years or so, and within about a 15 mile radius of one another.

But young people will at times, have a need for confidentiality. I think a young person approaching an adult and asking for confidentiality is very different to an adult approaching a child, which is how the op reads.

Hearhoovesthinkzebras You dont understand Safeguarding. Many people dont.

The points made in Lang Cleg's post explain fundamental principles of Safeguarding.

And let's not forget two of those three were ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY THE NSPCC. So worrying.

And it would have been 3 out of 3, had they all got their way.

And the NSPCC has statutory powers.

As they do exist, when I observed another adult member of staff acting in a way that was totally against safe guarding guidelines, I was able to take immediate action. There was no discussion about whether they were a nice person, and maybe it was a misunderstanding, and perhaps they didn't mean to do what they did. No. They knew what they shouldn't do, they did it, they won't be employed by our organisation again. As a result a very vulnerable child was kept safe.

This is effective Safeguarding ^^
The focus is always to act in ways that protect children & vulnerable adultsfrom risk of harm.

Strewth Hooves.

You really don't understand safeguarding.

No offence - very few people do unless they've had it explained very very clearly.

Which is why LC is such a loss.

The thing is that any guidance which suggests keeping secrets for children is ok (e.g. keeping trans status a secret) is creating massive safeguarding loopholes that predators will use. That's why we need strict and rigorous safeguarding protocols and why no one group can be considered above scrutiny - no matter who they are.

But young people will at times, have a need for confidentiality. I think a young person approaching an adult and asking for confidentiality is very different to an adult approaching a child, which is how the op reads.

There should be safeguards in place for a child who discloses to an adult within an organisation but I can understand times where it isn't appropriate to tell parents.

Great advice.

I teach (not U.K., & our alumni go all over). New principal has just tightened social media rules - no 'friends' who are recent graduates from sixth form, or who have siblings still in school.

I miss my year 13s from last year. I had a fantastic tutor group & a lovely teaching group. Would love to know what they're up to at Uni. Many of my colleagues feel the same.

But the new principal's rules are clear, sensible & in line with safeguarding principles.

This is FAR more important than anything else, because erosion of boundaries. So we are all happy to comply.

Excellent post from LC.

The majority of trans guidance for tells schools that it's OK to withhold information from some parents about a child 'transitioning'. In the real world only the courts can remove parental responsibility and anyone telling teachers to keep something like this a secret would be sacked. But in this dystopian new world, everyone ignores this massive danger being posed to children. Here's an example: the guidelines for schools in Cornwall - page 18
www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/13620644/schools-transgender_guidance_booklet-2015.pdf

We know that children removed / alienated from their families do very poorly (academically, socially, mental health wise etc). Yet this arrogant movement repeatedly suggests that adults should facilitate alienating vulnerable children from their parents and families.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING - but nobody appears to give a damn.

Exactly BlackeyedSusan, which is why the idea that there are just a few rogue individuals wandering the streets or online is transparently nonsense.

If there were three who were not out the door so fast that their feet didn't touch the floor, then it would seem that the whole organisation has weeknesses.

I work in a role where I have one to one contact with under 18s, often very vulnerable and troubled children. Our safeguarding procedures are tight, visible and constantly reinforced through training. I know the children are safe with me, but nobody else can be as sure of that as I am. So the measures are completely appropriate, and I wouldn't be prepared to do my job if they didn't exist.

As they do exist, when I observed another adult member of staff acting in a way that was totally against safe guarding guidelines, I was able to take immediate action. There was no discussion about whether they were a nice person, and maybe it was a misunderstanding, and perhaps they didn't mean to do what they did. No. They knew what they shouldn't do, they did it, they won't be employed by our organisation again. As a result a very vulnerable child was kept safe.

Thanks for starting this - a very important thread and one which I'm sure will make my hair stand on end. And a very fitting tribute to Lang.

Gaaaah cross posted with OP, sorry!

And to the thread ... something occurred to me this week. A few years ago I worked as a TA in a local primary (only for a few months as compulsory redundancies happened at the end of my probation period so I was last in first out) and all I had in terms of safeguarding training was a leaflet to read at home and then several reminders to us all in staff meetings to "make sure you've read your leaflet". The only bit of actual discussion and sharing of thoughts and questions we had was around looking for signs of radicalisation but not a jot more. That's pretty shocking I think.

Thanks to posters like Lang and many others I've been promoted to read links, do my own research and find it so much more than I ever had then.

And let's not forget two of those three were ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY THE NSPCC. So worrying.

Yes, Datun - three people breaking safeguarding and being so brazenly open about it. No doubt only the tip of the iceberg.

Speaking of which I want to thank OnlytheTitoftheLangBerg for starting this thread. I can't think of any better way to show how much I respect and admire Lang than talking about safeguarding over and over and over again. It needs to be done .

Bring back LangCleg (3).

Personally I find it extremely worrying that the NSPCC wanted to employ someone who OPENLY, on social media encouraged children to contact him - a stranger - privately

And the person who wanted to employ them, was wanking in a gimp suit at work, and uploading it to LinkedIn, and the person who was responsible for him, wanted anyone who reported it to be sanctioned for 'homophobia.'

That's three people, before you even start on anyone who wasn't ignorant and arrogant enough to bang on about it on Twitter.

Excellent OP. AL
although I'm sure some Head Girl Types will be along soon outraged at the use of the F word at the bottom of the post because it's clearly and deliberately used to bully someone.

Personally I find it extremely worrying that the NSPCC wanted to employ someone who OPENLY, on social media encouraged children to contact him - a stranger - privately

It's also extremely worrying that in some cases we even have police officers/forces publically endorsing people eitger individually or the organisations they are involved with that they clearly have not done any checks at all on. Even a child savvy enough to perhaps google/look into someone to contact is probably going to trust the police in those incidences.

She when all the feminists/experts etc seem to be shadow banned on Twitter its incredibly dangerous out there for children.

Yes I am always delighted when I get thoroughly checked and even viewed with suspicion when I volunteer. Because I know I only have good intentions and if they're checking me out then they're checking everyone else that comes into contact with my children. I WANT them to view EVERYONE with suspicion and to be very strict and rigorous. I DO NOT WANT them to have the attitude of 'well this hardly ever happens so let's not bother too hard trying to prevent it'.

I know someone who committed suicide in adulthood because they were abused as a child. They just couldn't live with it any more. We have to do more to prevent innocent lives being ruined.

I absolutely agree. Asking children for secret chats is not on. Anyone involved in children's services in any way should make sure they are up to speed with safeguarding requirements or keep away. If they care about children, as they claim to, then this should sound perfectly reasonable to them. Professionals working with children know this and are subjected to checks without complaint.

It seems to me that a really clever abuser like Savile (he was a monster but he did it in plain sight for years and years and got himself invited into all sorts of children's spaces) would run rings around the NSPCC if they're getting something so basic so wrong.

It's also worth mentioning that the nspcc is the only children's charity that has statutory powers. If their safeguarding is not up to standards imagine the consequences of fighting against what you as a parent see as failures that do not align with theirs

Just the way that it was being discussed I thought posters meant that this was happening on a widescale basis. I understand of course, that it happens on occasion and that is utterly wrong.

The thing is that any guidance which suggests keeping secrets for children is ok (e.g. keeping trans status a secret) is creating massive safeguarding loopholes that predators will use. That's why we need strict and rigorous safeguarding protocols and why no one group can be considered above scrutiny - no matter who they are.

Also, effective safeguarding assumes that there will be a significant number of people who will seek to get into positions where they will abuse children - not just assuming that it only happens on occasion so we shouldn't worry about it or (in manner of M&S changing rooms) just deal with crimes once they've been committed. That's not good enough. Child abuse ruins lives - even one victim would be too many and we're a long long way as a society from eradicating this (Rotherham, Manchester, etc etc). We DON'T as a society deal with it effectively when it happens - Savile was never brought to justice. We need to stop it before it happens. Hence safeguarding.

Personally I find it extremely worrying that the NSPCC wanted to employ someone who OPENLY, on social media encouraged children to contact him - a stranger - privately. If they can get it so wrong so very publicly then what are they doing in all the cases we DON'T hear about?

I have worked with staff who have slightly blurred boundaries with pupils in a previous job eg friends on social media. Staff I respected at the time and would never have imagined were doing anything sinister.

What I know now I'm older and have had much more training is that a) nobody should be above suspicion and b) even if they were wholly innocent they were leading the young people to believe that private contact with adults was normal, leaving them open to being exploited by someone else.