Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

Someone here once posted a link to a brilliant article here on how the instinctive reaction to accusations is denial and how it's an important part of safeguarding to recognise and acknowledge this fault in yourself and organisations. I didn't save the link and I've searched for it since with no luck, does anyone know the one I mean?

If it’s happening in a children’s charity it’s happening in lots of places. The very people who are supposed to know this stuff don’t bother with it because - you know - don’t be mean.

Neurotrash - the idea that there is mandatory RSE in Wales which uses materials by organisations who have a very poor track record of safeguarding is shocking to me.

As I mentioned on another thread, the head of education at stonewall has gone straight from university to stonewall and has no background in education.

It’s precisely the people who naively believe no one really does this who are most likely to be taken in by those who seek to circumvent or erode safeguarding

I wonder if this is part of the reason why establishments/organisations allow themselves to apply guidance that encourages keeping secrets from parents and providing the opportunity for these private interactions to occur.

We know it has happened, we know it is happening.
We don't even need to name names on this thread because WE know who they are.
This thread is about the ability to discuss safeguarding concerns.

Another example...
Impact assessments not carried out by local authorities when they legally should have.

Is it time for a reminder about Chesterton's Fence?

'Don't take a fence down until you truly know the reason why it was put there in the first place'.

Why do we have safeguarding principles in the first place?
What would things look like if those safeguarding principles were eroded or removed?

So anyway... back to the topic...

Obviously there should be times where young people can discuss things confidentially, but how do we ensure that they know who the appropriate professional people are that they should be talking to?

This is why it should be on the front page so everyone can see what is happening here.

So can I just check how this works ?

Poster says “ this never happens “ .

Others give named example of when it happened.

Poster says “ ah that’s only one person, they are an outlier “.

Others give multiple examples of when this happened.

Poster reports thread for personal attacks on an individual / some sort of phobia / saying mean things about the most oppressed of the oppressed ( clue = no it’s not the child )

Thread gets deleted.

People posting about safeguarding get banned.

Have I got the gist of it ?

So this is something else that "never happens".

No not at all. 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.

I know lots of people who havent done a thing, therefore that thing doesn't exist.

So this is something else that "never happens". Really, hooves?

No one that I know who works with children would breach this.

I'm glad, obviously. But that's the reason safeguarding exists, believing that people x, y and z would never harm children isn't good enough.

Now that we've moved away from discussion about whether or not an individual poster is rude, I do hope that posters who think that some FWR users don't tolerate difference of opinion will use this thread to actually assert what it is they disagree with?

And so it begins...

SisyphusLangClegRocks

Thanks for explaining. In that case I agree, that's very wrong.

Of course it is. But who is breaking it? No one that I know who works with children would breach this.

But clearly some people do Hooves, whether you personally know them or not.

Word

See above.

It's a general principle of safeguarding

Of course it is. But who is breaking it? No one that I know who works with children would breach this.

No they did a DARVO and told us off for being homophobic for not being thrilled with rubberman Oh and then there was the hagiography from the BBC about the martyrdom of MB.

Certain people on social media @Hooves, saying things like "If your parents don't understand you, I'll be your mummy" and "Contact me if you want to talk in private" (mentioning no names in case I get banned)

And yes, @ChanChanChan what kind of people would benefit from the erosion of safeguarding?

This is a great idea for the thread. It's not so much about Lang as a personality (great though it is) but about the clear sense she spoke in an accessible language.

NSPCC never apologised for working with Munroe Bergdorf did they? Munroe who encouraged kids to PM them and who made public lesbophobic and gynaephobic statements? Beyond inappropriate when you think of the already tricky atmosphere for young girls realising they are attracted to other girls.

Among others, a putative ambassador for the NSPCC.