Safeguarding exceptions.

Everyone is subject to safeguarding, therefore nobody needs to feel targetted. Nobody is exempt; nobody is unfairly singled out.

Indeed. However much they try to say they are.

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children so they understand acceptable behaviour and learn to spot when someone is breaking them.

Yes. Completely.

And the other thing is that having no exceptions for safeguarding procedures makes it far easier for everyone to know, understand and recognise the rules, and avoids any suggestion that any one person or group is under disproportionate suspicion. Everyone is subject to safeguarding, therefore nobody needs to feel targetted. Nobody is exempt; nobody is unfairly singled out.

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children

Well put!

Totally, lasagne. And it's frustrating as hell to operate in that straight jacket. But it's essential because not to do so allows abusers to follow.

I think what people don't get with safeguarding as well, is that you can personally know YOU are not doing something for the wrong reasons, but if you do that you're contributing to a culture in which someone CAN do the exact same thing for the wrong reasons.

I don't think I've explained it properly, but if you're an adult and you're privately messaging a child because you're worried about them, they then don't realise there's anything wrong when DodgyBob69 is also privately messaging them pretending to be concerned but actually grooming them.

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children so they understand acceptable behaviour and learn to spot when someone is breaking them.

@ANewCreation

‘The case-by-case basis is not supposed to be about 'how nice does this particular individual seem?' 'Did anything inappropriate happen?'

This is not Safeguarding.’

Absolutely THIS. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what safeguarding means creeping in to a whole raft of organisations that work with children and vulnerable adults.

ArabellaScott - the girls had the support of their parents and then several members of the committee. However, as I say he is still able to volunteer for county/national competitions so it has sent a message to the girls that your club has listened to you but the wider sporting world doesn't recognise your boundary.

I'm glad they had that support, but yes, to see the institutional carelessness and disregard on this is appalling. They are saying that it doesn't matter if girls' consent isn't respected.

Agree with everyone here.

Safeguarding protects everyone. Adults, children, carers, service users... All of us
Having a clear DBS isn't an excuse to disregard safeguarding. It just proves you've never been caught. Being nice isn't an excuse. Being 'diverse' isn't an excuse.

Millie, it's so little they need to do to be above the law

My church removed a children's group leader because they wouldn't follow safeguarding procedures. The activity was also part of a larger national group. He just moved to a different church and continued. Now, we don't believe he is a risk, or that anyone he enabled to access the children is a risk. But leaving doors wide open will attract predators, and sooner or later something will happen.

ArabellaScott - the girls had the support of their parents and then several members of the committee. However, as I say he is still able to volunteer for county/national competitions so it has sent a message to the girls that your club has listened to you but the wider sporting world doesn't recognise your boundary.

I had never understood how Jimmy Saville happened until this situation and it all became so clear. it became clear how people are prepared not to respect a girls boundaries for fear of upsetting an higher profile man, it became clear how a 'not xxx, he is so nice, buys a raffle ticket blah blah' could mean policies that exist are not followed unless someone is prepared to push very hard and risk their career etc to get them followed. I also finally understood that something can happen in front of lots of people and everyone can just write it off 'that's just how xxxx is and he is ok'.

At work we are always told 'it could happen here' but I really feel the wider society is still on 'that would never happen'

Organisations that do this are playing with fire, both for themselves and the girls. The legal action combined with the explosive bad publicity could shut them down - can they not see that?

[quote MillieEpple]@ANewCreation - these are such important points. My interest is safeguarding came from my childs a swim club where a just-teen girl complained about being hugged repeatedly by a male coach, who carried on hugging her after she complained. Then other girls came forward and said it made them uncomfortable too. Eventually he was dismissed because he refused to undertake safeguarding training - in breach of the clubs own policy. They hadnt made xxx do it before as he was so special (long standing member, old and friendly)

After he was dismissed for not doing safeguarding training (rather than touching girls without consent) the club shared their finding with the over arching body as he also volunteers at meets right up to a national level.

He still volunteers at those meets and is a big part of the community. The club got a 'no evidence of wrongdoing response'.

So you are right there is still an 'evidence of wrongdoing' mentality rather than a 'stop it happening mentality' and zero understanding of consent, grooming or even how someone might get their kicks out of hugging a 13 year old in a swim costume in full public view knowing she hates it and no one stopping him. Because 'he is just friendly and its not sexual'

There is so much to do.[/quote]
Jesus fucking wept.

I really hope that all those girls understood very clearly that the coach had transgressed boundaries, that they'd done the right thing, and got support for speaking up. Very concerning that such a basic understanding of consent and suitable behaviour wasn't understood.

I filled in the VAWG consultation but didn't mention the safeguarding specifically, as I was focussing on other issues. I wonder if one can fill it in more than once?

They never answered my question about the insurance when I emailed.

No ones been able to explain what happens with insurance. Especially if the insurance hasn't been updated with SW policies

This is why I don't understand how Girl Guiding can stand by their current trans inclusive policies. They have become mixed sex but are not telling their users...

An organisation can be trans inclusive but still retain basic safeguarding for girls, based on sex.

If you have a problem with safeguarding then you are a safeguarding problem.

That’s all that needs saying. However many times it takes.

@highame

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

... I think that's all of them.

@ANewCreation - these are such important points. My interest is safeguarding came from my childs a swim club where a just-teen girl complained about being hugged repeatedly by a male coach, who carried on hugging her after she complained. Then other girls came forward and said it made them uncomfortable too. Eventually he was dismissed because he refused to undertake safeguarding training - in breach of the clubs own policy. They hadnt made xxx do it before as he was so special (long standing member, old and friendly)

After he was dismissed for not doing safeguarding training (rather than touching girls without consent) the club shared their finding with the over arching body as he also volunteers at meets right up to a national level.

He still volunteers at those meets and is a big part of the community. The club got a 'no evidence of wrongdoing response'.

So you are right there is still an 'evidence of wrongdoing' mentality rather than a 'stop it happening mentality' and zero understanding of consent, grooming or even how someone might get their kicks out of hugging a 13 year old in a swim costume in full public view knowing she hates it and no one stopping him. Because 'he is just friendly and its not sexual'

There is so much to do.

Thanks Datum should have read the OP before jumping to conclusions Will now start again

Absolutely @fallingirl. Shut the door, don't leave it open & look to the courts for a remedy.

Everyone please complete your 'Violence to women & girls' gvmt consultation survey, as this is one of the points to include.

I'll start a new thread with the link, we have 1 week left (deadline 19/2/2021)

Speaking very carefully as this is potentially outing, the problem is that even those responsible for Safeguarding/on LA's Children's Safeguarding boards, those whom we rely on to flag up the red flags, have been seemingly captured by ideology surrounding the sacred caste.

Due to his gender identity, a heterosexual teenage boy (16) was the only boy allowed to share a tent/dormitory/facilities for a fortnight with girls, even though the girls had signed explicit consent to single sex (sic) spaces.

I took this up with the National Citizenship Scheme (NCS) and the local authority's Children's Safeguarding Board; they both showed a worrying lack of understanding of Safeguarding and Equality law.

NCS felt that because this particular boy 'identified as a girl' that he was one and that the girls - some of whom had only just met him - had given their informed consent to sharing a room with "her". Yet nowhere on the NCS application form did they ask about Sex - just Gender - so they failed from the outset in their duty to set up a Safeguarding structure to keep girls safe. Plus a clear case of discrimination/indirect discrimination etc.

I asked to see a copy of their Safeguarding Team's risk assessment for this scenario but they had not done one. And, yes, I hate to say it but their policies for adult helpers leave them wide open to abuse.

The LA's Children's Safeguarding Board response was to ask if "anything inappropriate had happened" and batted it back to me to take up with NCS.

Yes, something inappropriate happened - a child Safeguarding board handwaved away the boundaries and consent of teenage girls.

It is disturbing when Safeguarding authorities don't really seem to understand the purpose and nature of safeguarding frameworks which is partly to attempt to STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE because we already understand what the risks are, rather than just trying to pick up the pieces once the bad thing has happened.

This is an area where I believe the law on Safeguarding is being misinterpreted, including in the Thread with the minister for Safeguarding today.

The case-by-case basis is not supposed to be about 'how nice does this particular individual seem?' 'Did anything inappropriate happen?'

This is not Safeguarding.

Rather, that the principle of, say, a single sex space for the safety, privacy and dignity of girls means that, in overnight sleeping accommodation for teenage strangers, only people of the female sex should be in there. And that all males, the lovely ones, the gay ones, the vulnerable and the confused ones, the trans ones together with the occasional downright awful ones should not.

No exceptions.

The simplest, most basic, most effective safeguarding mechanism is keeping certain facilities separated by sex.