Safeguarding exceptions.

Imagine a house, with doors and windows that all bolt. Carefully lock all the doors and windows. Leave one open, because a housemate asks you to because they need to get in later.

Is your house safe? Yes, the housemate can get in. And who else? Will the law abiding passers by clamber in? Or will it be those up to know good?

Anyone asking or persuading you to leave a window open is making everyone else vulnerable. Anyone using a window is up to no good.

Sticking a label on a window and claiming it's a door doesn't make it ok.

Any area where people are vulnerable attracts predators like vultures. It's not very nice to acknowledge that there are people like this in society, but it's a fairly logical process if you look at it dispassionately

And they of course will be the nicest people you have ever met. Long glowing records, active parts of the community, everyone's trusted baby sitter/village tutor/ lovely elderly neighbour who has donated money to the school for end of year dances for decades and changed your parents nappies when they were a kid.

They will be the last person you would ever suspect. And the one person you think " just this once won't hurt" ..

As you say they will have memorised planned for and exploited every safeguarding loop hole there is

Predators actively look for weak points in safeguarding. It's not that some people just accidentally fall through a net - a predator makes it their business to know points of vulnerability, ways to circumvent and overcome obstacles. They will exploit these. So when it is noticed that there are certain characteristics that encourage trust or a letting-down of boundaries, predators will be encouraged to take on those characteristics in order to make use of this weakness.

Any area where people are vulnerable attracts predators like vultures. It's not very nice to acknowledge that there are people like this in society, but it's a fairly logical process if you look at it dispassionately.

Great thread, thank you.

The sad thing is I've known several people in different charities with responsibility for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults who do see safeguarding as 'nanny state gone mad'

And, worse, staff are shamed for 'overreacting' or worse, being ridiculous uncool in the face of the CEOs mad, narcissistic social justice pursuit.

I have seen this in several small charities and I will never, ever trust my children into the care of such an organisation.

Unregulated non-statutory third sector organisations are a huge risk because they are full of blasé idiots who are only in it for the reflected glory and they couldn't give a fuck about something as square as safeguarding.

I’ve worked in schools for a long time now.

Every time I get a new job I have to apply for a new DBS. In fact I was in post at one place a long time so my DBS needed updating whilst I was there.

This is exactly how it should be. It’s the best system we have of protecting children.

If I went to a school and they said “nah, it’s cool, we don’t check stuff like that.” I would be very, very worried about them.

Safeguarding seems like bureaucracy and 'ealth and safety gorn maad...

Until you see abuse in action, predators in action, and sloppy safeguarding in action. Then you realise how essential it is.

When you see a man who worked supply at your local school in court for his behaviour with pupils in that school...
When you discover a parent helper at a club has been building friendships with children outside the club...
When you find a married man has been having an affair with his daughter's friend still at school, and works in a care capacity with responsibility for young girls...

Absolutely anyone could be a risk. Certain boundaries are in place to minimise the opportunities available to the small number who offend- and offend multiple times, as they do.

These behaviours don't occur occasionally. People who 'upskirt' have hundreds of images- hundreds of offences.

We have a few really strong barriers to those behaviours, we need every one of them.

Just because we can't protect against everything all the time doesn't mean we shouldn't bother safeguarding at all.

Seat belts occasionally hurt or kill people its still law to wear them. It saves more than it harms.

In the event of new occurrences safeguarding should be added to. Not removed.

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

Yesss

Thanks for this thread, it’s always good to talk about safeguarding and ensure people know about safeguarding.

Safeguarding is one of those rare things in life that are absolutely black and white:

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

And it means that any predator will just assume the mantle of those who fondly think safeguarding doesn't apply to them.

Also I feel I should add, as a complete random on the internet, we don't accept people's words at face value. We seek out people who have solid experience, qualifications, knowledge, skills and credentials and look for EVIDENCE. Not emotions, not feels, not anecdotes. So we need safeguarding professionals to assess these things, not lobby groups, pressure groups, support groups etc.

I've seen safeguarding described as the opposite of the justice system. We don't presume everyone is innocent until proven otherwise - we put procedures in place to try to remove - or at least minimise - or at very least lessen - the possibility of having to find out.

As Scully says, it's for the benefit and safety of everyone involved.

This is brilliant OP! 👏👏👏

Good responses too, I've booked marked a few already. 🙏

Yep!

Fundamental to effective safeguarding is an attitude of 'it could happen here'. It's in every decent bit of safeguarding training.Every policy.

That doesn't mean 'everyone is a paedo or abuser' it means 'anyone could be'.

Its so fundamental to safeguarding its deeply concerning that it can be ridden over roughshod by ANY individual or group, especially on the basis of hurting feelings.

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

Great thread. Individuals and organisations who attempt to undermine safeguarding - especially of children - diminish us all.

Safeguarding is gate keeping. If you leave the gate standing open for some then it is open for all, including predators. There is no point having a fence at all.

Hear hear! 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩

Safeguarding is also for the benefit of both parties involved.

Asking for it to not be applied to protect one person's feelings also means willingly placing the other person into a situation where they can face danger or the risk of accusations. The other people have rights too. The rights not to be forced to do something against their will or against regulations and risk losing their job.

We should all be wary of those who would take a job where safeguarding can be ignored at any given time on.the request of only one person involved in the situation

Yes safeguarding affects everybody. Law abiding individuals, lawbreakers. The lot. No one gets a free pass.