If Only Bigots Have Boundaries - How Will Safeguarding Be Possible In This Brave New World?

When I trained as a school governor it was all about safeguarding. 15 years later the buzz word seems to be “offence” and insanely it seems that if a school visitor wandered round with their trousers round their ankles dangling their penis about the first thought would be a) are they a woman and b) their mental health and somewhere around z) would be the kids’ welfare.

Some people seem to be under the impression that "safeguarding" means imagining somewhere safe, a woodland glade perhaps, with elves and rainbows, where everyone is lovely and nice and lives happily ever after together.

Safeguarding in reality means:

-imagining the worst case scenario, arising either accidentally or deliberately
-asking awkward questions
-saying No
-sticking your head above the parapet if you feel something is not right
-prioritising the safety of the vulnerable above the feelings of everyone else
-taking action rather than hoping something might just go away

We need to start shouting about it. Loudly.

Personally I want a deep dive into the hard drives of adults arguing that children have no right to boundaries and that they and women must accept the presence of any random male penis if said male chooses.

Maybe those space aliens have a device that zaps any person who has abusive thoughts towards another person.

Then I guess we might tone down the safeguarding. When a male is in the news for buying a boarding school to have access to victims, not sure why people think safeguarding should bypass any person on this planet.

I am saddened that I no longer believe in a fairytale world though.

Who could possibly be offended by safeguarding that protects women and children? 🤔

Safeguarding presumes worst case scenario. That's the fucking point. Yes most males aren't sex offenders, but most sex offenders ARE male.

It doesn't matter if a tiny minority 'see the world differently', it doesn't change the facts.

@ifyourefeelingsinsiter: "they need to consider why their sense of offence overrides the safety of women and children."

And why everybody else gets to say who's part of their group. I mean, god forbid you should identify as a black or American Indian merely on your say-so. But groups of women are to be told.

Some might be pleased to include males. Some not. Why are women the only group without veto power over who takes part?

The basis of safeguarding is to always presume the worse of everyone, so stop that and yes you may as well do away with safeguarding.

We have our current system due to the massive overhaul after Ian Huntley, I think people often forget that.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

I think this answers your question, EmbarrassingAdmissions.

In this brave new world, safeguarding will be done away with completely as people like trollopolis have been trained to think that safeguarding = "assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts".

This proudly display of ignorance is utterly depressing, and it's women and girls who will suffer from people with influence and power going along with this kind of cloudy, illogical thinking.

assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong

So we should stop safeguarding altogether because everyone share some characteristics with perverts in some way or other.

Should the fact that males commit 98% of sex crimes, and not one bit of evidence exists to say that transitioned males have female levels of criminality, should be ignored too? Because we are all human?

You won't die if you use the correct changing room for your sex, or even just use a cubicle (if not).

Sex and child safety will always trump gender identity - or should but I don't know with the way things are going. Doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist to believe that

I agree op. Wanting single sex spaces isn't bigoted, and safeguarding is about mitigating risks to keep more vulnerable people safe. If this offends certain sections of the population, they need to consider why their sense of offence overrides the safety of women and children.

I assume you are in favour of abandoning the DBS system because it's 'just plain wrong'?

Well, if you're going to talk about an invented world, then perhaps it'll be done by space aliens with pet lizards and a 5G chipping machine.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.