Girl Guiding Safeguarding Concerns

Thank you for posting. Excellent piece by Safe Schools Alliance.

I think it was aimed at ace as that was what the tweet was against.

I am also part of the ace umbrella. I am demisexual. It would be completely inappropriate to discuss this with children. I would have to explain that I only would have sex with someone I felt a deep emotional connection with. That is a completely inappropriate discussion to have with someone else’s child. I don’t have it with my own primary school children.

They should stay away from all sexual orientations. GG can do so many amazing things involving camping, skills etc, etc.

actively holds discriminatory views towards children of other faiths and beliefs.

AND sexualities.

General social groups meant to be impartially welcoming children of all faiths and beliefs should not teach one of those beliefs as specifically dominant over others, and really it's questionable that they should be teaching about faith at all. Children get this learning in other places from better qualified people.

Sexuality is exactly the same. The group welcomes all, and all do the activities regardless of their diversity. The group is not there to teach them anything, particularly politically biased information intended to specifically weight children's opinions in a way that suits a specific adult agenda. And let's be honest, this is exactly what it is. There are words for what this is. It's not even remotely acceptable.

And some of the subjects of concern are both beliefs and sexuality and the belief being pushed actively holds discriminatory views towards children of other faiths and beliefs.

Absolutely unjustifiable.

I agree with PPs who say that these conversations should only be the remit of the child's parents or people who are properly trained to have these conversations with children and are supervised and vetted to do so responsibly. Breaking down boundaries of what and what isn't acceptable to discuss between children and adults is very dangerous. Without those boundaries in place, children don't hear alarm bells when an adult with bad intentions strikes up inappropriate conversations with them.

Furthermore, delivering sex education is an absolutely grave responsibility that needs to be properly planned. I used to deliver sex ed lessons and part of it is planning exactly how you're going to answer tricky questions in an appropriate way. When these conversations become casual between children and adults who aren't their parents and aren't trained to handle them, they can stray into areas that the adult isn't prepared to tackle properly.

I'm concerned that some people seem to think that saying this could be bigotry. It's absolutely appropriate for children to be aware of different sexualities and to discuss them in the context of families- for example, a leader talking about their holiday with their partner. What concerns me is discussions of sexual feelings etc. Children get this information in an age appropriate way in school sex ed and from their parents. They don't need it from adults in their extra curricular activities without proper training to deliver it.

So either the problem is safeguarding in relation to discussion of all sexualities and sexual matters in GG (which I would support and see where you are coming from) or it is discriminatory against asexual people.

Asexuality is the topic of the SSA memo, because that's the topic GGUK chose to tweet about with seemingly no regard for safeguarding considerations. It's an answer to the immediate issue. Why are you whatabouting? I don't particularly want them to be promoting anything that falls under the PSHE remit, but as ACE is what they are pushing, ACE is what's being addressed.

What a good post Artichokeleaves. Especially this:
There are now too many very confused adults without a grip on basic social appropriacy and with way too much commitment to arguing safeguarding boundaries out of the way. Anyone doing this must automatically be regarded with due caution as to their motives. This is a situation in which the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate. Being kind to adults is absolutely irrelevant.
It's very scary that GG ever permitted themselves to become confused on this. I'm afraid they are probably now fatally compromised, and it's down to poor safeguarding and absolutely shocking basic competency, standards and personal boundaries on the part of those leading this mess.

In the past we've been lectured on here by adults who claim an expertise in sex ed / working with children, while their every post displays a comprehensive lack of understanding of safeguarding children /child development along with a level of self obsession that renders them unfit to be working with children.

Parents now have to call out organisations allowing these people power over the young. They're too bloody dangerous to left to run amok with their personal agendas.

I also think Stonewall, Mermaids et al do themselves no favours whatsoever by showing such over eagerness to open up these conversations with children, and doing it with no qualifications to advise on safeguarding (which is impartially for all children, not just the ones of interest to this political lobby group) and not only disregard for safeguarding but a whole lot of obfustication and reasons why safeguarding should come second to their agenda.

Serious case review rule 1: Think the unthinkable. Do not ever assume that everyone is acting from pure motives. Did you properly consider the possibility that you failed to thoroughly consider what if this person/party is not acting in good faith?

rule 2: Ask the difficult questions. Were you too afraid of upsetting people to be challenging, thorough, to investigate what was going on behind that person/party's actions and involvement, and avoided anything that might be regarded as offensive or suspicious?

rule 3: have you been sucked into meeting the needs and the agenda of difficult or challenging or needy adults and devoting your time and interests to them instead of remaining solely focused on the best interests and safeguarding of the party you are there to safeguard?

I think the first step of appropriacy is a) everyone without exception is safeguarding trained and assessed to be competent to be working in this capacity - remembering a member of the Green party where an inquiry described their not having the capacity to understand safeguarding after repeated attempts to help them.

and b) is in a situation where it is not possible for adults to be confused on their role or whether what they are doing is appropriate, and where it is absolutely certain that what is happening is solely for the benefit of children and not for the benefit, self expression or affirmation of the adult.

This does mean in fact that anyone working in this capacity should be working in a professional, qualified, supervised role with ongoing assessment of competency and performance. Which restricts it and means it should not be something that a social club for girls gets involved in. Safeguarding now needs to mean: no one outside of these set professional, qualified, supervised roles may involve themselves in these conversations with children.

There are now too many very confused adults without a grip on basic social appropriacy and with way too much committment to arguing safeguarding boundaries out of the way. Anyone doing this must automatically be regarded with due caution as to their motives. This is a situation in which the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate. Being kind to adults is absolutely irrelevant.

It's very scary that GG ever permitted themselves to become confused on this. I'm afraid they are probably now fatally compromised, and it's down to poor safeguarding and absolutely shocking basic competency, standards and personal boundaries on the part of those leading this mess.

Personally, I think the issue is specific to how GG (but equally could apply to many other organisations) deal with the complex issue of adult volunteers/child & young person participants/inclusion and safeguarding.
Activities and clubs for kids are always targeted by people with bad intention - GG have traditionally a very good track record in keeping girls safe, however recent issues have been reported on in Scouts (especially in the USA) gymnastics, football - affecting both boys and girls.
This particular discussion has been instigated by GG tweeting about ace but it's surely about the wider implications of talking about sex and sexualities to a young audience and how you do that appropriately?

It is interesting that the example given by KatieAlcock mentions pansexuality. It could just as easily be homosexuality or heterosexuality, words which are not familiar to children.

But the statement above is not about all discussions of sexuality and safeguarding. It is about asexuality, and it is not just about safe-guarding, it makes ill-informed statements about asexuality and does not even get it right what it is.

So either the problem is safeguarding in relation to discussion of all sexualities and sexual matters in GG (which I would support and see where you are coming from) or it is discriminatory against asexual people.

Also, there could be a plethora of reasons for what you term a "parenting fail". Some parents might not have the resources for their children to have anything other than shared technology, making the chances of one sibling seeing the other's higher. Some parents are too disabled, too hard keeping food on the table, don't have the intellectual capacity or technological ability, etc etc to be able to monitor their children's use of technology.

And why wouldn't a 13 or 14 year old guide share something she's seen on the GGUK social media with a younger sibling? How is she to know that content produced by GGUK is not age appropriate?

Do they though? I don’t think my DS has ever read my DD’s phone, it has a pin code. That’s a parenting fail if they do.

And? Parents fail. That's not the kids' fault, nor should it mean the children of these parents don't deserve protection.

Anyone wishing to send the link should send it to here:

[email protected]

I would have thought a person with predatory intentions would use any leverage to gain trust.

I don’t get how the ace label could be used to gain a false sense of trust any more than someone saying they are married or in a relationship to be honest. In fact, it was this point that was on my mind when I was thinking about this at 6am. The point is that the behaviours are wrong, if you are talking about inappropriate physical or sexual contact. As soon as you start stereotyping the type of person likely to do this or not, you have lost sight of that basic fact.

Sorry mama - I think we are actually in agreement on this point after all.

My point being (albeit not well made) that anything posted on a facebook page cannot be said to be aimed at adults, when 13 year olds can access it easily. And yes, to all those saying children younger than this have, or access social media.

And many younger children read older siblings' accounts.
Hey Lily, your Brown Owl says she's pansexual.
Brown Owl, what does pansexual mean?

True, yet many kids access social media much younger. Most of the teens I know have WhatsApp with their parents knowledge and permission. They're younger than the sign up age.
It's disingenuous to suggest that an age limit such as Facebook have is followed and can be relied on as a bar.

The age limit for creating a facebook account is 13 years old.

Whether GG is the appropriate place to do it is another matter
I think this actually is the crux of the matter.
GG are trying, following a survey of members, to be more inclusive. They are also an organisation that does know how important safeguarding is. Concerns are being raised - not whether Leaders are ace, or lesbians, etc, as many are, but how appropriate it is to approach inclusion and diversity the way they have.
The snag being Leaders are volunteers, not paid professionals. They receive quite a lot of training around safeguarding and one of the red flags is children talking about sex in a way that is not appropriate to their age.
It's a difficult balance to get right - being open and inclusive whilst maintaining an awareness of where there may be underlying issues.
Anecdotally - I have a teen DD and she knows several of her friends who say they are ace. Except they're not, they use this label as a way to shut down discussion and unwanted speculation about their own identities and orientation. I'm not second guessing their motives, they have said this quite explicitly themselves. Whilst for many people asexuality is real, for many teenage girls it's a protection.
So, whilst there's no obvious harm in a teenage girl saying she's ace especially if this gets her more privacy and safety - and there are no restrictions in changing this if you subsequently discover it's not the right descriptor for you - the harm is in what it may be concealing..
The other risk that SSUK rightly identify is adults using this label as a way to present themselves as unthreatening towards children.
This is not to paint anyone who is ace as a potential pedophile but to say this label could be used to create a false sense of trust.

1-3 on this statement are true of any discussion of sexuality, surely.
4 - ditto, if not age appropriate

5 - 6 may be true but the point surely as per 1-3 is that GG leaders are not experts and really could not say. I am struggling to think of a situation where a young person, eg 14, would say they are asexual without sexuality or boyfriends or such like being discussed anyway. The best I can come up with is if they are discussing books, say Loveless by Alice Oseman, and in any case, the conversation would move on. It would be completely inappropriate for a leader to jump in and say, no, you are not. In the unlikely hypothetical scenario where a young person confided in a leader that they thought they were asexual, surely the appropriate response is to ask if they have spoken to anyone else about this and point them in the right direction of an appropriate person, if they want to speak to anyone else, not to start telling them the reasons why they might not be. What would a leader do if a young person (again 14, not 10) said they thought they might be gay? Or that they had a boyfriend? Apart from anything else, no person, regardless of sexuality, has to have sex anyway and that is the basics of consent. I am not seeing the unique danger asexuality poses in 14 year old discussions. There either need to be protocols for all discussion of sexuality or it is discriminatory.

1. This is not an issue solely to asexuality.

1. This is a question of context. The FB post was presumably aimed at adults, not children. Why is a post aimed at adults related to diversity a safe-guarding issue?

1. The definition of asexuality is wrong here, and builds a straw man to knock down. There is quite a scholarly literature in the last fifteen years or so, which is around the definition of asexuality and indeed, the experiences of asexual people. The consensus is that it is a lack of sexual attraction. Asexual people do, according to the literature, generally have either no sexual desire or lower sexual desire but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Regardless, the key point is around consent, which is important regardless of orientation. And asexuality is increasingly regarded in scholarly literature as an orientation.

Given the hypersexualised culture mentioned above, it is far, far more likely and indeed documented that young people, and I mean teens not children, will be pressured into things they don’t want to do with boys they are attracted to and in a relationship with - ie conventionally heterosexual young people.

The idea that sex is some sort of obligation has its longest history in marriage, and heterosexual relationships. Positing that asexuality presents some kind of unique danger is bizarre. The safeguarding is teaching and consistently reiterating messages about consent, surely, in an age appropriate manner. Whether GG is the appropriate place to do it is another matter.

So in short, if there are arguments to be made about safe guarding, these are general and it is discriminatory to raise them solely by focusing on asexuality. I can see that the post about Ace Week is the springboard and there are concerns about Stonewall’s diversity scheme being behind this (are these evidenced in this case?), but the letter as it stands seems to single out discussion of asexuality as particularly dangerous for young people.

As I said on the other thread, my DD said she would have been quite happy age 14 to know that asexuality was a thing. It would have saved her a lot of angst about something being wrong with her. It is not particularly dangerous for teenagers to know about asexuality any more than it is dangerous for them to know about sex. The question is what is appropriate to discuss in GG, which surely applies to all sexualities. (And yes, I know that GG did not mention Lesbian Visibility week, but that is not in the letter above).

Plus, the parallel to a sexual person of whatever orientation saying, in brief mention, that they had a husband, partner, girlfriend (deemed okay) is an asexual person saying they are not in a relationship (surely also okay?). Just because they post on a FB page (aimed at adults) that they are ace, does this mean that they are suddenly going to be announcing it to ten year olds anymore than the sexual person would say what they had been up to the night before. Or is the underlying message that really, ace people are not welcome in GG as leaders?