You are safe with me

I would avoid anyone wearing that badge as it is the equivalent of a red flag-klaxon.

It's the equivalent of love bombing, isn't it? And I've been on relationships long enough to know that's red flag.

I think it'd be a very rare occurrence for someone with ill-intent to buy that badge

You think, do you? I don't see much sign of that.

IDK what the fuss is about. Everyone knows a bloke wearing a 'Trust Me' badge is definitely a good 'un.

If someone's wearing that I'm afraid my immediate reaction would be 'and why are you trying to reassure me it's safe to be with you, grandma?'

Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris would have loved these!

It isn’t a substitute for a DBS check no. But which children and adolescents are going to know this?

This is signalling non the less. Just like rainbow lanyards and such. These signals are all
adding up to create a message of trust. I think it is foolish to deny this is happening.

And combined with the other successful messaging that is happening, about love has no age and other boundary lowering messages this is another boundary breaching tool. And when you listen to your teen’s 14/15 year old friends telling each other that lesbians do trans dick or else they are transphobic, you understand the overall impact of the messaging.

And yes, it certainly will not be ‘all’ badge wearers that are going to cause issues. Just like it is not ‘all’ police that have used their position for abuse or ‘all’ priests, or ‘all’ any group. However, there will still be a proportion of them that will.

Of course, it is not just sexual and other boundaries that could be crossed. It is also reinforcing the feeling of alienation that these children and teens feel. That someone wears a badge declaring they are ‘allies’ subtly and no one else at an event does reinforces that sense of isolation that is being weaponised. And if you believe it is not being weaponised, why does Stonewall keep using language and messages that builds on these feelings? Just continuing the message about suicide Is enough to communicate the sense of vulnerability and that society in general doesn’t care enough. It has been shown across countries to not be true, yet the message is repeated all the time.

We know some people cannot see the complete lack of safeguarding in many of these people who are setting up events or writing content for children or in positions of setting policy etc. There are many reasons they cannot see it. How many times have we seen a rare poster declare there is nothing to see when male individuals are being led like a dog in a dog suit having children pat them? So, I am quite aware that there are people who won’t understand the layering of messaging going on.

These badges are just another layer of signalling. And no DBS checks needed.

I remember the 70s and growing up, and the relentless messaging on not getting into cars with strangers, not taking sweets from strangers, hell, not talking to strangers.

Yes, the police were strangers, doctors were strangers, teachers could be strangers, and we all know how badly that can go too. And did.

Now we're really asking to unwind all that? To go against decades of safeguarding and plain common sense advice for kids and vulnerable people, so that strangers wearing this badge just declare as SAFE, and that's ok then?

And by inference, those not wearing are UNSAFE?

Yes, the police, doctors/nurses, teachers etc, up to a point you have to take their badges on trust. But as a rule everyone has to prove their trustworthiness, and you have to assume the worst in many cases.

Now this badge is going to throw a giant spanner in the works.

How many more transgressions is this movement going to make before society really starts thinking more clearly?

I mean it's clear from.some views shown that some of the LGBT community are hostile towards others in it (to put it mildly!)

My rule of thumb is that the more letters in the acronym, the more likely it’s not supportive of lesbians & the L is just there for window-dressing.

100%

I'm sure Tennant's fine and all, but ick that badge! Just naw ! Run kids !
Don't trust anyone who is so eager to make you break down your boundaries. Not everyone is your friend, just because they say they are.(Something I could have done with knowing when I was a youngster). I dread to think who else will wear that badge with glee.

I think the badge is well-intentioned, but nobody should wear one. And if a child, or perhaps a person with SEN, gets a dodgy feeling from someone, would such a badge cause the child to ignore their instincts for self preservation?

A child with ASD might take such a badge at face value. (I think I might have the condition)
When I was small, I nearly fell prey to a child abuser. I knew not to accept sweets from strangers, but no-one thought to warn me about offers to show me a litter of puppies.

Kind of related in a way: a fair while ago I remember parents being advised not to give their children t-shirts with their name on, or those little name necklaces. Anyone can go up to such a child, and know their name. The child won't know that person just read their name.

Ah OK, fair enough that's annoying then and she sounds nice and helpful

You're only going by that poster's word that he's got nearly a page long signature, that you've just extended to a whole page worth of...
It's like the Magic Porridge Pot, it just keeps expanding and growing lol shows age

Or are you just saying that as you deem him "woke" as he has "nearly a page long" signature?

I wouldn't know if he was "woke," or not, but it certainly says to me that he's a tedious, attention-seeking, unprofessional oddball.

A whole page of flags and pronouns? For goodness sake!

Is he genuinely not helpful, not nice? Or are you just saying that as you deem him "woke" as he has "nearly a page long" signature?

I'm fairly sure he's nice. But when I send a HELP, I NEED ASSISTANCE TO STOP THIS PERSON BECOMING HOMELESS email, she replies in about ten minutes and he almost never replies. All the vulnerable people I work with talk to her, because she gets it done. And she will work with the 'harder to engage' when everyone else has given up. He doesn't even try.

Imagine if you were on a first date and someone actually said those words, apropos of nothing. You'd be out the bathroom window so quickly, with a trail of red flags behind you!

I'm an older woman too. You know that she wouldn't mind you calling her crusty on the internet?
Ok.
Is he genuinely not helpful, not nice? Or are you just saying that as you deem him "woke" as he has "nearly a page long" signature?

The real message is: and anyone not wearing this badge is unsafe.

Interesting, isn't it?

Because I understand the sentiment. I really do. But in reality it's one of those things isn't it, where actually predators and allies end up in the same boat, undermining any decent intentions. Or worse, making it *easier' for predators to seem so much safer: it's the people who believe in chromosomes. They're the real threat. And they don't wear badges, oh no.

That's good to hear (genuinely)

Ah right ok, that's not how I read the badge at all so thanks for clarifying.
I mean, to me it doesn't make sense that some think it's just straight people who aren't safe towards the LGBT community, I mean it's clear from.some views shown that some of the LGBT community are hostile towards others in it (to put it mildly!)
I don't think it's just an "I'm straight, I'm safe!" thing at all

I'm GC. I'm also completely safe to be around regardless of your sexuality or gender identity despite not wearing a badge.

I'm safe to the extent that I'm one of the only parents who knows that DS2s best friend is gay.

I'm safe to the extent that when DS1s non binary friend woke up in the park not knowing how they got there or if they'd been attacked or not, I was the only adult they would let come and help.

I'm safe even though I don't wear a badge. These kids know I'm safe because of how I treat them.

I'm not calling older women crusty. I am an older woman. I'm calling her crusty. She wouldn't give a shit. By all means feel comfy with him. He won't be helpful.

I work with (being vague) two people who should be very very good at their jobs and they are fairly well paid. Think Council or similar. One of them is a young man, terribly woke. His signature runs to almost a page (I'm not joking) with declarations, BLM, rainbow flags, quotes and other assorted virtue signalling. The other is a crusty older woman with her name and number.
Urgh, see I'd much more feel comfortable around someone who had almost a page long signature of woke rainbow flags quotes etc (almost a page long signature? Really?l ) as they seem to me like they'd be approachable, whereas you calling older women crusty gives me bigger urgh vibes than anyone supporting LGBT rights ever would.

Yes! I’d immediately want to move away from the badged-person.