LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

Fwiw I think your suggestion was clear from the start and I learnt a lot from your comments, thank you.

My suggestion was having two buttons on a website, or two websites. One for children, one for adults.

That was it. That was all.

This would provide a very clear distinction for users, which helps to assert boundaries.

I am also giving up, though.

Wishing the helpline and those running it all the very best, I think it's sorely needed and a great idea.

But you still haven't said it in a way most of us can understand.

You have certainly implied that this is because those who can't see your point are stupid/ uneducated/ ill informed. We must be, because there's nothing unclear about what you have written, so you keep asserting.

You have repeatedly taken the time and effort to come back to tell us this, while also telling us you're too busy/ tired of this conversation to explain further.

It's not helping your case, nor helping to make the helpline any better (which I'm starting to think might actually be your aim).

Do you think the separtion into two portals sufficient to address the issues? Or is that still problematic given the difficulty of ascertaining true ages? And if the latter are those problems insurmountable?

Ill ask you directly: have you bothered feeding your grave concerns and expert suggestions back to LGBA? Are you really interested in making a positive difference?

But you said the problem is this:

They have set up a chat line for discussions with teens and adults about sex.

Discussions about orientation will always be at the base, about sex.

Do you not see how any of those discussions can be exploited into discussions about sex at all?

I'm confused, I think I fancy my same sex best friend. How do I tell her?
How are you confused, how does this affect your body when you see your best friend? [line crossed]

'I'm 23 and think I'm a lesbian. How can I meet like minded people in our small town

This one is excellent. <discusses with lesbian how to find like minded people> <goes to places that person discusses>

And again, how does one know that the 23 year old is not 13? Don't tell me, you assume something else?

How is having two ways of coming into the service going to solve any of those things?

I really don't get this. I think we can all agree that a help service for teenagers and young adults needs careful recruitment and training, and proper safeguarding policies for over a
18s and under 18s. But I don't get how having two routes into the service will prevent any of the above. No service can achieve zero risk, and exist.

Childline is for anyone under the age of 19. They’ve successfully operated for years taking calls from clients and young adults calling the same number, so it can be done. I’ve no doubt they also get targeted by perverts and trolls.

Ok you've broken me. Finally.

I'm out of here.

I think there should be two ways of coming into the service, with separate frameworks.

I've said this multiple times.

I've never called anyone stupid.

I've stated that if people are on here saying they don't understand safeguarding, whilst accusing people who have had to deliver sensitive services and have had to do safeguarding of all sorts, then maybe go do a course on safeguarding.

If you cannot see the issues that's not on me.

Is the answer that there can never be any form of support for teenagers and young adults regarding sexuality?

Because if the objection is that an adult with the intention to talk to teenagers about sex, will apply to work on this project, pass DBS and training etc and then use their position to talk to a teenager about their sexual arousal re their friend, or recommend lesbian meet ups to a 23 year old and then attend them, surely no organisation can ever guarantee to prevent that? Any more than DBS etc prevents a teacher or doctor from doing that?

The easiest way to manage risk is to not take any risks. So is the answer that no organisation can provide a online 1-1 support service for young people considering their sexuality, a blanket ban?

Yes, clearly there are many differences.

I am ignorant and naive, and asking my questions in good faith.

I still see a big difference between mermaids ( encouragement to a medical pathway) and a helpline for potentially LGB people.

I think it is reasonable to ask about the safeguarding and training, but not reasonable to trash the whole idea just because.

How do you know if someone chatting on an ‘over 18’ service isn’t 13? We’ve been here before. The same risks apply. You are making as many assumptions. Many of which seem to boil down to the LGBA can’t devise policies and apply safeguarding processes as well as you.

Are you just saying you want the service shut down, no ifs, no buts?

If so, then it would be clearer to specifically say that.

I really don't see the need to be so rude and dismissive.

I only mentioned the degrees because you had previously said that anyone who can't see what the specific problem is must be stupid(paraphrasing, can't be arsed to scroll back for the actual quote). It was to confer intellectual adequacy, not superiority. But you seem determined to misinterpret everything I say.

Most posters here, including myself, agree with you that there is the potential for problems if the service is not managed carefully. Not being able to see an issue AT ALL is a strawman that you seem determined to hang on to.

I am interested in specifics of how we deal with those problems, and whether or not they are insurmountable.

You won't say. You just keep repeating that there is a problem. Yes, we know, most posters seem to agree with you on that. I'm trying to move the conversation on to what the solution could be.

Can you not see that just raising concerns while not attempting to address them plays into the hands of those who would like to shut this initiative down completely? It leaves your posts open to the criticism that if a poster can't/wont articulate what their point is, despite repeatedly coming back to post about it, they don't actually have any substance to their 'point'.

I understand your passion. I can't understand your rudeness/ dismissiveness/ refusal to engage (while repeatedly engaging).

Again with the assumptions.

They have set up a chat line for discussions with teens and adults about sex.

Discussions about orientation will always be at the base, about sex.

Do you not see how any of those discussions can be exploited into discussions about sex at all?

I'm confused, I think I fancy my same sex best friend. How do I tell her?
How are you confused, how does this affect your body when you see your best friend? [line crossed]

'I'm 23 and think I'm a lesbian. How can I meet like minded people in our small town

This one is excellent. <discusses with lesbian how to find like minded people> <goes to places that person discusses>

And again, how does one know that the 23 year old is not 13? Don't tell me, you assume something else?

This blows my mind that the same levels of safeguarding that people would be screaming about from Mermaids are not being applied to LGBA. We should be applying high levels equally, whether you like them or the idea not not.

Anyway I've got pottery in an hour, maybe as well as being a bad faith actor, or uneducated, and now 'must have been hacked', people can sling a few more insults my way just for - oh yes - being concerned about safeguarding.

Is it to chat about 'sex needs' though?

I kind if assumed it would be to chat about the issues of (potentially) being gay. E.g.
. 'I'm confused, I think I fancy my same sex best friend. How do I tell her?'
. 'Hpw do I tell mum and dad I'm gay'
. 'I like glittery stuff and flamboyant clothes, school teaching tells me I'm trans, but I like rugby too'
. 'I'm 23 and think I'm a lesbian. How can I meet like minded people in our small town'

If people can't see how setting up a chat line for volunteers to chat to teenagers about sex needs a much higher level of safeguarding than 'other organisations that do the same' then I am not sure what other words to use to explain it to you.

@AlisonDonut you’re a forum regular, you know how well responses of “educate yourself” and “if you don’t know I’m not going to tell you” are received here. I genuinely wondered whether you’d been hacked earlier in this thread.

I have 7 degrees and I think this phoneline has safeguarding issues.

You inferred that you and your husband with all your assorted degrees and cleverness just cannot see what the issue is.

I have 4 degrees all of my own but I don't use that to infer intellectual superiority.

Genuinely, if people cannot see why this is a safeguarding concern then I am not sure that explaining it in words that are different to the words I've already used are going to help.

You cannot assume anything. The cries of 'obviously' from a previous poster detail the point. There is not 'obviously' in safeguarding.

Particularly with respect to whether our resident experts think minimum safeguarding standards are not being met at all, or its a case of “well ok, but I wouldn’t have done it that way myself"

Precisely, that's what I'd like to understand.

Of course it's clear that some people who want to see the service fail will be trying to trip the volunteers up and break their processes. That's not a 'safeguarding risk ' though is it? And does that mean that it shouldn't therefore exist?

It is a risk for the service that they should have anticipated and taken steps to manage - again, we don't know that they haven't.

@AlisonDonut I haven't called you a bad faith actor, and I don't think you are, (although I do think that some others on this thread are). I'm interested in what you think although I don't understand your anger towards me and others asking you questions .

LGBA know they are attracting perverts , they made a video on day one saying there was 78 abusive contacts.

They know what they are up against, and it's the reason they exist actually.

What they are not doing is putting the abusers in contact with the clients obviously.

I hope the abusers tail off to a manageable level.

I made this post https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5099388-lgb-alliance-starts-helpline-for-teens-and-young-adults?reply=136192567
several days ago in response to @Smoothiesaresoups - if she is available to reply we might get somewhere in understanding the issue in basic terms. Particularly with respect to whether our resident experts think minimum safeguarding standards are not being met at all, or its a case of “well ok, but I wouldn’t have done it that way myself”.

I had typed out a long response but fuck it.

Not accuse others of being anti safeguarding

And yet I can be called a 'bad faith actor' with no recourse.

Got it.

If you don't understand that dealing with underage people about the topic of sex is a pervert magnet then I am unsure what more I can say.

If you don't understand that a whole ream of activists will be trying to break their processes and report them for anything and everything, again I cannot explain it in more words than I already have.

Ah I meant to add, also there was the related 'lying about the age issue' - I see this could be a risk for them but again surely for any organisation dealing with over 18s only where ID can't be checked?

As I see it at the moment, some potential issues have been identified that LGBA need to have procedures in place to deal with (which they might well do, we don't know).

I haven't read anything yet to convince me that the model is not workable, with the right checks and balances.

If you think it isn't, the onus is really on you to set out why that is and what, if anything, would make it OK.

Not accuse others of being anti safeguarding.

As I can't see what the issue is as you have explained it thus far, it's difficult to articulate what would help as I'm not sure what I'm missing, iyswim.

I have discussed this with husband and he can't see it either. I'd like to think that it's not because we're complete idiots (we do have 5 degrees between us, although admittedly none of them in teaching, social work or a related subject ).

Maybe you could just spell out what, specifically, is the issue?

iirc, in the thread we've identified 2 potential issues with the 13-24 age group:
The need for different policies and procedures for over and under 18s (afaik we dont know that the service doesn't have this)
and
The fact that the age group spanning 18 perhaps encourages people or younger teens themselves to view themselves as more adult as they are, which could be problematic. I hadn't appreciated this initially.

These points could be flagged to / explored with LGBA by anyone concerned about them.

Are you saying that this age group is just so problematic that it should not be catered to by one service, in any way, even if these issues are addressed? Even though other organisations manage it?

Or is there another issue relating to the age group that I, and others, remain unaware of?

Apologies if you have explained it but I cannot find a post that does so.
In trying to understand whether you (and others) see that there are issues but they could be resolved, or do you feel it's just a wholly bad model?

Edited for clarity/typos