LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

Still none the wiser.

And yet here we are, intelligent women used to processing information, all too aware of the predators charter that GI supports, still not entirely sure after reading your (and others' responses) that your concerns are valid or haven't already been considered by the LGBA and their safeguarding lead and team.

Sad to say that all my worst prejudices about the kind of people who specialise in safeguarding and the way they treat other people have been upheld in this thread. I thought my experience of one or two lofty, exceptionally defensive and opaque safeguarding specialists was just bad luck, but apparently not.

How else can we explain it when it has been explained again and again?

What would help you understand the issue?

Absolutely. And to echo the poster upthread the 'If you can't see what's wrong with this scenario I'm not going to tell you' refrain is really not helpful either.

Been away for a few days and I am stunned at how this thread has gone.

To recap, I can't see any posts advocating for a 'sacred caste' / saying that service delivery by providers that the poster agrees with ideologically shouldnt be subject to adequate safeguarding.

LGBA have said they welcome feedback, which is surely a positive.

Those with concerns are welcome to feedback to them - would be interesting if anyone who has done so has had a response that they could share?

I, along with some other posters, am still struggling to see what the problem is with 13-24 year olds being helped by the same staff (NB not mixing in a group together), that is different to the challenges any other organisation dealing with both over and under 18s would encounter, and presumably have already adequately addressed.

I am not a bad faith actor, nor affiliated with LGBA, I have done some basic safeguarding training and read all the posts. Im afraid those with concerns really haven't spelled out specially what those concerns are in a way that non experts can understand.

Which of course, you're under no obligation to do, but it doesn't move the discussion along.

It is currently sounding a bit frustratingly like the classic soap opera argument "well if you can't see what's wrong, I'm not going to tell you!"

Yes, I could go and read up on safeguarding, but I haven't got the time or energy tbh. If some people here have more info/ training than those of us who are a bit ignorant, it would be really helpful if they could share it in a few lines. That would help to share the message more widely and possibly change some minds, than exhorting all readers to go and do their own research - which most will not (they're more likely to just conclude that there isn't a significant problem).

I want to understand and right now I don't. I genuinely hope someone can help.

Well yes it is on the advice providers to ensure that they do as much as possible to give the correct advice - having separate entry lines is just one way of starting to do it.

Glad you find it all so hilarious.

Not sure how you read this

"Any safeguarding policy for under 18s would need to recognise this ( the differences between ages). There would be differentiation within the policy."

As not understanding "that under 18 safeguarding policies do accommodate for children of different ages" . That's exactly what it says. Similarly where organisation's have a single policy for children and vulnerable adults, they differentiate within the policy between under and over 18s

And I've also said, quite clearly, that I didn't think people were posting on bad faith. I think there is a difference of opinion on approach.

Oh dear - a child calling a helpline not aimed at their age group the fault is apparently theirs - yet if they lie about their age to try and make the volunteer give inappropriate advice that is apparently on the volunteer and the Charity Commission will take THAT complaint seriously when it took them months to get around to looking at Mermaids and they still have not reported. And you expect people to take your "safeguarding concerns" seriously. 😂😂😂

The "grouping together" seems to manifest entirely as words on a page.

Oh no.

I and others have made the point that if you have separate guidance and policies for children and adults it protects the volunteers and the users to have volunteers working with either group at a time rather than having people flit between the two. It leaves margin for error

OK, so you’re concerned that if the volunteers aren’t dedicated to one age range then there is a risk that they will forget which set of policies they should be using and say something inappropriate to a child contact. I can understand that. Reading the LGBA website it seems they’ve considered this and mitigated for it as well as they can within the constraints they have when starting up this helpline. Is it that you think their mitigations don’t do enough to meet minimum safeguarding standards, or is it that they’ve taken a different approach that you would have done and the minimum standards are met, but in an ideal world could be stronger?

That really isn’t helpful

That was in response to someone who said they had done safeguarding training but at the same time saying posters are making a fuss and asking about how safeguarding policies allow for differences between 10 year olds and 17 year olds, hence the comment about it not sounding as though they did have the training. It wasn't to imply that every poster needs it in order to comment. When people have raised concerns and their reasons for having them, it's not also not conducive to constructive debate to keep responding that you don't get why they're concerned without actually offering a counter argument to the reasons already provided.

I and others have made the point that if you have separate guidance and policies for children and adults it protects the volunteers and the users to have volunteers working with either group at a time rather than having people flit between the two. It leaves margin for error. I know you're saying the volunteer will "do their best" but that's not really how safe services operate. It's best if they do their best while working within a framework that actually tries to put things in place to reduce mistakes instead of putting all the onus on someone volunteering for something in their free time.

This is beyond exasperating so it really isn't worth explaining the same point over and over.

If you don't understand why not book onto some basic safeguarding training then maybe you might?

You don't sound like you have safeguarding training

Im sure I’m not the only person on this thread that hasn’t had safeguarding training. I’ve never been in a situation that’s needed it. It’s been very frustrating reading some of the lofty comments in this thread from some posters that clearly are knowledgeable in this area but seem to regard it as a deficiency of others if another poster isn’t similarly up to speed, as a response along the lines of “don’t you know that, how ignorant are you then” really aren’t conducive to a constructive debate.

i get that no one is obliged to spend time typing out a detailed response explaining the ins and outs, but I’m with recent posters still not understanding exactly where the safeguarding concerns are having a single point of access for any contact in the age range of 13-24, given they will only be interacting with one adult who will be trained and supervised. With the provisio, again, that the helpline volunteer will do their best to establish the age of the contract and tailor their responses appropriately. Which is what LGBA have said will happen.

People have been clear that they know this service is not putting 13 and 24 year olds in direct contact with eachother. When people are talking about mixing children and adults, they have explained in detail that they mean grouping them together as "young people". Either you haven't RTFT, you skimmed over people's posts or you're being obtuse and repeating a question already made pages ago.

You're welcome to provide the reasons why you're confident that there is no safeguarding issues based on something other than you think it's fine. Me responding to you because you tried to imply bad faith once again is not me picking a fight with you. Please stop insisting people who disagree with you or have raised concerns are here only to cause problems.

I'm not being obtuse. The only people anyone using the helpline will encounter will be adults trained to ask the age of the caller and then responding appropriately.

I'm just going to assume at this stage you either can't read very well or you are just trying to pick a fight

Bollocks.

I'm not interested in going back around anywhere, especially when you're still not providing any actual substance to your position except coming across that you're just assuming everything is fine. That's your opinion however others feel differently have expressed concerns detailing why. I responded to again because you decided to quote sentences from my post implying I was accusing you of something. I responded to clarify not because I want to rehash everything I have already said. You don't sound like you have safeguarding training if you don't understand that under 18 safeguarding policies do accommodate for children of different ages while still being distinct from adult safeguarding.

Fucks sake stop making shit up.

Nobody has said that they want Mermaids to be the only option.

If the triage is done by LGBA then the flaw is on them if they are tricked for not putting adequate safeguards in place.

If the person calls the child number and not the legal adult one, or goes onto the child chat then the onus is on them.

By triage, this includes trying to determine the person's age.

Thing is LGBA will be at risk of people trying to get them to do the wrong thing and so getting a child to make contact and lie, and then try to get the LGBA person talking about things outside of the risk assessment for their age, will be screenshot and used against them. Probably in a complaint to the Charities Commission.

From my point of view, this is to protect LBGA as much as anyone contacting them.

I think ppl are worried about both tbh

it's not my area of expertise tho

Oh ok, so the issue is not because it's a service for 13-24 year olds, but because people could lie about their age when calling in?

The objections I saw initially at the start of the thread looked to be on the basis of a 13 year old or 23 year old dialling the same number.

How is that risk mitigated by having a separate line for under and over 18's?