LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

Apologies. I did say ‘I don’t see the fuss’. It would probably have been better to say ‘I don’t see it as a problem’. I think there are multiple post where I’ve acknowledged other poster’s concerns. And I specifically agreed that if they were not in fact asking for ages that was indeed a major issue

As you seem determined to go back round the houses again though l, I’d bringing it back to an earlier post. You’ve talked about specific under 18s safeguarding. I’ve raised the fact that a 10 year old and a 17 year old, while both under 18 are very different. Any safeguarding policy for under 18s would need to recognise this. There would be differentiation within the policy. Similarly any LGBA safeguarding policy could and should differentiate between callers of different ages, and in fact they may well have separate policies for under and over 18s. As the people using the service are being dealt with individually there is no reason why this can’t work. They do not have the additional risk of mixing children and adults either online or in person

It would also be helpful to know what processes they should put in place to manage the possibility of people using the service lying about their age

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered but what is the safeguarding issue for a 1-1 helpline that is intended for 13-14 year olds to use?

If it was an open forum where 13-24 year olds were talking to each other I could understand the problem, but it isn't?

They aren't going to be talking to each other, just whoever is on the other end of the phone, who presumably will have had all the required training to tailor their advice to the age of the caller?

What am I missing?

Bad faith actors is what I see. There is ZERO evidence of a safeguarding problem. Lets repeat that - ZERO evidence. So no sacred caste just no evidence of a problem that needs attention. Running more than one helpline would require more resources, which LGB Alliance probably wont get until they are demonstrating that they can run a helpline.

Raising the problem with Mermaids is not wahtaboutery, it's what some of you want to be the only resource available to young people. You want to see a dangerous service continue and will try anything to block an alternative.

The context of that is within all the previous posts explaining what is meant by the mixing of children and adults, don't be obtuse.

You did say you didn't see what all the fuss was about. I must have missed where you appreciated the concerns, perhaps as you didn't provide any response to them except that you didn't understand what the concern was. I still find your suggestion that it may encourage teenagers to call because they feel the service isn't for children is adultification of children when the age range includes up to people in their 20s and we shouldn't be encouraging that in children as young as 13. You obviously disagree with that, and I'm surprised that you hold that opinion with a lot of safeguarding training but it's your opinion.

I'm very sorry that I misrepresented your dismissal of safeguarding concerns as fuss as "making a fuss" however since you implied I basically called your a pedophile, perhaps take your own advice about misrepresentation?

It's not creepy at all. It's what anyone involved in safeguarding should do — try and think of the worst case scenarios and then work back to prevent them happening.

Well if you want to rehash it... I'm not sure I did accuse anyone of 'making a fuss'. In fact I'm pretty sure I said several times I appreciated the concerns that people had.. And to repeat I made it clear that any helpline should have the appropriate safeguarding policies & processes.
In terms of 'counter evidence' I also suggested that the helpline may have been set up in this way to be more effective in reaching those teens who may not approach something set up in their eyes 'for kids' (even though they are obviously children).

By all means disagree, but try to do it without misrepresenting what I've posted.

Mixing children with adults? This is a one-to-one text helpline.

Yes that was me - I found your insistence that grouping 13-24 year olds as a peer group together a good thing without presenting any counter evidence to the risks raised very odd. If you want to read into that an implied nefarious interest, read away, but I didn't say that. I found it odd and concerning that you said posters were making "a fuss" talking about the blurring of children and adults and the adultification of children hence why I asked if you would be as supportive of this always or do you just feel it's ok when LGBA do it ? With all your safeguarding training, perhaps you could have provided some more substance to your argument instead of implying bad faith when people raise concerns -something you should have learnt not to do in your training surely.

Maybe, that's not what I took from the specific thread, but there's probably little value in rehashing it.

For the record, I don't think that the posters who have a different viewpoints are posting in bad faith. I think that we may sometimes lose sight of the fact that people can have the same information, similar experiences, similar backgrounds and reach different conclusions. That goes beyond this thread.

The second quote there is totally uncalled for, I agree. The first is expressing concern.

It's actually useful to look at these and see the difference.

Now this is bad faith.

And frankly creepy.

Two replies to me

I find it very concerning how comfortable you are with a lack of clear boundaries between children and adults.

At this point because you just sound way too comfortable with mixing children's and adults, do you always feel that way?

I don't think anything I posted supported that claim, but I hey. I've worked with this age group. I've undergone a lot of safeguarding training. I've brought up 2 children, one of whom is still in this age group. I just have a different opinion about the value of a single helpline, And, as I'm pretty sure I made clear, with the proviso that it has robust safeguarding policies and processes for dealing with different age groups.

Why don't you propose what a worst case scenario might look like, so that can be explored?

I ran my training company for 14-19 vulnerable and behaviourally challenged people with my best friend who I trust 100%.

We had to have procedures and practices assuming 0%.

We didn't take it personally! We could never let each other out of our sight for protection of us or the people on site. We also had to do the same when the staff came with the people on our programmes. And we expected the staff to do the same with us.

Yes we still had to deliver a service, and we would review it every single session and make adjustments as things occurred. Sometimes we would make a decision mid session and text it to the staff on our little site for their info even if they were 3 feet away for them to quietly retire and read it and come back to the group after. We would then tell the people on the programme if it was necessary for their safety. Sometimes they didn't need to know.

Note ours was on council land, a community garden, insured with my name on the policy, taking PRU and other older intensive supervision and surveillance service users, using tools that were quite dangerous in a mixed sex setting with an all use single use composting toilet.

Safeguarding is a constantly shifting evolving conversation about how to continually improve things. Not a policy that gets brought out when a breach has been made.

That's where I am coming from on this, the accusations that I am a bad faith actor is, well, quite astonishing.

Nobody implied that?

Safeguarding involves considering worst case scenarios.

The problems with Mermaids wasn’t only a lack o f safeguarding. It was also the desire by an organisation to push a particular line regardless of what was right for the individual child or young person. Although I acknowledge that being so wedded to a specific ideology may well have impacted on the ability of Mermaids to prioritise safeguarding.
I also think it was unhelpful for some posters to imply that anyone who thought the 13-24 model was workable had some sort of nefarious interest in blurring the boundaries between children and adults. It’s just a difference opinion about how a service can be delivered.

Again, I personally am not saying that a group whose aims I approve of should be outside of safeguarding or should be assumed to be ok because I like them or a blind eye should be turned. I don't think I've seen other posts making the assumption that it's LGBA and therefore no need to worry about safeguarding, though I might have missed some.

I personally don't think there is a safeguarding issue with LGBA having a chat system for 13-24 year olds, as long as they have good safeguarding policies for under 18s and their staff are trained and competent to work with both under and over 18s safely and appropriately. Other organisations do work with this age range safely and appropriately.

Whilst I disagreed with some of the specific things being raised as concerns (namely the recognition that same sex attraction occurs in children), the extreme defensiveness shown here is very alarming. Followed with whataboutery regarding abhorrent practises by the likes of mermaids. A lack of safeguarding is precisely what led to such a situation, so you can be damn sure that the GC feminists who raised the alarm aren’t going to turn a blind eye regarding the safety of children anywhere. Everyone will be held to the standard required and it’s rank hypocrisy to criticise TRAs then cry when the same rigour is applied to a cause you agree with.

Yes this. There was largely a difference of opinion about delivery and whether a different model would necessarily mean more rigorous safeguarding. Or maybe more accurately whether the proposed model could offer appropriate safeguarding processes for different age groups.

Yep. Even having a DBS check can feel a bit like an accusation. Or a health visitor doing a home check, etc.

To grasp safeguarding it is imperative that nobody is ever classed as 'above' it, or exempt. That is exactly and entirely the whole point - as soon as you start thinking 'this person can't be questioned' or 'this category of person can't be questioned' that creates a haven/loophole for exploiters to abuse.

LGBA's post showed self reflexive thinking and consideration of safeguarding and openness to feedback. All of that is good practise and promising and sensible.

For me, it's just that one point, that may seem minor, and as I said, maybe I'm wrong, that it seems a stronger boundary to have two 'lines' or channels separating adults and children.

Is this a serious post? You’re the OP. You have been told some hard truths about valid concerns with the LGBA’s approach. Apparently sensing you’ve not had the reception you wanted, you said - and I quote:

“If you are worried about safeguarding look at this “

When I reply noting it’s an abomination but not the subject here, you decide the best response is in fact to try to gaslight posters into thinking the “point” was to alert us to another thread? Then you follow it up with insults aimed at posters who understand safeguarding (“they”, to use your pejorative term).

I have to ask, are you affiliated with the LGBA, OP?

It doesn't seem like the dispute is about LGBA being sacred caste/exceptionalised to me. The posters saying they don't think there needs to be two services for over/under 18s aren't saying 'no need as LGBA are sound and all will be fine'. But are saying it's possible for staff to tailor their work to the age of the client, and have proper safeguarding for children and over 18s, without having two separate channels. And also, there would be no way for staff to know if a user was truly the age they said they were, even if there were two services, there's nothing to stop a user accessing the one not for their age.

I don't see posters saying safeguarding under 18s doesn't matter, more that it can be done safely in the way LGBA are doing it,and other charities do it with similar age ranges which encompass both over and under 18s.