Was what he did so terrible?

[Babbyy]

A friend is a member of a sports club.

He came across the profile of one of the women from the club on a dating site. Woman is married to a committee member from the club.

Friend was worried. Either she had been cloned or was behaving erratically. So, friend mentioned it to the safeguarding officer at the club. This is a woman who is best friends with dating profile woman, so he expected she'd be sympathetic to profile woman, have a quiet word and between them they'd do what needed doing (if anything) .

It turned out the profile was genuine and that the marriage had ended, although that was not public knowledge. No one was discreet about friend's "interfering" and he is now being vilified as a busy body, when all he was trying to do was make sure this woman wasn't vulnerable.

Possibly I'd have spoken to profile woman directly, but I understand why he felt it more comfortable to speak with her friend who happened to be responsible for safeguarding.

Just in case anyone thinks safeguarding is only about children, it's not. There are no child members at this club, but in line with its governing body, it still requires a safeguarding officer.

Sounds like it, but on here, men are always to blame. 🙄

The OP stated the man believed her details may have used fraudulently to create the dating profile, he reported to someone in a trusted position and who is a friend of the woman on the dating profile.

That safeguarding person/friend is the one who’s blabbed around about the woman’s marriage situation & personal life according to the OP.

OP has also stated that being a busy body is very unlike the man who she’s known for a very long time.

Where is it written that all running clubs have to have a safeguarding officer? Do they also need a bursar, a chaplain, and a rear gunner? They don't need these things.

(I know the answer, sorry for the flourish) It's not the law, it's a policy. What happens is there's some national body that makes up a load of absurd bureacracy for "safety" and then imposes that on little community organisations as a condition of affiliation.

It's not the same as the law - it's actually more enforceable than the law. And each time another little rule is added, nobody can quite object to it because each one seems sensible, reasonable, safer. But cumulatively, across every aspect of life, we are forced into these bureaucratic, inhuman, process-focused rituals that stop us from relating to each other as fully empowered independent adults.

It seems like a small thing but I think it's actually a really big thing.

She also said he maybe a little vulnerable. I mean no one’s first thought when they see someone on a dating site is hacked or mental health problems. And to get someone to see if they can go and help the person and act if required. Thays like some form of religious cult behaviour

so maybe he is vulnerable, very vulnerable , but I’d assume the others taking issue with his behaviour would know that.they clearly know him too, and feel this was busy body gossip behaviour.

I’m also struggling to beleive a man who isn’t vulnerable ie no additional needs would not know how to react in this situation. Which is it’s none of your business. But if you feel the need speak to the people involved.

so somethings not right, as his reaction isn’t thr normal one, and the fact the people at his club feel this was negative behaviour and know him, makes me wonder if the op is just defending the indefensible.

Grasping at straws here. He was interfering. (And I can’t help but wonder if he still would have said anything if it was the husband who was on the dating site…)

I would be very concerned about a safeguarding officer who chooses to publicise concerns that are brought to her attention. Surely that is going to put people off from coming to her? Confidentiality is essential, irrespective of whether you think the concern is justified or not.

OP, I would seriously suggest raising this issue with whoever runs the club. The woman clearly doesn't understand the basics of her job.

They do need a Welfare Officer trained in safeguarding. You can argue they shouldn't but they do under England Athletics rules.

https://www.englandathletics.org/news/safeguarding-adults-week/

Oh dear. That’s outrageous!

Why didn’t he just ask you about it.

also. What was he doing on the dating site?

edit- sorry I thought this was op husband we were talking about!

I suspect OP's friend didn't raise this with woman concerned because if she was having some sort of breakdown, as he feared, it would only make her more unwell. The next best recourse would therefore be to raise the issue with someone trained to deal with such issues who he no doubt thought could be trusted to keep to her duty of confidentiality. If he wanted to spread gossip, interfere or shit stir he would have told other people in the club and elsewhere.

It's just a real shame that the so-called safeguarding officer didn't know her job.

From the details you've given, I can't see a reason for the safeguarding officer to have named him to anyone. That seems like a gross breach of trust.

Nevertheless, your friend sounds awful. It is so patronizing towards the woman he is apparently so concerned about to makeout it's a safeguarding issue rather than just telling the woman concerned directly in case it wasn't her on the dating site.

The idea that if it was her she'd be behaving erratically, rather than just being a cheat like a bloke having an affair would! I mean, Jesus Christ, next he'll be reporting concerns about frigidity and hysteria (but only for the women, mind you).

Yes it is, the words behaving erratically or must have mental health problems is shocking. So either he deserved the outrage he is getting, or he has signficant additional needs.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. I said it isn't the law, it's a national organisation policy.

That's literally what I said.

He’s no more a busy body than all the others who have got involved.

Ot needed go no further than the woman, her friend and this man reporting it.

He actually didn’t gossip as such as he reported it to one person who is bound by confidentiality.

was he misguided in reporting it to her? Absolutely. He should have told the woman herself and worded it like “I’ve come across a profile for you on OLd site. Just so if it’s fake you can act” then left it.

Ok, so what's your point? The club needs a welfare officer, why does it matter which body requires that? No one ever said the law required it.

Haven't read all the replies.

Absolute busybody.

Maybe it was an open relationship, maybe she was cheating, maybe it's Maybelline...

Why would she be vulnerable because she's on a dating site? Are all women who use dating sites vulnerable now? Why is "friend" so interested in her dating profile?

Is "friend" just you OP? 🙃

The OP didn’t say that. The OP said the safeguarding officer told the dating profile lady and she told other people.

My post was responding to the idea that the friend was pretending to be concerned and pretending that he thought the profile was fraudulent. Which I think he was. Pretending. I don’t think that the friend in any way saw the profile and thought it was fraudulent.

Totally inappropriate, that’s not what the safeguarding officer is there for. I’m the safeguarding officer for a club and if someone came to report that to me I’d tell them to wind their neck in. If he was that concerned he should have spoken to her directly, she isn’t a child. And it isn’t a club matter.

No I don’t either, I think he was telling tales nd getting involved in her business. And I think the line of getting someone to sort it, erratic behaviour and mental health issues is hideous

My point is that this is a social problem - the slow ratcheting of excessive supralegal rules imposed upon perfectly ordinary associations like a running club. The point I was making was this is a policy, not a law. It's been decided by someone that adults who do not meet the legal definition of safeguarding will nevertheless be safeguarded, and this decision is imposed on people by the bureaucracy of affiliation. This widening of the definition has various social effects that I believe to be corrosive, of which this incident is an example.

It's fine for you to disagree with this point.

The safeguarding woman should be replaced, if she has leaked this information.

I think he was misguided but well intentioned

Being 'well-intentioned' doesn't stop someone from being a twat, though. Well-intentioned or not, the end result is the same.

Although I recognise it was well meant intentions I thought there was a protocol in place as a condition of joining dating apps that if you come across a profile of someone you know, you don't tell third parties without their consent.

What about all the other women on the dating site? Does he think they are all having a mental health crisis as well?

She’s allowed to tell the person who it’s about surely. How else would she find out if it was a fraudulent profile? She’s not the police.

Dating profile lady can tell whoever she wants.