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.

THIS! Finally someone else gets it.

But the point is that the safeguarding woman must have told the dating profile woman who notified her of her being on the dating app...

And mentioned his name, which she should not have done if she were any good at safeguarding!

Safeguarding officer shouldn't have told her who she got the report from.

That isn't a safeguarding issue

It's just she should've kept her trap
shut generally

It's still not clear from the OP if it's the safeguarding woman who gossiped

He was the one ‘behaving erratically’ - what a weirdo - was his intention to ‘out’ her wrongly assumed infidelity? What a creep.

I suspect he was unable to speak to her directly because he has been inappropriate and rejected by her before.

I'd have RACKED it out of her if I were Dating Profile Lady.

I'd want to know the particulars of the absolutely fruit loop who reported safeguarding concerns about my 'erratic behaviour' and possible 'break down' due to being on Tinder.

Yes, she should not have named the person who raised the concern.

It may not be a safeguarding issue, but this woman clearly has some kind of role where she deals with keeping members 'safe' (I guess).

The safeguard should have spoken to her friend about it discreetly without naming the person who approached her with the query.

Bit like in school when your child gets poked in the eye by another child and the school office won't name the other child.

It should be common sense, the safeguard woman clearly has none.

I believe the guy (OP's friend) tried to approach this is the right way but it all went horribly wrong because safeguard woman is an idiot.

Agree. Basic creep - trying to dress up his bizarre behaviour ‘as plausible deniability’ with his transparent pretendy safeguarding shtick….

Someone reported what was gossip to her

And she told the lady that he was gossiping about her, which is fair enough

It can't be covered under safeguarding because that's crap it's obviously isn't

So she told her friend that someone was gossiping. Fair.

Oh come on OP really?

Who sees a married woman on a dating website and thinks she's having a breakdown rather than an affair? 🙄

And even if someone was impersonating her, what's the safeguarding lead going to do about it that the woman herself couldn't?

He was so being a busybody, I'm just surprised you're refusing to see it.

I don't think it matters that he's a man. It would be equally as bad if a woman had meddled/involved herself in this way after she had 'found' an adult man or woman's dating profile. This is an adult (and the OP hasn't said that she's mentally impaired)... It's really not an acquaintance's business what she chooses to do in her personal life or why. For various reasons, the woman and her (former) husband may have been trying to avoid widespread awareness of their separation. They obviously didn't openly share that information with other members of the sports club until this man took this action.

This seems to be a case of this man trying to interfere and gain information that he's not entitled to in the guise of concern. The concept of safeguarding shouldn't be weaponised. Barring very extreme circumstances, adult men and women are entitled to privacy and freedom of choice. You can see how a child doing concerning things online and an adult being on a dating website (even if you disagree with that decision) are entirely different situations, surely?

For all the hard of thinking and reading out there:
1.The woman whose profile it is was the one who told everyone else, including the OP.

1. The profile woman and the safeguarding woman are best friends. Of course she is going to discuss it with her, and dickhead weirdo expected her to.
2. Safeguarding woman hasn't done anything wrong because there isnt a safeguarding issue! She has broken no protocols here.
3. Dickhead weirdo is a disgusting creep because a) if he was really concerned she had been hacked he would have just mentioned it to her; it would be nothing to do with safeguarding, and b) so what if he thinks she's being erratic? Creepy bastard should mind his own bloody business and deserves all the derision he gets.

There is no way that talking to the woman in question goes any better for him than what he’s done already. When does he tell her on his own? No chance, is she definitely ending the marriage that is up for grabs in which case if they couple are fish for a third thats AAF .

I would agree there is no equivalence with this situation and my examples other than giving a reason why some good men in the main stay of all situations like this because it’s to big a risk to them.

Op friend sounds awkward and naive. I’d argue telling a safeguarding lead wasn’t a terrible option. It should have been confidential and if their any good could properly explain the circumstances and give advice on how to handle things better in the future.

I am a safeguarding lead for a club and we have had DBS come back that needed conversations . I wouldn’t want this person to have access to that data . God knows what she’d tell her friends.

why some good men in the main stay of all situations like this because it’s to big a risk to them.

Situations like this? Like seeing an adult woman on a dating site? Why would that need any man's intervention, good or not?

He should have minded his own fucking business!

And this is not the same as seeing your close friend's DH on a dating site. In which case, yes, you might consider telling your close friend.

This is a man interfering over people (not his close friends) in a sports club, over something that was not happening at the sports club itself.

If I was the woman I would be furious with him.

'Safeguarding' my arse!

Maybe this is a stretch but he saw her on dating site and messaged her but she rejected him
So he decided to dob because he was butthurt at the rejection

If that wasn't the case then he's a busybody because he could have approached profile woman himself

and say hey I noticed you have this profile is this legit and then she could have said yes or no and that would have been the end of it but he didn't do that did he

So if he came to her and reported to her in her capacity as safeguarding officer told her that he saw a butterfly on his wing mirror she wouldn’t be allowed to tell anyone?

Are you choosing to miss the point of my post? I am referring to the shit storm he’s now involved inn , rightly or wrongly for giving a shit about this woman. Giving a shit can and does get you into situations and it’s just not worth the drama.

Personally I couldn’t have cared less . I’d b far more concerned that her husband didn't know if I am honest.

Nuance doesn't appear to be your strong point does it.

She shouldn't name him. She might say to management, "For fuck's sake, we need to educate the membership on what I'm here for, I had someone report a bloody butterfly to me the other day."

But naming him is inappropriate (assuming it's not part of some sort of harassment campaign) as it will put others off coming forward if they come to think they might get talked about too.

Agree 100

So, has he apologised to the people involved and admitted he made a wrong decision? I think that would be the true indicator of whether he was good intentioned or not.

So, like I said... situations like seeing an adult woman on a dating site? Why should that require any intervention? How is it comparable to illegal or dangerous situations?

I mean, what’s the most obvious conclusion, if you see someone you’d thought was married on a dating site — that either the marriage had ended and they were dating, or they were still married but up for an affair ( both of which are the person’s own business) or that they were being impersonated, and therefore needed your safeguarding intervention???