AIBU to think that people without safeguarding training shouldn't be giving advice about safeguarding on MN?

[calmandcaffeinated]

As the title says. I've read so many posts regarding a safeguarding concern on MN, and the amount of people commenting to do nothing or to mind your own business is sickening.

It's clear to me that none of these people have had safeguarding training, and in no way should comment as it puts children at risk. I'm not sure what the answer is, but given how heavily policed MN is anyway I think more moderation is needed.

Perhaps IABU, as we should have balanced views on things and it's free speech, so please let me know if I am. I just want to know the general consensus on this matter.

Personally, I'd never comment on something so important without training. YANBU to me.

Definitely not being unreasonable. I am trained in safeguarding due to the nature of my job and I still wouldn't offer advice. It's a very sensitive and individual matter which needs full deal before commenting.

I agree with you completely but how do you police it? Anyone can come on here and say they are anything. On the medical threads there are always doctors and nurses but are they real? We don’t know. This is when sites like this are dangerous. I don’t know what the answer is. I’ve had safeguarding training and I’ve worked with vulnerable families but how do you know that’s true?

Detail ^

if it's dangerous, you can report the post

Safeguarding training exists to protect the people trained in it as much as the children they work with. In every day life, sometimes 'reporting', whatever that means, is not the quickest, must practical, or even kindest path. People who live alongside families who are struggling often actually have a much better insight into what's happening than a professional.

I've had SG training but didn't agree with plenty of it. <shrug>

I disagree actually; everyone gives their opinions on everything on MN, it's a discussion forum, not a government resource. The mistake would be in assuming that anyone is who they say they are, or taking anyone's word as authoritative.

You could say that about so many threads here. You often see 'GP/lawyer/police officer/nurse here' on threads. It's basically meaningless. Anyone can post claiming expertise in anything, not just safeguarding.

Anyone can post on anything, anyone can lie about qualifications. If you want expert advice talk to an expert, pay them and make your own mind up. That said I wouldn't post unless I was qualified or experienced in the subject matter. But you have no proof who anyone is.

Thanks, I put minimal responses, except to report whatever it is to the relevant persons.

I feel more needs to be done. I've reported responses that go directly against safeguarding regulations, and they are still left for days. I think it's seen as a valid opinion, but when that goes against all safeguarding legislation surely it should be taken down.

I don't know what the answer is.

There's a prolific poster who claims to be a senior police officer who is absolutely nothing of the sort.
Huge pinch of salt should be taken on both MN and the internet as a whole.

I understand about it being an open forum, and anyone can say anything ofc. But given how much MN is policed I don't understand why certain responses aren't taken down. Where is the line?

I think where IABU is hoping something can be done. As PPs have said, it's the internet so what can you do?

The line is that if everything needed to be fact checked, there would be very few threads left standing...

There's a prolific poster who claims to be a senior police officer who is absolutely nothing of the sort

I know who you mean. An absolute classic example of how people can say they're anything. I hate to think anyone takes her posts at face value

I disagree. It’s a discussion forum where many responses will be ‘wrong’ - where do you draw the line, no one can reply if they’re not qualified would mean a LOT of empty posts. There’s also no way to police it.

I wonder if mumsnet should have a safeguarding mod. But then where do yo draw the line as mumsnet can identify posters. Still think it would be good or would it stop d v victims posting

I think the line is pretty much "personal attacks, hate speech and libel"

It's a discussion forum. Everyone gets to jabber away on any topic. Including talking utter bollocks. The problem isn't people talking bollocks, it's people thinking a bunch of online potluck strangers can offer reliable legal/medical/professional advice instead of talking to the relevant bodies IRL

How do they prove they've had training though?

YABU. On MN people with no legal training give legal advice. People with no medical training give medical advice etc. Your post should read" people shouldn't ask for professional advice on a random internet forum".

My fear is that by having people outwardly going against safeguarding guidance it puts OPs off from reporting, and this is my main concern.

I don't think it can be policed in terms of who is posting, but it's fairly clear some of what people say is utter rubbish.

What I don't understand is the line for which things are removed or not. Perhaps that is what my issue is with. I was reading a thread about OP being barred from a uni thread for disagreeing with posters which seemed to be of no danger to anyone, and then read a thread about concerns about children being hit and posters were allowed to give dangerous advice.

I too think this is impossible to 'police'.

As others have said, anyone can claim knowledge / experience / qualification in anything - but it isn't a Gvmnt website, it is a discussion forum, and an international one at that, meaning different cultures and expectations for all sorts of reasons.

It might not be a bad idea for there to be more warnings (reminders?) that anyone can state what they like on the internet, and that nobody is able to check they are who, or what they say they are (as there are warnings on some threads).

Thanks for the view points. I like the PP about a safeguarding moderator but it's probably too much to ask.

I am happy to accept IABU in my expectations here on the whole. I would be in support of more being done where a safeguarding issue is raised (perhaps a phone number or website link could be sent to OP on what to do).

You can't. It's the same on the health boards. I had someone arguing with me that someone's symptoms indicated that they had iritis (which is a serious eye condition). Mum had health anxiety and the symptoms didn't match - it was dry eye - as I'd said.