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.

aparently you can say you believe in x,y,z but some posts get deleted even if its accurate information as to the reasons thats the wisdom of Hq

I believe in common sense.

Posters are advised to seek further advice and take posts here as suggestions, whether they're coming from someone who claims to be an expert or knowledgeable or a randomer.

Treat everyone's post equally - with a pinch of salt and a bit ot common sense - and seek real life advice after posting here.

As for the posts, MN can't just take down a post that 'seems reasonable' [I don't know if it does or not] on the say-so of someone who claims to have attending a training. [Not saying that you haven't, just that MN can't prove it and the posts may not have been taken down because there are no obvious signs that they're wrong or dangerous besides you saying so].

the other issue is when some posters are correct others dont want to admit to it at times too.

People say wrong stuff on here about a whole load of vital issues. It's fine, since no one in their right mind would base important decisions on forum posts made by random anonymous people on the internet. People post about serious matters in order to talk them through with peers, not to get expert advice

There are forums that have disclaimers such as the following;

"If we become concerned about you or anyone else while using one of our services, we will act in line with our safeguarding policy and procedures. This may involve sharing this information with relevant authorities to ensure we comply with our policies and legal obligations."

It does put people off posting, although I'm sure it also helps many others.

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

Part of the difficulty is that safeguarding is complex, there’s very rarely one single appropriate response or approach to take so even amongst trained professionals you’re going to get different opinions.

The other thing for me is that some of the posts from people who claim to have safeguarding training/knowledge give ridiculous advice - often on the basis of a days mandatory training every year to keep their certification or whatever.

Better all the posts go into the mix and people can use their common sense and judgement than have an assumption of knowledge and expertise because Betty did an e-learning module.

If people post on MN then presumably they want to know what Mumsnetters think. Advice is just that. No-one has to follow it.

I think these things tend to right themselves. If someone posts a load of ill- informed nonsense they are usually dealt with quite quickly by other posters.

I seen a post a few days ago implying the man the OP was concerned about couldn't be a paedophile because he was attracted to her, an adult woman. They were put right within a few posts! I think it's worth keeping these posts and their responses up.

I do hate those threads though when an op is concerned about an health issue and dithering of whether to go to A&E or not. Every.single.time some dick will reply (often several!) telling them if they can post on MN they don't need A&E....winds me right up 🙈 Again though, their 'advice' is usually corrected quite quickly by following posters.

It would be disingenuous to pretend that safeguarding training is ONLY about keeping the vulnerable safe, it’s not. Sure the company / organisation may present it as such but a huge part is about covering one’s own (and the company / organisation’s) back against legal / financial implications & fulfilling insurance obligations. This means safeguarding training & protocols don't allow much room (if any) for common sense & personal judgement; this is a restraint Joe & Jane Bloggs don’t have though as they can exercise common sense & personal judgement.

109 percent agree. These posts put children at risk and I think MNHQ should edit or remove them and replace with safeguarding guidance.

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

Still trying to work out how the fuck that Britney thread is acceptable then.

I’ve been subjected to safeguarding ‘training’ on a regular basis because of my job but it’s always seemed to me to just be common sense: if you have concerns, report them to the designated safeguarding lead person. That’s it really.

What annoys me is mumsnet removing some of the more crazy but harmless threads that are pretty funny because they might be trolls, the ones every gets involved with and are quite entertaining really, but leaving posts with dangerous and harmful advice.

I think one of the key things about safeguarding training that people aren’t aware of and is often missed is the responsibility of the person to report concerns (even if the subject doesn’t want it reported).

For me it’s a key consideration if I were to share anything-nothing is confidential; but also that responsibility to share actually takes away a lot of that side of mumsnet where people say to mind your own business.

I completely agree OP.
I reported a case a few years ago about a sexually active 12 year old girl. The poster, the girls mum was asking for contraceptive advice for her. The fact is at 12 the girl can't give valid consent to sex and is therefore bring abused.
I honestly think that in such cases MN should report to the Police, they have our email addresses, it could be followed up. If they truly cared about children they could do so but it's an "anonymous forum" apparently, so they don't.

My day job involves safeguarding regularly, my advice on here is, if in doubt contact your local SS/MASH (multi agency safeguarding hub) and let them decide if it needs to be taken further.
There are consequences for those who suspect abuse but do nothing. Something that I think MN should remain mindful of.

I agrée with you. Although I also think people shouldn't post (as fact) on any subject when it's clear they don't k ow what they're talking about. Lots of people chat complete shit with such confidence it's pretty mind blowing.

I agree, but I’m not sure how you could police it. People will always offer irrelevant/pointless/unhelpful advice. it’s rather like the divorce threads where people will be told they’ll get spousal maintenance because their mate got huge amounts of it despite this being a long marriage/decades ago and the OP’s husband earns £30k and they’ve only been married 3 years.

Safeguarding is clearly more serious though. I think it would probably be useful to have a ‘report as this concerns child safeguarding’ and then MN could rely and tell then to contact x.

It's a chat forum, no one should be coming here for formal advice, whether it's safeguarding, legal or medical (or anything else). Anyone can say they're anything they want and no one will have proof.

What it is useful for is gathering a range of opinions from people with a range of backgrounds.

I think the training aspect is a bit of a red herring. I don’t think you’re necessarily saying that some posters claim to be safeguarding experts when they aren’t, OP? More about general damaging advice being given to safeguarding concerns.

This post makes me remember a particular thread quite a while ago, where someone was asking advice on an adult with some red flag behaviour around children. There was so much ‘advice’ saying along the lines of “leave the poor guy alone, you’ve got no proof, he’s probably been DBS checked, the school probably already know, jeez how come men can’t just get on with their job without these sort of accusations, you’ve got no proof”. While there were some people on the thread giving informed safeguarding advice, most of it was dangerous and completely against current legislation and advice.

MN don’t need to check every members credentials, but it would be relatively easy to pop on a thread with a generic message in line with government guidance. Like “”here’s a link to nspcc advice for if you have concerns”. They do this warning whenever the thread might prompt members to send money to someone.

People need to take responsibility for not solely relying and information they get of the internet

You can only exercise people's brains for them so much, one thing society has a increasing problem with is lack of personal responsibility

I'd never use the term safeguarding as when it is used, it strikes me as a defined term. But if I thought someone seemed at risk one way or another I'd suggest they seem help/make a report - that's basic common sense isn't it?

Whilst I agree you shouldn't comment if you don't know what your talking about its important to remember that MN is a forum, anyone can comment and anyone can lie. Something as serious as safeguarding MN is probably not the best place to take advise and a lot of posts need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I also think it's impossible to police. Maybe a safeguarding Mod or the same sort of generic post as is given when domestic violence is being mentioned.

I'm not convinced that "training " means anything much these days to be honest.
I 'm not going to automatically presume that someone knows best just because of a random course they attended.

Nobody should really give 'official' advice on MN and it shouldn't be taken as such.

No-one knows who is posting or if their tale is true. And no-one knows if the people responding are real or have any experience or training either.

I generally cringe when someone posts and says "Dr/nurse/safeguarding lead here" become they could be someone lying who isn't a Dr or nurse or safeguarding lead or could be one who just isn't up to date in training or has personal bias.

On the whole, people need to move away from the idea that MN is a primary source of appropriate and/or accurate advice. It isn't and never has been. You can get some good advice but you can't state it's a good place to get it.

If people need advice on safeguarding then perhaps they shouldn't ask random strangers on the internet.

Your desire to regulate those opinions smacks of authoritarian overreach. Are you going to regulate conversations on safeguarding that take place in pubs and at bus stops? The opinions offered on MN have no more official status than those.

Some opinions may not conform to safeguarding orthodoxy - that doesn't mean they're 'rubbish'. Women only got the vote because people confronted orthodoxy. YABU.