To think we need to re-think security for children's schools and clubs following Southport

[caffelattetogo]

Before I start, this is absolutely not blaming the victims or anyone who organised the holiday club in Southport. It's easy to be wise after the event.

But, I really think that we need new risk assessments for anywhere that children are, ones that look more at their safety. These monsters target children, so anywhere that children are needs to think about locked doors, video doorbell cameras, extra security measures, anything we can to keep them safer.

Mental health services are struggling and the early warning signs are being missed. We have dangerous people free to plan activities like this, and while we shouldn't need to, I think we need to be aware.

I have thought about this when planning my children's clubs following the attack, and chosen ones with better security measures.

Similarly, I'm concerned about the security at DCs' school and nursery, where doors are often left open.

I know these attacks are rare, but I would feel safer knowing that they were behind locked doors.

AIBU?

Staff have fobs they buzz then the door pushes inwards, there are no handles, the door buzzes open from the office and you push it in, there are handles on the inside to get out.

Go in the main entrance door, which is electric operated sliding doors, one door, lobby and window to reception, second door. Those two doors do not open at the same time. And there's no handle to force them.

During breaks two doors into the playground are kept open for kids to get to toilets.

I can see a whole lot of places where people gather where such things can happen.

But they are vanishingly rare.

How much security do people want to accept in their lives to feel safe versus the probability of something tragic happening?

The Southpiort tragedy was such an awful event but events like that rarely happen.

This thing with primary schools is the children are generally small, and the staff predominantly female.
So a particularly vulnerable group.

Secondary will have some big lads, and male teachers so as a group less vulnerable to attack.

The Southport attack he deliberately attacked a young woman and small children
He wasn't brave enough to look for a martial arts class or boxing class he choose a dance class.

The main security threat in schools is parents or former pupils with grudges. Most schools are at a proportionate level of security to the risk level. School safeguarding/ security is also largely keeping children in and accounted for.

Many youth groups are in comminity facilities. At ours, we lock doors to prevent walk-ins from parents or randoms wanting to use the toilet. We open the fire doors of the main room to a small "patio" for ventilation and use that space for activities in good weather the space is supervised by multiple leaders. Youth group ratios are better than in classrooms.
For fire safety, the risk assessment is to leave the gates unlocked for quick exit. Fire safety is a more serious concern than randomly being targeted by a terrorist or violent mental health crisis. The committee running the facility couldn't afford to fortify the building. Much of it's security is directed at anti-vandalism, not intruders.
Meanwhile it's surrounded by open, public sports fields and facilities full of use by young people anyway.

Some organisations will be due a security review and upgrades, but the general culture of health and safety is proportionate to the risks.

If anything we need more, accessible, low cost youth activities, not literal barriers to them. If young people are engaged in physically and mentally healthy community activities, they're not being drawn into gangs, county lines or the dark web which are what corrupt young people into dangerous behaviour.

The fact that society was horrified is a testement to it being rare.

There is no point in children being locked up behind fortified gates all the time. They need open space. There are always minute risks. Attacks have been held in shopping centres, concerts, public transport, the street. What isn't safe for many reasons is keeping them isolated at home with unrestricted use to the internet.

We are too vague with the term "mental health services" and it makes conversations like this difficult.

Many people interpret it to mean something like giving him access to counselling or talk therapy or a community basketball hoop or something, because "mental health crisis" is used to refer to the epidemic of 16yo girls being anxious or stressed about sexting etc.

Others interpret it to mean sectioning, locked psychiatric hospitals, asylums etc - physically restraining people deemed too violently unsafe to be in the community.

Yes, sadly so many parents out there just do not realise.

Range of reasons I suppose.

Fill in the gap..

naive/unconcerned/busy/lazy/irresponsible/ineffective/misinformed/ not bothered/unable to control etc etc.

That's because the services that exist depend on exactly where you are. They also frequently change names and stop existing due to funding cuts/lack of staff.

Sure - but addressing cases like this guy means something closer to the latter, long-term involuntary psychiatric admission. The father stopping him from going to the school the week before should have triggered it if nothing else.

I just think when we are unclear about what we mean, politicians will respond with something totally unrelated like "in order to stop the next Rudakabana, we will be encouraging all schools to host a meditation class on Mental Health Awareness Day".

Both are "mental health initiatives" but they are qualitatively very different.

Yes, I agree.

I don't think imprisoning children at all times is the answer.

I also agree with other posters who warn that smart phones/SM/the internet is much much more dangerous.