Have Scouts said anything about Assistant leader 'Baloo' Challenor?

[Doyenne]

Just wondering whether the Scout Association have made any sort of announcement re their assistant leader being charged. They will have been told by the police at the very latest when he was charged so they have had plenty of time to prepare a statement

I have volunteered with scouts before until they show more leadership on real safeguarding I would not be prepared to risk my good name in being associated with them by volunteering again.

This is a real issue. Guilt by association.

Its awful, and its the kids who ultimately lose out. And thats why the Scout Association NEED to make some kind of statement to protect their leaders and volunteers.

HotRocker agree on not responding in haste, but I would ask very clearly:

Can you confirm then that your robust safeguarding policies worked and that a now convicted child rapist wasn't a Scout leader during the time he was on remand awaiting trial for offences including rape and torture of a ten year old girl?

Appreciate it's really scary to ask this of someone you know, you could soften it by saying 'people I'm talking to want assurances that a convicted child rapist wasn't actively leading Scouts while on remand for offences including the rape and torture of a ten year old girl, in other words they're looking for concrete assurances that safeguarding worked in this instance.'

I've had no response from the safeguarding team...

Datun you've asked whether a conviction for animal cruelty would bar you from working with children. I've said this before but it bears repeating - and hold onto your hat here - a conviction for rape doesn't automatically bar you from working with children. It shows up on a DBS but it's not an automatic bar.

Scouts are a slow moving and cumbersome organisation who, when things go well, do amazing things for the kids. I have a lot of respect for uniformed organisations and their volunteers, I've held positions in Guides and Scouts.

However, I had a year-long drama with them after a safety issue involving my son who has medical needs which were not looked after because Scouting's own policies weren't followed. They could have killed him.

It was batted from pillar to post and delayed and lost and considered and consulted - for an entire year. During this time, other kids were at risk.

It was so frustrating, they were protecting Brand Scout rather than dealing with a clear cut issue which would upset some long standing Scouters. In the end I withdrew my son and my volunteer work from them and the Scouters resigned anyway.

That's why I resigned, I didn't want to be associated with an organisation which is set up for children's benefit and which also didn't mind the odd one or two getting hurt.

It's not in Scouting's interest to acknowledge anything about this case unless it transpires that the scumbag was actually a Leader when he was also hurting children. They'll ignore, ignore, ignore.

If you are interested in how the Scout Association handle adverse DBS information, it is described in detail at the end of this document scouts.org.uk/media/927539/The-Appointment-Process-.pdf

I actually just want to know if he was a current leader, and if so, have they reached out to parents of his current and previous packs appropriately. If he is no longer a leader, are they pulling records and considering in liaison with the authorities whether they need to contact those families.

We had a much more minor safeguarding issue here (a leader looked to be engaging in grooming behaviour and was ignoring policy to do so) and I reported it. Our area staff swooped in, suspended the guy, investigated, and held a parent meeting where they answered questions.
In our case, the other parents were the enemies of safeguarding, in truth. They complained vociferously that the leader was suspended (and later had his membership cancelled). They wanted scouts to look the other way and for him to be allowed to invite individual scouts off for special days out (not official scouting activities) and saw nothing wrong with him inviting a young teen boy for a week long trip.
In truth, I have no idea if his intent. But adults in a youth leadership position, accessing youth by virtue of that position, can not use that association to create special alone time with individual children.
They asked him to abide by the rules and he refused. The parents were livid that scouts sacked him.
I’m sure he’s lovely. But the parents were completely swayed by the legitimacy that being a scout leader gave him, and allowed their boys to disappear off with him, no questions asked. They assumed that a day doing x with y meant it was a scout approved activity. And taking a young boy off in your own is plain stupid even if your intentions are pure.

Mamaryllis, very similar story here, though a different organisation and less obvious safeguarding issues. Same response from parents. They were happy for safeguarding restrictions to be ignored by the leader, allowing random adults to join in on sleep overs, because they liked him.

Mamaryllis, picklemepopcorn, this is so often the problem. Abusers can be charming and plausible. This is why a clear robust safeguarding policy is so important. In Mamaryllis's case it sounds like it has worked as intended - the rules were applied despite objections by the parents. That is the safest way.

Urghh, you've reminded me that one of my children was in Beavers with a leader who said bracingly before a sleepover, 'Now, all this CRB stuff means that I'm not really allowed to give your kids a hug if they wake up upset at night, but don't worry, if a little lad wakes up and cries, of course I'm going to give him a cuddle, unless anyone wants to tell me not to?'

No one said anything.

We should have, shouldn't we?

Clear safeguarding polices do not prevent abuse.

There are individuals who chose to ignore it as they can never be catered for.

I would assume that with this up roar with scouts all of you intend to write to your schools. Loads of teachers out there who abuse children either by contact or online offences. Those schools Safeguarding policies are robust ?

There are no words to describe what DC did but I do think that if you are going to target Scouts in this manner then please do the same for all the schools and sports clubs where abusers have been found. Do you still send your children to school ? Do you still send your children to a sports activity ? Do you still send your children to that music or English tutor ?

I am also concerned about the Trans gender issue with children and safeguarding but a pragmatic and common sense approach to the scout issue is required. Appears to be a mob mentality.

Doning my flame retardant jump suit.

Dodo. It's not forbidden to give young children a hug in any establishment. It's just needs to be appropriate i.e not in a room on your own and obviously depends on age and situation.
I would hope a leader would give a homesick young child a hug if they needed it (but not in a room on their own !!!)
Apart from the dubious advice surrounding transgender, guides take safeguarding quite seriously or at least my mentor when I was a leader in training did.

Taking part in a group activity in a classroom or church hall isn't the same as a sleepover situation.

@Dodo
Actually the leader was well off the mark to think the dbs rules suggest anything of the sort. A bit depressing, that level of ignorance. It's as @whathaveiforgottentoday said

It is actually ok to give a distressed or upset child a hug.

The issue is when the adult initiates that scenario and does it in isolation.

If a Beaver child on a sleep over was upset a reassuring hug would be ok.

Numbkin I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think sending a polite, concerned email asking for clarification and / or a statement following extremely serious child sexual abuse, rape and torture by a man who may or may not have a) met the child through Scouts, b) have remained a Scout leader around the time of the offences and c) have remained a Scout leader following the offences coming to light, is "mob mentality".

The public (especially the Scouting community, and especially in Coventry) need to know if this was a serious lapse in safeguarding or whether the timelines completely exonerate Scouts. For all we know, Scouts may have allowed DC to be a leader after his own kids were taken into care and he was given a suspended sentence for animal cruelty - they may have kicked him out years before. If Scouts were (as I deeply hope will happen) able to clarify timelines and reassure parents it would not require speculation.

I repeat, we do not know at this stage - and not knowing is scary.

Numbkinnuts you seem very keen to imply safeguarding is pointless so why are we worried. I've noticed you make similar points more than once.

I understand it is the case that most child abuse is by someone close to the child, and that is difficult to detect/prevent. That should not mean we don't do what we can to prevent it wherever it is occurring.

Sweetheartneckline. This is a mind field and I see what you are saying about DC but some of the anecdotal comments do throw the debate out of sync.

I am interested in the issues for safeguarding around trans but I am also aware of offenders in position of trust who may offend in one organisation but not another.

The Scouts for example may be working with statutory agencies on a complex enquiry to establish if any offending has occurred within their organisation.

They will be damned if they tell you and damned if they don't.

I will follow this thread as said it is an area I am interested in and trying to get to grips with.

So, Pride Coventry knew in 2016 and gave instructions that DC was no longer to be accepted as a volunteer.

I have never said or wanted to imply that Safeguarding is pointless but I believe that people saying that it will be ok because there are polices in place and more women leaders will stop abuse and it will be ok.

I would like to see the evidence that having females in organisations reduces risk but it has not been produced.

If the evidence is there and valid then it will be useful.

Polices are great but only effective if implemented and imbedded.

Coventry scouts should know whether DC was still doing his scouting stuff while on bail

www.coventryscouts.org.uk

Can't see anything on their twitter.

So, Pride Coventry knew in 2016 and gave instructions that DC was no longer to be accepted as a volunteer.

Interesting, pickle.

Meanwhile, the Greens in 2017:

So, Pride Coventry knew in 2016 and gave instructions that DC was no longer to be accepted as a volunteer

How do we know this?

It's in the Green Party Statement Continuation thread from:

OrchidInTheSun Tue 28-Aug-18 17:45:58

onwards.

--
Coventry Pride on Twitter

28 AUG 2018
A statement from the Trustees of Coventry Pride

We, the trustees of Coventry Pride, were deeply shocked to learn of the actions of Mr David Challenor as concluded by the court. The safety and welfare of children in our society must be paramount. May we offer our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to the child and family.

Mr Challenor volunteered for the Charity in 2015 and 2016 he assisted with event set up and take down, and designing some posters and leaflets. The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016. A directive was issued to those responsible for volunteer recruitment that Mr Challenor was not to be accepted as a volunteer at the Charity’s events and if he attended public events organised by the Charity he was monitored by the trustees. Mr Challenor no longer has any links with the Charity.
www.coventrypride.org.uk/2018/08/28/a-statement-from-the-trustees-of-coventry-pride/

Painted

www.coventrypride.org.uk/2018/08/28/a-statement-from-the-trustees-of-coventry-pride/

Can I just point out that the sort of "don't blame the Scouts when there are other organizations/institutions where children may also be abused" kneejerk reaction that many people have when an organization that they like or are involved with is asked about its policies is one of the reasons people are able to get away with abuse. It's wagon circling, and while I can understand that people don't like seeing an organization that they admire being critiqued it's really not a helpful response. If the organization is as good as you hope it is then it will be able to demonstrate how it's taking steps to mitigate the attempts by predators to worm their way into any organization that could provide access to children.