What actually is safeguarding?

[ChickenonaMug]

After listening to the Women's Hour debate today, it was quite clear that Michelle Moore and Layla Moran had very different ideas about what safeguarding is. I have heard this difference in understanding before with some people agreeing with Layla that is about almost entirely about protecting children from abuse or harassment that is occurring or is likely to occur. I know that the explanation of safeguarding that the government uses is:

"Safeguarding is the action that is taken to promote the welfare of children and protect them from harm.
Safeguarding means:
a)protecting children from abuse and maltreatment
b)preventing harm to children’s health or development
c)ensuring children grow up with the provision of safe and effective care
d)taking action to enable all children and young people to have the best outcomes.
Child protection is part of the safeguarding process. It focuses on protecting individual children identified as suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. This includes child protection procedures which detail how to respond to concerns about a child."

To my mind this seems a far broader understanding of safeguarding than the one offered by Layla Moran. My personal concern is how certain trans inclusive policies and teaching, in schools and Girlguiding for example, impact of the very considerable number of sexually abused girls (both those known about and also the very many who are hidden) within these organisations. I think that many or most sexually abused girls will recognise and have a response to someone based on their sex as opposed to their gender identity. Therefore I am particularly concerned about the effect of being forced to share spaces with someone with a male-body which might not only cause significant psychological distress and upsetting trauma responses but also reinforces the message to a previously groomed and vulnerable girl that her boundaries are not hers to define. I am equally concerned about the damage that can be caused to sexually abused girls (and indeed all girls) by teaching them that 'a person is who they identify themselves as' as opposed to who you recognise them to be. I am also concerned about the lack of recognition of the impact grooming, sexual abuse and the fear and shame that it causes will have had on a girl and her subsequent ability to speak up and assert her needs. So if I applied the broader understanding of safeguarding to the impact of trans inclusive policies on sexually abused girls, am I right in believing that there are concerns with regards to preventing harm to their health and development, promoting their welfare, as well as ensuring that they have the best outcomes? Or am I completely wrong in thinking that this is a safeguarding issue?

I think when you start talking about souls or religion being the dominant force, in a political context you need to be concerned. Its the same as talking about ideology in a medical setting. It an explosive and dangerous mix in which power can be abuse by justifying what you would otherwise challenge. It is the antithesis of safeguarding in many respects.

Thank you everyone, this is all very helpful. RedToothBrush that was a very useful rule of thumb that you posted.
To my mind trans-inclusive policies etc so obviously conflict directly with the rights and needs of girls (and women) who have been sexually abused that I find it so difficult when those in authority from the NSPPC, schools and Girlguiding all the way to the Government and MPs can't see it or refuse to acknowledge it.

If Article 39 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that “State Parties (Countries) must take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of:
any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse...
Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.” then surely the Government should be assessing the impact of these policies on the recovery and reintergration of abused girls.

An interesting aspect Lisa Muggeridge also discussed in her vids was (hope I get it right) how safeguarding is a clear, unavoidable responsibility shared by parents, government and social workers (?she might have used a broader term here?) in a legal framework, and organizations like Girlguiding, stonewall and whatnot are only third parties who have no choice than to accept said safeguarding framework. (In theory I guess. Talk about ‚wag the dog‘.)

Chickenonamug, there is also advice that there should be single sex toilets and washing facilities but the British government somehow argues that this doesn't apply to the UK and it only applies to developing world nations.

I think Clara Greed mentions this in one of the women's place meetings (Nov 1st Bath)

There is a reason that the policy was developed in the first place.

I find it mind blowingly arrogant and naive for politicians to say that purely because we are a developed nation we no longer have these type of problems.

It smacks to me of an attitude of seeing ourselves as somehow cilivised whilst other countries are simply inhabited by savages who have yet to be tamed and develop civilised behaviour.

It does not explore the possibility that even though certain cultural differences mean its less likely to happen, there are still men who will seek to abuse or exploit the vulnerability these areas expose women to.

There's a certain political racism right there.

As a slight aside, does anyone know what proportion of children with autism in special schools identify as trans?

If they are less likely to identify as trans than students with an autism diagnosis or with several autistic traits in main stream schools, this might indicate that students with autistic traits are not having their particular needs met in main stream schools.

Although I acknowledge the numbers might be too small for any useful statistical analysis to be done

In my letters to Girlguiding I raised the issue of the impact on a sexually abused girl who finds herself sharing a tent with someone male-bodied, especially where she may have not been aware in advance. I pointed the potential psychological effect of this and I also stated that the vulnerable girl in this circumstance may well be unable to speak out for various reasons, but which include not wanting to risk drawing attention to her past. I also pointed out that where a parent of a sexually abused girl knew of the past abuse of their child (alongside other relevant authorities) but the Girl Guide leader did not then it was important that the parent was aware so that they could make an informed decision about how to protect the mental health of their daughter.

Girlguiding responded by ignoring any of my concerns and highlighting the trans child's right to privacy instead. Therefore removing the parent from the safeguarding set up.

Chicken you should listen to Lisa muggeridge‘s youtube vids (channel: Idge of reason) on Girlguiding, if you haven‘t already done so. The GG response you describe is very much out of order, if I understand Lisa correctly. (But, obviously, nobody who could stop them gives a shit or even knows about the legal framework to challenge them, so they just go ahead. Until TSHTF, I guess.)

Chickenonamug

I wonder whether it might be worth making a complaint to ICSAA (Independent Inquiry Into Child Abuse)? They are investigating the David Challnor issue (a paedophile being 'employed' as an election agent by the Green Party) so they're evidently prepared to ask the questions that others should be asking about conduct in public office .

Given that all these breaches of Working Together are written down in trans guidelines and training packs it's not as if it's a case of unfounded allegations. It's all there in plain sight (along with the information about government funding for it all). Maybe the ICSAA will centre children's safety?

Safeguarding - 3 legged stool

State in the form of legislation, courts (and social services as their agents)

Parents who have responsiblilities within the law and must communicate with the third party

third party such as school, guides etc who must work within the law and communicate with the parents (both ways) in order for the childs best interests to be served.

If one is cut out, you only have 2 legs and the stool falls over.

(details probably a bit sketchy, but principle is there. )

Deep water my concern is that safeguarding frameworks do have legal implications but they are only valid if the law can be used to enforce those frameworks. And the law can always be changed too.

There are reasons why this may become increasingly difficult and stacked against the vulnerable. Safeguarding is essentially a facet of human rights which are under threat across the board.

Brexit poses risks here. Both legally and in financial terms. I am hugely concerned about the European Court of Human Rights and the UKs continued membership.

For that reason I'm not as confident as Lisa on this score. Its one thing I perhaps do disagree with her about.

I do however think safeguarding frameworks rely on a kind of social consensus and social value which exists outside of and regardless of the law (which is why you get paedophile hunters acting independently of law enforcement). As a society we also have higher expectations of safeguarding than some other countries have.

However again this comes down to the ability of people to voice those concerns. (why did Emmeline Pankhurst campaign for women in the workhouse? Because she recognised many simply didn't have the luxury of the ability to do so, which she as a middle class woman did) Economically desparate or the destitute don't tend to protest if they are too busy just trying to survive day by day / look after children. (Noting here a reason why Lisa always felt her ability to make a point was ultimately limited)

The erosion of the justice system and human rights in general might be a real problem going forward.

So I do envisage that unless the middle class mobilise then there's a potentially a problem. How much of this can working class women shoulder alone? And many middle class women do not share the belief that there is an issue, because they are less likely to be victims of certain safeguarding failures in the first place (they are not however immune). A Liberal identity and middle class wokeness are bedfellows to many.

Where ROGD falls and who many suspect it might be affecting disproportionately might throw a spanner in the works though too, if it is indeed predominantly middle class. (Keep an eye on how this develops as how TRAs might try to keep a lid on discussion of. There's a fundamental power dynamic at play here. Divide and conquer and all that shit).

That said, a failure to recognise these issues, and the neglect of safeguarding, lends itself to political exploitation of vulnerable groups and the working class too - such as we have seen with the BNP or the Tommy Robinsons of this world in response to Asian Grooming Gangs. Again something Lisa has pointed out.

Anyway I'm rambling a bit now and am probably simply incoherent in my thoughts on this. Just pondering it out as I go to a certain extent.

RedToothBrush - Most of my own personal concern on this subject is from my own childhood experience of prolonged grooming and sexual abuse by a adult male relative. I have reflected long and hard about how the impact that these policies would have had on me, on both my ability to recognise someone for who they are and not who they identify as and also my ability to manage my way through society as a traumatised girl and then woman. I had a reasonably middle(ish) class upbringing and I certainly feel that I need to use my relative privilege to speak up for abused girls who have absolutely no voice.

DeepWaterSolo - yes thank you I have listened to some of Lisa Muggeridge's videos and found them very useful. I think that I understand safeguarding and then sometimes find myself doubting myself when people such as ex teacher Layla Moran MP and Girl Guiding seem to have such a different idea to it.

ScepticalWoman - I will try and write to the ICSAA and see if I get a response. I am also going to write back to Girlguiding and see if I get any further response. I don't really know who else to write to. I have tried writing to my MP who has completely ignored my letter and concerns regarding the safeguarding and wellbeing of abused girls, but then I knew that that was likely to be his response due to his views on the matter.

Red I hear you. I love Lisa‘s analyses but I also sometimes wonder, whether it is really a given that crisis will force the system to basically fix itself. It is not like Rome never fell, so to speak. I wonder that on several fronts - there are many signs of a slow death of Democracy in the West, imo. (Chris hedges, who has been a war reporter and has seen systems collapse has quite a sobering perspective in this regard. I still hope Lisa is right and some things just cannot be rolled back. But I am not at all sure.)

I think that I understand safeguarding and then sometimes find myself doubting myself when people such as ex teacher Layla Moran MP and Girl Guiding seem to have such a different idea to it.

LM's life experience:

• Student at posh private schools.
• Teacher at posh private schools.
• Liberal democrat MP.

Which of these experiences do you think makes her more qualified than you to understand the horrors that some young people are subjected to? Don't doubt your own experience.

deepwater, I have a fascination with war reporting. Its one of the reasons I ended up studying media. System collapse is something on my radar all too sadly. A day in Mostar even now is a sobering experience on that score.

ChickenonaMug Layla and the people who wrote girl guides policy misunderstand safeguarding, you do not.

Write to your MP again, try cc’ing Penny Mourdant and/or Damian Hinds.

Thank you for writing, the more people write to the more people the better.

For me, 'safeguarding' is looking at, and dismantling, the structures and conditions that make abuse and threats to safety possible.

For example, the Roman Catholic Church had structures to protect priests and to silence their victims, globally. There were features of the priesthood that attracted abusive men. Safeguarding measures remove those features and structures, and promote a different culture towards potential prey.

It is perverse and highly dangerous to remove safeguarding measures by allowing the male sex to access women and girls easily. The state-sponsored erosion of safe spaces for women and girls is simply bizarre.

Thanks OP for this important thread. I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what safeguarding is across much of the trans discussion.

I'm not an expert (although my professional background is risk management so related and useful) but I am so tired of the "there's no issue" rhetoric. There are potential issues and the only way we can manage them is to be honest and open. If my boss said to me "what about x risk?" And if I just said "there's no risk", I'd be expected to substantiate that position and constantly review it, taking action where needed.

As a former guide leader, I'm horrified that I could keep a child's trans status to myself. I am not qualified to make that call. It mirrors abusive behaviour patterns. It leaves the child very vulnerable to whatever I might decide to do with that information. It might prevent them from getting specialist support, from adults who are accountable to other adults.

"Safeguarding" has become one of those words used so much and in the wrong context that it's meaning is becoming lost. We need a huge education / awareness programme of what safeguarding actually means and what responsibilities different groups have. And that it exists outside of political structures or beliefs - safeguarding applies to all, no exceptions.

I'm also very concerned about girls in guiding who have been subject to abuse by males, cannot talk about it and who then may be confronted by a male in their intimate space. If she complains or asks to be moved she risks being ostracised - if she's able to speak up at all. Girls boundaries are completely dispensable, their reality completely denied.

donquixo - thank you and I will stop doubting myself.

Repeal - thank you for clarifying that I am not misunderstanding safeguarding. I will write again to my MP although he seems to believe that women like us are attacking his LGBT community and he needs to protect them from us! I will also try and go and see him with a friend or two. Oh and thanks for the flowers.

PamAyres - it makes no sense to remove the protections for women and girls.

Agnes - we definitely do need a huge education/awareness programme. After two detailed and somewhat personal letters to Girlguiding Uk, covering the issues that I have raised on this thread, their response failed to acknowledge any of the concerns regarding the potential, damaging psychological impact on sexual abused girls of their policy in particular re sharing overnight accommodation with male bodied people without prior knowledge. They did inform me that Guide leaders are trained to balance everyone's needs and to ensure all girls feel comfortable. This is clearly very impressive training if it can spot that girl who has been sexually abused but who is very determined to keep it hidden and who is used to hiding her distress and discomfort. If the training that Girl Guides provides can really enable all leaders to spot the deeply hidden mental distress of an abused girl then I have truly underestimated them! Alternatively it may have been better to take on board my concerns and try to assess the risks and impact. I will respond to them, it has been a few weeks since they wrote back and only now do I feel able to write back to them as I think that after receiving their response I was so stunned by their lack of concern for the considerable number of vulnerable girls within Guides, who may well have been attracted to the group because they thought that it was single-sex. I am so sad that a number of these girls may feel the need to withdraw from Girl Guides to protect their feelings and mental health and that this will subsequently mean that they will not benefit from all the wonderful and character-strengthening activities Guides has always offered to girls. Thank you Agnes. You have made a difference.

Agnes is spot on with the comment about potential issues. Safeguarding is all about reducing potential risks. As in risks which do not need to be proven (as in already happened and are measurable) but risks which have been identified as possible to happen. The point being safeguarding is supposed to involve using your imagination to go to dark places.

The trans lobby are framing this imagination as an unreasonable hysterical unjustified and irrational fear - and labelling it as transphobia. When they are calling out feminists with a background in safeguarding and a good record on inclusivity and equality for being transphobia, they are vilifying the process of safeguarding. That in itself risks safeguarding across the board - areas that are completely unrelated to trans issues are at risk - because the trans debate brings into question the integrity and compancency of those working in the area and enabling frameworks.

Idenfying potential risks in safeguarding is not hysterical. Its based on rational and experience / awareness of how safeguarding has failed.

It's not lost on me, how easy it is to smear those responsible for safeguarding; notably the majority of people for safeguarding are women - hysterical women of course.

All the 'this could never happen stuff' - every single one is a breakdown in safeguarding.

That's the removal of the power of women right there.

'There is no evidence for' isn't a defence for not safeguarding. You just need to outline a potential risk.

This is really great to read
Will look again at wha5 Scottish government plans are

When I do a risk assessment for work, nobody says "how DARE you say my workers might be sloppy and tip coffee on a piece of equipment/my equipment might fail and disrupt the job/someone might trip over a wire".

But GG say this. They are doing the equivalent of saying "this group of people are beyond suspicion, how dare you suggest otherwise". So I can't do proper risk assessments.

Good analogy drspouse.
Imagine pointing out any potential risk at work is so offensive as you must not even mention humans sometimes fail. Good luck managing risk in such a climate.

I'm not an expert (although my professional background is risk management so related and useful) but I am so tired of the "there's no issue" rhetoric. There are potential issues and the only way we can manage them is to be honest and open. If my boss said to me "what about x risk?" And if I just said "there's no risk", I'd be expected to substantiate that position and constantly review it, taking action where needed.

Exactly.

The TRA outrage at the mere thought that safeguarding applies to them is a red flag in itself. Safeguarding applies to everyone. Safeguarding is sceptical. It is supposed to be sceptical. That is the point of it. Nobody is above it.

It's the same thing as the constant refrain that we have laws and offenders will be punished - well, most of the time we won't actually, and the whole point of safeguarding is to prevent offending in the first place.