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?

Indeed, I'd rather my equipment didn't blow up in the first place! No good saying "insurance will cover it".

This might also be helpful for people to read:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/554128/Information-sharing-to-protect-vulnerable-children-and-families.pdf

This report brings together a cross-cutting programme of work commissioned from the Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing by the Department for Education, working closely with other funding departments. The findings are drawn from an analysis of recent Serious Case Reviews (SCR) which highlighted information sharing as a failing

Ime safeguarding is being trotted out as a buzzword at the minute anywhere where organisations have a policy regarding disclosure or threat of harm. It’s being used as a shorthand by people who think they know what it is and people are understanding the shorthand version as opposed to the full meaning.

Teachers in schools are taught the absolute basics, I’d be very surprised if charities etc do more in depth training with their front line staff. The main thing is don’t offer to keep secrets and tell someone higher up the safeguarding chain asap without causing a panic. If any organisation undermines that for one particular issue then it will be undermined for all because doubt and decision making have been put into a situation where previously actions were clear and unambiguous.

I’ve known senior safeguarding people who have gone on to abuse dc so it is not a fail safe that just because someone is involved in safeguarding it means they have the people they safeguard’s best interests at heart. Therefore imo and ime it’s better to put lots of effort into stopping potential safeguarding incidents before they can happen and making sure everyone involved is clear what they should and should not be doing. Anyone with potentially a different intent starts to stand out a mile because they can’t help themselves and start to push the boundaries. However the other people do not say anything generally until it gets serious because they don’t want to cause a fuss and this is where training could make a real difference. Artificially creating a category of people or behaviours that no one is allowed to question until it’s far too late does no one any good at all.

Thanks for all the informative posts. It's basically common sense gleaned from bad experience it appears to me - that in organisations you have to look at the what ifs and apply set precautions to everyone rather than on allowing familiar faces go by on the nod.

A child with a secret shared with only one professional is vulnerable to exploitation. Information must always be shared and this rule must be applied regardless of whether the professional is seen as popular and experienced.

It helps my understanding that both DPs worked in the NHS so the idea that protecting the vulnerable and those who work with them is fundamental to safe practice is very familiar, though I get that this is only one aspect of safeguarding.

Some years ago my DF was part of a group that took learning disabled adults to the pantomime from their residential home. The group drove them to the panto in private cars. They had been doing it for years before a new protocol was imposed and all the escorts had to have an enhanced CRB.

DF was a bit miffed at first - his passengers always came in pairs and he said he couldn't work out how he was expected to assault one in front of the other. But he understood that it wasn't personal. Others didn't. All the escorts turned out to have clean records. But sadly enough of them were so offended at feeling under suspicion that they dropped out and eventually the outings were abandoned.

Looking back it seems that if there had been a meeting where the principles of safeguarding were explained then the miffed escorts might have better understood what was going on and that it was no reflection on them as individuals. And the outings might still be adding to the lives of everyone involved.

Affirmation of a child transgender identity goes beyond keeping a secret from their parents, this is giving them life changing treatment (social transitioning) without the parent's consent or knowledge.

What if they allow a female child to bind their breasts at school? (I'm sure this is already happening as trans groups online teach girls how to sneakily purchase a binder online without their parent's knowledge.) Breast binding comes with a lot of serious health risks and might cause injury. If the school allows this without informing the parents that is definitively a dangerous breach of safeguarding.

I’ve known senior safeguarding people who have gone on to abuse dc so it is not a fail safe that just because someone is involved in safeguarding it means they have the people they safeguard’s best interests at heart.

This is why good organisations empower their staff to raise ANY concerns and feel comfortable to go above the safeguarding leads if they aren't happy with the response.

The attitude of the NSPCC over queries to their support in making the Girl Guides single gender not single sex is worrying. They should be robust enough to deal with criticism if they believe in their own policies.

Trans activists seem to be worried that safeguarding is being applied because they think their opponents consider a child being trans/having information about the possibility of transgender to be dangerous, something to be "guarded"/kept safe against - much like homophobes think it dangerous for children to be "exposed to" the idea of gay relationships and families.

But that isn't the concern most have. While it is a worry for some opponents to transactivism, it's not what the safeguarding argument is about. The safeguarding worry is that children with risk of mental health disorders, self harm, or in abusive environments are being taken outside of those systems intended to protect and alert about these risks due to fears about transphobia.

But that isn't the concern most have. While it is a worry for some opponents to transactivism, it's not what the safeguarding argument is about. The safeguarding worry is that children with risk of mental health disorders, self harm, or in abusive environments are being taken outside of those systems intended to protect and alert about these risks due to fears about transphobia

EXACTLY. Tries my soul that they can't - or won't - see that they're removing the very kids they advocate for from the frameworks that protect them.

This is a bit of a side note but what are the damaging effects of breast binding?

Also would the OP consider reporting thebpost to change the title to include 'WH sex and gender' so it can be identified (har har) as discussing one of this series of discussions? I look specifically for these threads and find it helpful when it's indicated in thr title.

Can i also say that, whatever i might think of Layla wotsherface, it was so nice to hear two women having a polite, informed, give-and-take discussion on this topic. Proper grown ups for a change

This is really enlightening, thank you. Safeguarding is something I have sketchy knowledge of. I hope you don't mind if I use some of your knowledge when I email my MSPs with concerns around the trans guidance used in schools.

Some fantastic posts on here.
If anyone is writing to MPs, ICSAA or anyone else and wants to give concrete examples where safeguarding is being undermined by trans training this Gires training pack; www.gires.org.uk/e-learning/caring-for-gender-nonconforming-young-people/
tells a teacher to keep a child's disclosure secret and advises them to risk assess for evidence of self harm and distress ! Completely beyond the knowledge / expertise of an individual adult in a school. You need to look for Module 2 and an interactive exercise about Maisie.

The Cornwall schools guidelines raise the issue of confidentiality / parental alienation here: www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/13620644/schools-transgender_guidance_booklet-2015.pdf
It states:
A parent or guardian may not always be the most supportive
or appropriate person to assist the young person through
transitioning. It may not be necessary for a parent or guardian
to provide permission for a Trans pupil or student to take
steps to transition as there may be issues raised of Fraser
competence if parents will not consent .

This is a bit of a side note but what are the damaging effects of breast binding?

Just looking this up as I wondered about the safeguarding implications if a school knew a child was binding and failed to tell a parent and there was a medical incident at home.

This is the most basic explanation as on wiki:

Some people try to bind using an ace bandage or duct tape, however these methods are dangerous and may cause cracked ribs, trouble breathing, and even suffocation if worn to sleep.

However, excessive use of all binding methods can lead to back pain and breathing trouble. A binding device/method should always be as loose as is practical and should not be worn for longer than 8 hours.

And

Binding for extended periods of time can lead to rashes or yeast infections under the breasts. Unsafe binding may lead to permanent deformation of the breasts, scarring, and lung constriction and long-term binding may adversely affect the outcome of a future mastectomy.

Note the final point, if you are encouraging nothing but positive affirmation. It sounds a lot like the pitfalls of taking puberty blockers too early and it screwing up the success of surgery later on.

Being supportive of being trans kids seems to include potentially letting them fuck up their body by positively affirming without any critical thought, supervision and guidance (aka safeguarding).

The irony is not lost on me.

Thank you RedToothBrush and drspouse for explaining further how safeguarding is about potential risks and that even a 'no risk' conclusion needs to be evidenced. Some of my concerns about the risk to sexually abused girls of suddenly finding themselves sharing a tent with a male-bodied child are that:

a) a sexually abused girl may have very poor boundaries about what others can do to her body. If you have another 'troubled' child (male-bodied) in the tent who has dysphoria about their own sexed body and therefore an inevitable curiosity about a female sexed body it surely does not take that much imagination to realise what may occur. Again I am speaking from a similar experience as when I was about ten years old I experienced sexually inappropriate and intimate behaviour from two boy in my class (at the house of one of them). They were both nice boys. I was friends with one until we were about sixteen. However at the time, due to my ongoing grooming and sexual abuse by an adult male, I had no sense of a personal boundary. I simply accepted my body being used in this way to answer the boys' curiosity.

b) if a sexually abused girl has suddenly been confronted with sharing with a male and is feeling traumatised by this as her experience tells her that being in such close and intimate proximity means more sexual abuse (even if that is not the intention of the other) then she may experience a variety of traumatic reactions. In her mind she will be trying to survive both an 'inevitable' sexual assault and also prevent her 'shame' being exposed. Fight and Flight would not therefore work but 'Friend' might and therefore she might try and befriend in order to have some control or initiation over sexual behaviour between them.

I realise that what I have written may not make sense. I can see the dangers so clearly, from my own experiences, but it is so hard to articulate them sometimes.

I have certainly read school policies which state that school staff should refer to a trans child by their preferred name and pronouns but, in order to maintain the child's confidentiality, if they need to phone the parent then they should use the birth name and pronouns.

It makes perfect sense and it's all very worrying.

BertieBotts - The safeguarding worry is that children with risk of mental health disorders, self harm, or in abusive environments are being taken outside of those systems intended to protect and alert about these risks due to fears about transphobia and GoldenWonderwall - If any organisation undermines that for one particular issue then it will be undermined for all because doubt and decision making have been put into a situation where previously actions were clear and unambiguous.

This is so true and it is already so evident that safeguarding is already being undermined for all sorts of vulnerable children.

I think the overall impression that I got from the Girlguiding response, I received was that because they carry out DBS checks, have all staff trained on their disclosure of abuse policy and risk assess their activities for physical harm then therefore their safeguarding policies are sound and they do not need to understand anything further.

I think that the NSPCC also have a lot to answer for. It would have just taken a statement of concern, from them to the GG, about balancing needs and risks and ensuring safeguarding remains the priority to have prevented the harm that could now occur both within GG but also within other organisations.

I think the overall impression that I got from the Girlguiding response, I received was that because they carry out DBS checks, have all staff trained on their disclosure of abuse policy and risk assess their activities for physical harm then therefore their safeguarding policies are sound and they do not need to understand anything further.

This reminds me of risk homoeostasis theory, whereby you perceive the risk to be lower so you engage in riskier behaviour - thus the risk doesn't actually change. Or to express the theory with this example: are DBS checks lulling people into a false sense of security thus safeguarding hasn't actually been improved at all despite the belief that it has?

Its a disputed theory, but I do wonder whether it's valid in the case of the guides with them, lacking a proper understanding of safeguarding and relying too heavily on DBS checks.

There’s pretty much a weekly story in the papers about an adult in a position of responsibility, who works with dc and them sexually abusing a child. The unfortunately several people I’m aware of that have done it or have tried to have had crb/dbs, safeguarding training and sometimes led safeguarding too!

The average person that works with children should know enough not to actively work against safeguarding procedure, and won’t be trained in much more. I don’t understand why organisations have suddenly decided this now makes them experts on assessing risk around this one particular area. It does not and it puts everyone at risk and the organisations at risk. Anyone with predatory intent will see an easier opportunity to isolate dc from others. They do it anyway but giving them training that says it’s ok to keep secrets sometimes gives them far too much leeway to start pushing boundaries with vulnerable dc. It should be possible to be considerate of dc questioning gender without putting them specifically and all dc generally at greater risk.

op, you’re really brave to share your own experience to help organisations see what they are blundering into.

Male helpers in GG have DBS checks, and extra risk assessment/separate accommodation if they say they are male.
So they are relying, not on DBS checks, but on what a man says he is - man or woman.

Anyone with predatory intent will see an easier opportunity to isolate dc from others.

This, exactly.

are DBS checks lulling people into a false sense of security thus safeguarding hasn't actually been improved at all despite the belief that it has?

DBS checks (and their predecessors, CRB checks) demonstrate only that the person concerned has no police record of concern. Therefore, a predator who has indulged in predatory behaviour (e.g. Savile) but not been caught for it will get a clean DBS.

I recall being open-mouthed with shock on hearing a (Labour) minister saying when these checks were introduced that they meant parents could be '100% certain their children were safe at school'.

I'm going to add that DBS checks appear to me to be less stringent than CRB ones. I've undergone both and noted that DBS checks only require you to provide the address(es) you've lived at for the past 3 years - which means, in particular, that someone who has (for example) lived abroad and committed offences there does not need to say so - and there's no question on the form asking about this - and will fly entirely under the radar.

I was just wondering about starting another thread about DBS checks.

Obviously, it's important to know that someone hasn't got a criminal record.

But I worry that a lot of people think DBS= 100% safe rather than viewing them as one, really quite small, facet of safeguarding.

VickyEadie I've always been required to ask people for 5 years worth of addresses for DBS checks, never 3. Although this is for enhanced DBS checks, which are required for those working with children and vulnerable adults, so I don't know if non-enhanced DBS checks require 3.

Anybody who knows anything about safeguarding knows a DBS just means you haven’t been caught.

Effective safeguarding is to put systems in place to make it as difficult as possible (ideally impossible) for anybody to abuse a child or vulnerable person.

You don’t assume anyone’s ‘safe’ you identify possible loopholes and close them or if you can’t put as many obstacles as possible in the way.

I recall being open-mouthed with shock on hearing a (Labour) minister saying when these checks were introduced that they meant parents could be '100% certain their children were safe at school'.

Whoever said that has the critical thinking skills of Dawn Butler.