Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

[OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg]

Because it bears repeating.

See above.

Word

Of course it is. But who is breaking it? No one that I know who works with children would breach this.

But clearly some people do Hooves, whether you personally know them or not.

SisyphusLangClegRocks

Thanks for explaining. In that case I agree, that's very wrong.

And so it begins...

Now that we've moved away from discussion about whether or not an individual poster is rude, I do hope that posters who think that some FWR users don't tolerate difference of opinion will use this thread to actually assert what it is they disagree with?

No one that I know who works with children would breach this.

I'm glad, obviously. But that's the reason safeguarding exists, believing that people x, y and z would never harm children isn't good enough.

So this is something else that "never happens". Really, hooves?

I know lots of people who havent done a thing, therefore that thing doesn't exist.

So this is something else that "never happens".

No not at all. Just the way that it was being discussed I thought posters meant that this was happening on a widescale basis.

I understand of course, that it happens on occasion and that is utterly wrong.

So can I just check how this works ?

Poster says “ this never happens “ .

Others give named example of when it happened.

Poster says “ ah that’s only one person, they are an outlier “.

Others give multiple examples of when this happened.

Poster reports thread for personal attacks on an individual / some sort of phobia / saying mean things about the most oppressed of the oppressed ( clue = no it’s not the child )

Thread gets deleted.

People posting about safeguarding get banned.

Have I got the gist of it ?

This is why it should be on the front page so everyone can see what is happening here.

So anyway... back to the topic...

Obviously there should be times where young people can discuss things confidentially, but how do we ensure that they know who the appropriate professional people are that they should be talking to?

It’s precisely the people who naively believe no one really does this who are most likely to be taken in by those who seek to circumvent or erode safeguarding. I would suggest that anyone who reads Lang’s words (posted here as a general principle and a reminder of the sense she spoke) and finds their first reaction is to reject the sentiment in some way should seek out or refresh safeguarding training, particularly if they have contact with children in a caring or supervisory capacity. Otherwise you are vulnerable to being manipulated into failing in your duty of care, and thus children are also made vulnerable.

Is it time for a reminder about Chesterton's Fence?

'Don't take a fence down until you truly know the reason why it was put there in the first place'.

Why do we have safeguarding principles in the first place?
What would things look like if those safeguarding principles were eroded or removed?

We know it has happened, we know it is happening.
We don't even need to name names on this thread because WE know who they are.
This thread is about the ability to discuss safeguarding concerns.

Another example...
Impact assessments not carried out by local authorities when they legally should have.

It’s precisely the people who naively believe no one really does this who are most likely to be taken in by those who seek to circumvent or erode safeguarding

I wonder if this is part of the reason why establishments/organisations allow themselves to apply guidance that encourages keeping secrets from parents and providing the opportunity for these private interactions to occur.

Neurotrash - the idea that there is mandatory RSE in Wales which uses materials by organisations who have a very poor track record of safeguarding is shocking to me.

As I mentioned on another thread, the head of education at stonewall has gone straight from university to stonewall and has no background in education.

If it’s happening in a children’s charity it’s happening in lots of places. The very people who are supposed to know this stuff don’t bother with it because - you know - don’t be mean.

Someone here once posted a link to a brilliant article here on how the instinctive reaction to accusations is denial and how it's an important part of safeguarding to recognise and acknowledge this fault in yourself and organisations. I didn't save the link and I've searched for it since with no luck, does anyone know the one I mean?

I have worked with staff who have slightly blurred boundaries with pupils in a previous job eg friends on social media. Staff I respected at the time and would never have imagined were doing anything sinister.

What I know now I'm older and have had much more training is that a) nobody should be above suspicion and b) even if they were wholly innocent they were leading the young people to believe that private contact with adults was normal, leaving them open to being exploited by someone else.

Just the way that it was being discussed I thought posters meant that this was happening on a widescale basis. I understand of course, that it happens on occasion and that is utterly wrong.

The thing is that any guidance which suggests keeping secrets for children is ok (e.g. keeping trans status a secret) is creating massive safeguarding loopholes that predators will use. That's why we need strict and rigorous safeguarding protocols and why no one group can be considered above scrutiny - no matter who they are.

Also, effective safeguarding assumes that there will be a significant number of people who will seek to get into positions where they will abuse children - not just assuming that it only happens on occasion so we shouldn't worry about it or (in manner of M&S changing rooms) just deal with crimes once they've been committed. That's not good enough. Child abuse ruins lives - even one victim would be too many and we're a long long way as a society from eradicating this (Rotherham, Manchester, etc etc). We DON'T as a society deal with it effectively when it happens - Savile was never brought to justice. We need to stop it before it happens. Hence safeguarding.

Personally I find it extremely worrying that the NSPCC wanted to employ someone who OPENLY, on social media encouraged children to contact him - a stranger - privately. If they can get it so wrong so very publicly then what are they doing in all the cases we DON'T hear about?

It's also worth mentioning that the nspcc is the only children's charity that has statutory powers. If their safeguarding is not up to standards imagine the consequences of fighting against what you as a parent see as failures that do not align with theirs

It seems to me that a really clever abuser like Savile (he was a monster but he did it in plain sight for years and years and got himself invited into all sorts of children's spaces) would run rings around the NSPCC if they're getting something so basic so wrong.

I absolutely agree. Asking children for secret chats is not on. Anyone involved in children's services in any way should make sure they are up to speed with safeguarding requirements or keep away. If they care about children, as they claim to, then this should sound perfectly reasonable to them. Professionals working with children know this and are subjected to checks without complaint.