Today’s daily dose of LangCleg sense

[OnlyTheTitOfTheLangBerg]

Because it bears repeating.

It's also worth mentioning that the nspcc is the only children's charity that has statutory powers.

This bears repeating and often, now that LC isn't here to do this!

This obviously saves Rhyl High School from the need to write their own policy, and according to the policy itself:

"The purpose of this policy and implementation guidance is to...Provide information that will allow schools to feel confident that they are complying with the Equality Act 2010 and meeting their Public Sector Equality Duty obligations and the specific requirements of safeguarding legislation."

It only makes sense to copy and paste after doing your due diligence. Never instead of.
I was involved in hammering out policies that were often adopted and applied statewide, but never once without being called upon to defend the policy line by line.

They are violating the EA2010 as well as safeguarding requirements.

Also that any training or proposed policy which breeches this should be identified as a breech of Safeguarding & red flag.

But if that training or policy is being pushed by the LA onto its maintained schools then there's little that schools can do to refuse it, even if they are concerned. Who do they take their concerns to?

At least with multi academy trusts (and I don't have much positive to say about them) they are answerable directly to the secretary of state for education and so aren't beholden to local authorities. Of course the multi academy trust might not be centering children in its policies.

any protection against an LA hell bent on driving through their own agenda then they are very wrong.

^^this is what I meant hooves. What is their agenda, and who trains them in safeguarding?

That whole "supports young teens to adults in their mid twenties" thing seems to crop up across multiple groups, and it's such a bad idea. Young teens require different support from young adults, and the latter are potentially a danger to the former even if they to are vulnerable in some ways.

And we have this

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7923221/Britains-strictest-headteacher-sent-flirtatious-messages-pupils-calling-naughty.html

Read right to bottom wher the council talk about safeguarding

It is not a local education authority school, therefore it is has no accountability to the local authority and the Council has absolutely no say on how the school is run. That is purely a matter for the school and its own regulators.

'However safeguarding children and adults is a matter for the Council and its partners and we have previously raised concerns about safeguarding issues at the school which led to an investigation.

the policy itself indicates that they don't understand safeguarding.

Here are some of the things they say about safeguarding:

"3.1 Risk Factors: A review of literature highlighted the importance of this policy in safeguarding our children and young people:"

Following this is a list of statistics and anecdotes mainly about bullying, suicide attempts, self harm and depression experienced by trans people.

About toilets:
"10.5.1 In discussion with the school and parent/carers, and subject to safeguarding, children and young people can access the toilet that corresponds to their gender identity."

When a child changes schools:
"10.11.3 Close work and consultation between the two schools, the pupil and their family is essential – with the consent of the latter two. Safeguarding, respect and confidentiality are central to the approach taken. Information sharing should be in line with the wishes of the pupil and their family and data protection."

None of these mentions of safeguarding seem to be about actual safeguarding.

Positively vomitous, littlbrowndog. I actually really liked my school's head and didn't realize until much later that her ability to take students seriously and not treat teenagers like small children while at the same time maintaining appropriate boundaries and steering us away from any attempts to compromise those was not something that comes standard in head teachers.

(Being female does seem to help rather a lot there, though.)

So in the examples above safeguarding is being taken to mean protecting pupils from things that might hurt their feelings or make them feel invalidated? Doesn't seem to be much focus on safeguarding their actual physical beings going on there.

But if that training or policy is being pushed by the LA onto its maintained schools then there's little that schools can do to refuse it, even if they are concerned. Who do they take their concerns to?

There are routes for Governors within & without the Local Authority depending on the specifics of the issues.
Its too vague a question.

If Governors believe that training is contrary to Safeguarding legislation & framework, they are bound by duties to both pupils & staff to act appropriately rather than have their employees forced to attend.

None of these mentions of safeguarding seem to be about actual safeguarding.

It why I started using a capital letter!

The policy lays out how they will discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and disability in order to avoid discriminating on the basis of gender reassignment which the policy states is what gender identity means because their policy places Self ID under the trans umbrella.

Abracadabra!
Salagadoola mechicka boola
Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put them together and what have you got?
Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo

A youth group that purports to support ages 14 to 25.

The age range is a bit jarring.

Sort of related - thread from a while ago re. Mesmac who run youth groups with a similar wide age range.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3790190-LGBT-charities-targeting-children

For context (because I believe it matters)

Sun 09-Jun-19LangCleg post from OP concerns discussion of Owen Jones' attacking Janice Turner for criticising Munroe Bergdorf's appointment by NSPCC based on specific comments made by Bergdorf.

Owen Jones had tweeted,
"I am so unbelievably angry about this. An anti-trans journalist for the Murdoch press - with its extensive history of homophobia, misogyny and racism - has led a vile campaign against this brilliant trans activist in Pride month. This media hate campaign has to stop."
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3608110-Owen-Jones-looking-to-take-on-Janice-Turner?pg=2

LangCleg posted:
"To: the Woke

A primer on the first rule of safeguarding.

Sometimes, adults invite private contact with vulnerable children or offer to keep secrets for them. When this happens we call it a red flag.

At worst: this person is attempting to groom those vulnerable children in order to abuse them.

At best: this person has no ill intent themselves but is still normalising private contact with adults in the mind of the child, which makes the child easier to groom and abuse by those who do have ill intent.

If you want to protect children who question their gender - and all the other children, if you can manage to care about them too - then you never break this cardinal first rule of safeguarding. You never invite private contact with a child. You never offer to keep its secrets. Because you don't break down children's boundaries: you build them up.

Any adult who does this is therefore unsuited to any role in child protection or to have any connection with child protection organisations.

Any person who defends another person doing this is therefore unsuited to ever speak of what or what is not appropriate in child protection matters.

In short: STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CHILDREN UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT SAFEGUARDING IS."

12 JUNE 2019 Peter Wanless NSPCC Chief Executive statement
(extract)
"When appointing an ambassador we are required to consider whether the relationship supports our ability to safeguard children and be influential in safeguarding children. The board decided an ongoing relationship with Munroe was inappropriate because of her statements on the public record, which we felt would mean that she was in breach of our own risk assessments and undermine what we are here to do."
www.nspcc.org.uk/what-we-do/news-opinion/munroe-bergdorf/

Youth groups usually separate school age kids from older youths.
In this case 25 year olds could be working, driving, drinking and have access to all adult activities.
A red flag for child safeguarding right there.
Thanks to this thread I now understand why the age range makes me feel uncomfortable.

A quick look at the Girl Guides website.
It states the Ranger Guides age range is 14-18.
I seem to remember (1970's) the Ranger Guides was for girls aged 16 or 17+.

Have they changed the age range?

From Safeguarding Hub, 'Age related milestones relevant to safeguarding children – a guide'
(extract)
"The legal definition of a child in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is someone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. On reaching 18 a person legally becomes an adult. In Scotland the principle is generally the same. However, in some legal proceedings a child can be defined as a person under 16 years of age. Treating a person who is under 18 years as a child, is in keeping with Article 1 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child which states that “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”.

Whilst in the eyes of the law the definition of a child is clear, there are many age-related laws, regulations and restrictions across the UK which may affect and impact on child safeguarding" (continues with details of the many pieces of Safeguarding legislation based on children's age)

safeguardinghub.co.uk/age-related-milestones-relevant-to-safeguarding-children-a-guide/

There are some scenarios in which putting 14 year olds in with 18 year olds seems very unwise. Like, at the book club, sure. For overnight trips? Not so much.

When organising overnight trips for children (under 18's) then the first relevent Safeguarding principles will be based on age & sex.
There will of course be other factors to consider to ensure all children are Safeguarded whilst away from their home. Its a very serious reponsibility to take on.

I may be out of touch now , but a youth group supporting ages 14 to 25 would indicate to me a group supporting young people with disabilities.
Not ideal, but when services for this group is far and few between , where else can these young people socialise?

Thanks R0
I would imagine the word 'youth' hasn't got a definitive age range.
Therefore youth groups can accommodate a wider age range under the guise of inclusion.

Therefore pushing another boundary where not many people notice.

thebloodykneeagain
Yes, the age tends to extend to 25 when disability is a factor. Rightly so imo.

Not sure if this is allowing other groups to extend their age range, for nefarious reasons.