What the GRA reform fiasco has revealed about safeguarding [edited by MNHQ at OP's request].

[FloralBunting]

So, the Times is reporting that the GRA reforms are dead. Time will tell, of course, but as we often analyse and examine beyond appearances in FWR, it occurs to me that this whole affair has brought to light many more surprising and worrying things than we realized.

Obviously, the rampant glee with which so many purportedly progressive men have let their repressed sexism and contempt for women flow freely has been a pretty unpleasant revelation, but I think there is something more surprising than that.

In all the discussions here and elsewhere in the last few years, the women here have been able to pinpoint that the hinge to all possible damage is a total disregard for Safeguarding frameworks.

Time and again, people have appeared on FWR to promote Self ID, gender identity as paramount over material reality, and all the attendant beliefs, and each of them has repeatedly demonstrated a complete absence of safeguarding knowledge.

What is most concerning about that is that some of them say they have had safeguarding training, or even that they work with vulnerable children and others.

It seems to me that, going forward, this egregious lip service - where a vital safety framework has been revealed to be smoke and mirrors among a large proportion of people who are tasked with implementing it - must be addressed.

I propose a concerted focus on actual Safeguarding education and implementation. Time and again, people, some of them in positions of power, some not, have illustrated that safeguarding principles are not at all well understood, let alone adequately implemented.

I'm starting this thread because I think this is a vitally important component of a society that looks after the vulnerable, because not only is there widespread ignorance about safeguarding, but some have very clearly been determined to undermine and remove it entirely, and I think that is something we should stop.

I'm encouraging us all to continue to ask questions, and I think it would be great to organize something lasting and effective, in terms of safeguarding education, so that the hard work put in over these last few years, and the consequences many of us have faced, actually lead in to something that will benefit our society, and genuinely make life better for women, children, and anyone who is vulnerable.

And yes to the way many adults erode boundaries without meaning to because they don't realise the implications or message it sends - with forcing kisses and hugs on small children or getting them to 'kiss Uncle Derek' when the kid doesn't want to. I have had the same realisation as Floral and am absolutely clear with mine that they can tell me not to hug or kiss or to stop at any time and I will immediately do as they say.

One of my proudest moments was when DD2 was at toddler group and another mum (who she knew reasonably well) stroked her head as she walked past. She yelled "don't touch me!" and the adult duly apologised.

It wasn't something that led to harm but was about communication with parents about who was going to be in loco parentis when the kids were going to be away from the normal club location - they had given wrong information to parents. The response I got was very jarring. I was treated as hysterical and the woman who'd made the mistake (giving us the wrong info) said that she was "worried that I was ok" for raising my concerns.

Defensive practice again?
Part of reflective practice (a possible antidote so to speak) is to consider why defensive reactions might have become normalised.
It might be situation specific, person specific and/or organisation specific.
Also what we might to / whether there is something we should do ?

but none of them felt able to challenge (though they were all glad I did so).

Feeling confident that the basis to raise issues is one based on (what one hopes are shared) Safeguarding concerns is an important part of the protective framework. Also important that raising issues improves Safeguarding- there are often wider implications as well as the immediate one.

We all have a responsibility for the Safeguarding of children & Vulnerable Adults.

Thanks R0 really interesting perspective.

I did also make sure that the adult (who I didn't know) who was in charge on the day was DBS checked. However the person who gave the wrong information acted quite put out that I asked for this info 'of course everyone is DBS checked', 'our safeguarding policy's on the website'. Essentially they were expecting me to entrust my child's welfare entirely to them and for me to assume they were beyond reproach and that anything they did was fine (including - uncharitable interpretation - lying to me and my daughter about who would be in loco parentis for months).

Yes, it wasn't a fun experience. The reaction I got - if I hadn't been enlightened by FWR - might have made me less likely to raise concerns again because the reaction was very definitely 'you're not being nice/ you have mental health problems'.

However the person who gave the wrong information acted quite put out that I asked for this info 'of course everyone is DBS checked', 'our safeguarding policy's on the website'.

Its a curious reaction.
It should be a good thing for parents to want to find out more about unknown adults they are entrusting their children to.
The reliance on policies is often unhelpful.

It is also appropriate (from a Safeguarding perspective) to be alert to the possibility that parents/carers have specific serious concerns which are unspoken & inform an enquiry .
For example there may be a particular fear of a specific person/people who represent risk. A parent might not want to disclose this & also believe that the DBS policy would exclude them.

Langbannedforsafeguardingkids
There are a lot of people running clubs who are really well-intentioned & who have no doubt been on Safeguarding courses. Its now very policy heavy & so many of those who take on the responsibility risk being removed from the Safeguarding principles which have informed the policies.

Tracy Shaw of Safe Schools Alliance is an excellent communicator about Safeguarding. This conversation is specific to schools but its completely transferable,

good resources here:
safeschoolsallianceuk.net/

The pernicious attitudes of the 1970's are on the front pages of the news again today.
Have we really learned nothing about proper Safeguarding in the intervening decades.
So depressing.
But hopefully people WILL find ways to speak up.

IICSE report published today:
'Allegations of child sexual abuse linked toWestminster'

extract from executive summary:

Several cross-cutting themes recurred throughout the investigation. One is the theme of ‘deference’ by police, prosecutors and political parties towards politicians and others believed to have some importance in public life. Another concerns differences in treatment
accorded to wealthy or well-connected people as opposed to those who were poorer, more deprived, and who had no access to networks of influence. A third relates to the failure by almost every institution to put the needs and safety of children first. The police paid little regard to the welfare of sexually exploited children. Political parties showed themselves, even very recently, to be more concerned about political fallout than safeguarding;* and in some cases the honours system prioritised reputation and discretion in making awards, with little or no regard for victims of nominated persons."

www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/17579/view/allegations-child-sexual-abuse-westminster-investigation-report-25-february-2020.pdf

These 'themes' will always be key to abuse/harm continuing unchecked by Safeguarding. This will be true in any situation

How can anyone ask a parent if they are ok for enquiring about who is in loco parentis ffs. That would give me the red mist.

You could always ask to see the risk assessment for the off site outings...

And DBS checked - if someone hasn’t got one yet they can still be helping if supervised. Which is supposed to mean never ever alone with clients/children without someone who is DBS checked.

DBS checks are rather a red herring as they are only valid on the day they are done and they provide no guarantee at all that somebody is sound.

Its why Safeguarding should by built around Every Child Matters and listening to the vulnerable and
USING COMMON SENSE
rather than relying on box ticking and risk assessments

DBS checks are rather a red herring as they are only valid on the day they are done and they provide no guarantee at all that somebody is sound.

Not only that but a MNetter on here (sorry can remember her name) was in contact with gov officials re: to DBS loophole and 'dead names', I don't recall the outcome of that but I do remember they were really not forthcoming with an answer.

Am loving this thread as i too have been seriously concerned at the lack of understanding, appreciation or respect for safeguarding amongst the general population. If I mention safeguarding to people they really don't know what I'm talking about. Worse is that they appear to think I'm getting on my high horse if I suggest that we need to have a zero tolerance attitude to children and vulnerable adults being abused. The idea that even one person falling through the net is a failure seems to be a bit OTT to them!!!!!

Also, is it not the case that the SNP are pushing through a change in Scotland's laws before the next election, bringing in self-ID? If England drops it and Scotland goes ahead, it'll turn Scotland into Disney for paedophiles and women-hating men.

DBS checks are rather a red herring as they are only valid on the day they are done and they provide no guarantee at all that somebody is sound.

The dire statistics for successful prosecution of sexual abuse, rape & violence against women need to be always kept in mind. Just as we know how many do not report abuse/violence, we should remember the numbers of perpetrators who would (if they applied) have a DBS with no causes for concern.

DBS has an important Safeguarding function but it is a specific & limited one.
Its effectiveness has also been (& continues to be) undermined from a number of fronts

Also, is it not the case that the SNP are pushing through a change in Scotland's laws before the next election, bringing in self-ID? If England drops it and Scotland goes ahead, it'll turn Scotland into Disney for paedophiles and women-hating men.

There is a Scottish government consultation running now.
Anyone can complete it.
It will affect everyone in the UK

For Women Scotland:
'The Government wants to know what you think about their Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This is our Quick and Easy Guide to filling out the consultation form. A downloadable version is available here. The deadline for responding is 17 March 2020.'
forwomen.scot/

You could always ask to see the risk assessment for the off site outings...

Ive worked with people who were superb in theirwork with children & Vulnerable Adults with sound & robust Safeguarding practice & who wrote poor risk assessments. (They were busy Safeguarding & ensuring every child mattered)

& conversely people who didnt understand Safeguarding but wrote very impressive looking RAs.

Have done the consultation.

Share R0wans cynicism about risk assessments
Many are templates that are shared through online forums and within organisations and bear little relation to the actual activity.

I just had to rewrite one to match the template
but that meant it lost some of the nuance that makes it actually work ....

I work indirectly with under 18s

We all get the same safe guarding training. The amount of people who do not treat it seriously and have a very loose adherence to the rules constantly horrifies me.

My point about the risk assessment was that out of sheer bloody mindedness I’d struggle to not ask more questions.

I’ve read loads of safeguarding policies that are meaningful and easily followed and then had to argue against management who were telling me to work in a way which completely breached their own policies.

The casual approach by many who have decades of working with vulnerable groups completely undermines the dedicated careful approach by others. I have absolutely no idea how this can be improved.

We all get the same safe guarding training. The amount of people who do not treat it seriously and have a very loose adherence to the rules constantly horrifies me.

This is at the heart of the issue.
Those who dont treat is seriously will not respect the rules.
They don't understand Safeguarding.

TBH, thinking of this in terms of my own work, the training is at fault.

If people come away from a Safeguarding training session with
that is over and done with, now back to normal
the Trainer has failed, the content was wrong, the pitching was wrong.

If on the other hand the attendees come away realising that

• safeguarding protects EVERYBODY
• thinking about safeguarding at the outset will actually make their jobs easier
• tolerating poor safeguarding practice by others puts everybody at risk

so its a communication issue

These reports should be used by a training provider to adjust how they do their job
to make the fees they earn actually make a difference

Not my field, but I strongly suspect the right people are already on this board

If people come away from a Safeguarding training session with
that is over and done with, now back to normal
the Trainer has failed, the content was wrong, the pitching was wrong.

This ^^

There has to be separation of what Safeguarding is & then (only then!) when this is secure, the specific policies of the particular organisation.
Context is important.

The goal is effective Safeguarding,

The five outcomes of 'Every Child Matters':

be healthy.
stay safe.
enjoy and achieve.
make a positive contribution.
achieve economic well-being.

As ListeningQuietly posted upthread, these are at the heart (or should be at the heart) of Safeguarding frameworks.

'Every Child Matters' came out of the investigation into the death of Victoria Climbe. The policy applied to the well-being of children and young people from birth up until they reached the age of 19. It was based on the idea that every child, regardless of their individual circumstances or background, should have plenty of support throughout their life.

apologies, should read Victoria Climbie

I've attended Safeguarding training as a school governor and have to say it was crap.
Admittedly the chap who identified Stephen Lawrence as a nignog stood down a few weeks later.
But it was very much about
this is required, don't worry none of these things will happen here
so the simple points of ECM did not embed into how we viewed the world.

Maybe its time for some of the now nationally known groups like WPUK to design training and start to offer it
as something needs to change