Stonewall and Childnet Online Safety Guide

[Lumene]

Has anyone with a good understanding of child safeguarding read this?

Is it OK or are there any red flags for tried and tested safeguarding advice?

www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/staying_safe_online_-_stonewall_childnet.pdf

www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/staying_safe_online_-_stonewall_childnet.pdf

I suppose p 18 is an issue as it's a point of view as to the specific online harm content around trans causes.

Bullying is an issue but so is promoting hormones and surgeriesz

The absence of any advice specific to bio lesbian girls, about online body image, porn, pro ana, sites unhelpful. Also the elephant in the groom re online grooming to promote gender identity, body binding, and transing and sometimes for validation , sometimes a "big sister" then leading to sexual approaches (often lesbian girls groomed by older TW "lesbians"). I heard a worrying podcast about that

@spero has just tweeted about this.

There is a strong recommendation for the gender enthusiast amateurs at Mermaids (two mentions)..but within the list of bad things on the internet, p22, one thing is not like the others. “One in five trans people (20 per cent) have been pressured to access services to suppress their gender identity when accessing healthcare services.“

Then in the glossary at the end “GENDER STEREOTYPES - the ways that we expect people to behave in society according to their gender, or what is commonly accepted as ‘normal’ for someone of that gender“. This isn’t used anywhere in the doc.
The only other use of stereotype is also in the glossary, as part of the definition of sexism. Sexism isn’t used in the document.
It’s almost as if it didn’t make any coherent sense.

There is a great definition here too:

Sorry
“HOMOSEXUAL - this might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has an emotional, romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.”
Emotional attraction. Like what a child would have to their best friend.

I haven't got past the name of the interim chief exec, because I am an absolute child. He even looks rightly pleased with himself, as you can imagine.

I've not read it, because Stonewall is worthless to me, since throwing lesbians under the bus. So I wouldn't be surprised if there were safeguarding issues, but I don't know enough about the subject to usefully contribute.

haven't got past the name of the interim chief exec, because I am an absolute child.

Yes, I boggled rather at that.

Thanks all.

Have read it all now and a bit concerned about the section that gives a case study where a teacher finds out the child is ‘LGBT’ but doesn’t share this with the parents (due to concerns for the child’s safety if parents found out). The teacher then helps the child to meet other LGBT youth through groups or networks.

Is not telling parents and connecting children to other children/groups without telling the parents a reasonable approach here or in general?

Name changed but a regular on here.

Lumene this slack relationship with safeguarding is exactly what concerns me about Stonewall, combined with their 'you're either with us all the way or you're a bigot' approach.

I picked up a leaflet about the NHS Rainbow Badge today. It informed that I can apply to receive a rainbow badge to put on my uniform that communicates to LGBT+ patients and other staff that 'you can talk to me', my role being that of a listening ear and signposting.

It states that 'we can promote inclusion' by affirming the identity that the person chooses and assuring confidentiality.

Lots of stats from Stonewall's research of course.

Apparently, the rainbow badge scheme was piloted 'very successfully' in a children's hospital (now, why does that not surprise me...).

No mention of safeguarding, difference between minors and adults or the possibility that there is information that it would be highly unprofessional to keep confidential eg someone taking blockers that they've bought online while undergoing a medical procedure.

I do get that there are highly complex and sensitive situations when a child would be at risk if their parents knew that they were gay for example, but I'm not at all sure about the ethics of encouraging HCPs to set themselves up as a confidential listening ear about sexual orientation is the best way to approach it.

There seems to be no requirement to receive any sort of training re disclosure before you don your rainbow badge.

I know that some of my colleagues most likely hold some very homophobic views in private. They don't express them to the patients or overtly gay/lesbian or bi staff so it doesn't affect working relationships.

Having some of a staff team wearing rainbow badges and some not seems designed to fuel tension and division, which seems to be Stonewall's self-interested intention in as many spheres as it can access.

Lumene
I've had a look at that section as an experienced safeguarding lead / trainer. Like so much LGBT (mainly T) advice for schools, the lack of experience and knowledge of school safeguarding is ever present. It's written on the assumption that the adult taking the initial disclosure will "follow safeguarding procedure" and then follow up and speak to the parents:
YOU discuss with the child their fear of coming out to their parent, and decide bringing this up with their parent would actually make them more unsafe. YOU talk to the child about how YOU could both explain
the situation to their parent together, in a way that does not out them

The reality is that all these decisions will not be made by the individual adult in isolation. If the child is likely to be unsafe after a disclosure then the safeguarding lead must make these decisions - likely in collaboration with pastoral lead and social services (depending on the context). The adult the child discloses to may be subsequently involved but may well not - for all sorts of reasons - lack of knowledge, limited experience of safeguarding, timetabling issues, no relationship with parent, lack of skills etc.
Having a case study like this encourages adults to step beyond their role and to risk assess and make judgements about a child's safety that individuals don't have the competence to make.

These organisations put out advice / case studies to schools without understanding the school system and context. Safeguarding is a collaborative approach (always share information) but with a strict hierarchy and chain of responsibility to ensure that no child falls through the net. Safeguarding is littered with busy fools who repeatedly cross boundaries because they decide that they know best and fail to follow school procedures. This section of Stonewall's guidance encourages this professionally dangerous behaviour - it just mentions "follow safeguarding" and then launches into all the decisions YOU will make. It's misleading - safeguarding guidance must always be clear and explicit.
Sorry about the length of this

Gah - bold fail but hope that the quoted section is still clear.

We all knew it would be full of garbage the second you put Stonewall in the thread title! Didn't really have to read it.

Ta languishing. Keep posting

It s dead helpful for us who migh5 be in an amuetur situation but still have to safeguard. Sport for juniors

To be fair some of it is very good as well as being interesting. And the section about safeguarding that precedes the problematic case study is at first glance sound and based on good practice.

It states it's for all children but as it focuses specifically on LGBT, then of course the other protected characteristics that schools need to be aware of in terms of online bullying - disability, race and faith group bullying, sexism and bullying of girls and young women online etc are not covered. So schools will need to make sure that if they use this, it's supported with additional information about other groups.

Thank you languishing.

You've clarified what I was trying to get at.

With children and vulnerable adults, safeguarding underpins everything. It's not an 'add on'.

Sarah Phillimore has written about this on Twitter. She points out the lack of clarity about the legal definition of a child and also the lack of differentiation of advice concerning younger and older children.

I do like their approach that accepts that children /young people have significant online lives and that we adults need to accept this and encourage them to tell us when things go wrong. I have learnt from working in safeguarding with young people is how long they will try to manage horrendous situations before finding someone to confide in. And often it's because they know they'll be banned from going online - so they keep it all secret when things get difficult!

Thanks so much Languishing.

to be fair some of it is very good as well as being interesting. And the section about safeguarding that precedes the problematic case study is at first glance sound and based on good practice.

This seems to be a pattern with LGBT particularly T focused guidance: good standard advice with some big red flags hidden inside under cover of a plausibility blanket.

That sounds worrying and familiar Bsharp

What I have taken from this, is that the schools having being "programmend" by Stonewall/Mermaids, have indoctrinated schools with their belief system - rather like a religion.
1936 all over again.