Safeguarding exceptions.

[BuntingEllacott]

This is an exhaustive list of every group who may confidently expect that they will not be affected by safeguarding, and be able to insist that their membership of a group means they have privileged access in situations involving children and vulnerable adults and may bypass the basic safeguarding protocols:

.

.

.

.

That's right. No one. Not a man, not a woman, not a single person or group can legitimately demand that safeguarding enforcement will not affect them.

Pass it on. It's important. (It includes you and me, too. Equally important.)

Thanks for this thread, it’s always good to talk about safeguarding and ensure people know about safeguarding.

Safeguarding is one of those rare things in life that are absolutely black and white:

If you have a problem with safeguarding then you are a safeguarding problem.

If you have a problem with safeguarding then you are a safeguarding problem.

Yesss

Just because we can't protect against everything all the time doesn't mean we shouldn't bother safeguarding at all.

Seat belts occasionally hurt or kill people its still law to wear them. It saves more than it harms.

In the event of new occurrences safeguarding should be added to. Not removed.

Safeguarding seems like bureaucracy and 'ealth and safety gorn maad...

Until you see abuse in action, predators in action, and sloppy safeguarding in action. Then you realise how essential it is.

When you see a man who worked supply at your local school in court for his behaviour with pupils in that school...
When you discover a parent helper at a club has been building friendships with children outside the club...
When you find a married man has been having an affair with his daughter's friend still at school, and works in a care capacity with responsibility for young girls...

Absolutely anyone could be a risk. Certain boundaries are in place to minimise the opportunities available to the small number who offend- and offend multiple times, as they do.

These behaviours don't occur occasionally. People who 'upskirt' have hundreds of images- hundreds of offences.

We have a few really strong barriers to those behaviours, we need every one of them.

I’ve worked in schools for a long time now.

Every time I get a new job I have to apply for a new DBS. In fact I was in post at one place a long time so my DBS needed updating whilst I was there.

This is exactly how it should be. It’s the best system we have of protecting children.

If I went to a school and they said “nah, it’s cool, we don’t check stuff like that.” I would be very, very worried about them.

Honestly, this is utterly vital. I've been at this quite some time now, and this really is a lynchpin for everything. Every single time someone tries to make an exception, even for kindness' sake they are putting children and vulnerable adults at risk.

I'm going to keep banging this drum, because Safeguarding seems to be the target of most of the misinformation and undermining, and it's not even been in place for that long. We have it because we began to get wise to the persistence and devious nature of predators, and it's genuinely one of the most important advances in social policy of the last few years.

@Datun

If you have a problem with safeguarding then you are a safeguarding problem.

Yesss

I agree.

The sad thing is I've known several people in different charities with responsibility for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults who do see safeguarding as 'nanny state gone mad'

And, worse, staff are shamed for 'overreacting' or worse, being ridiculous uncool in the face of the CEOs mad, narcissistic social justice pursuit.

I have seen this in several small charities and I will never, ever trust my children into the care of such an organisation.

Unregulated non-statutory third sector organisations are a huge risk because they are full of blasé idiots who are only in it for the reflected glory and they couldn't give a fuck about something as square as safeguarding.

Great thread, thank you.

Predators actively look for weak points in safeguarding. It's not that some people just accidentally fall through a net - a predator makes it their business to know points of vulnerability, ways to circumvent and overcome obstacles. They will exploit these. So when it is noticed that there are certain characteristics that encourage trust or a letting-down of boundaries, predators will be encouraged to take on those characteristics in order to make use of this weakness.

Any area where people are vulnerable attracts predators like vultures. It's not very nice to acknowledge that there are people like this in society, but it's a fairly logical process if you look at it dispassionately.

Any area where people are vulnerable attracts predators like vultures. It's not very nice to acknowledge that there are people like this in society, but it's a fairly logical process if you look at it dispassionately

And they of course will be the nicest people you have ever met. Long glowing records, active parts of the community, everyone's trusted baby sitter/village tutor/ lovely elderly neighbour who has donated money to the school for end of year dances for decades and changed your parents nappies when they were a kid.

They will be the last person you would ever suspect. And the one person you think " just this once won't hurt" ..

As you say they will have memorised planned for and exploited every safeguarding loop hole there is

Imagine a house, with doors and windows that all bolt. Carefully lock all the doors and windows. Leave one open, because a housemate asks you to because they need to get in later.

Is your house safe? Yes, the housemate can get in. And who else? Will the law abiding passers by clamber in? Or will it be those up to know good?

Anyone asking or persuading you to leave a window open is making everyone else vulnerable. Anyone using a window is up to no good.

Sticking a label on a window and claiming it's a door doesn't make it ok.

The simplest, most basic, most effective safeguarding mechanism is keeping certain facilities separated by sex.

@ArabellaScott

Predators actively look for weak points in safeguarding. It's not that some people just accidentally fall through a net - a predator makes it their business to know points of vulnerability, ways to circumvent and overcome obstacles. They will exploit these. So when it is noticed that there are certain characteristics that encourage trust or a letting-down of boundaries, predators will be encouraged to take on those characteristics in order to make use of this weakness.

Any area where people are vulnerable attracts predators like vultures. It's not very nice to acknowledge that there are people like this in society, but it's a fairly logical process if you look at it dispassionately.

Yes. This.

Speaking very carefully as this is potentially outing, the problem is that even those responsible for Safeguarding/on LA's Children's Safeguarding boards, those whom we rely on to flag up the red flags, have been seemingly captured by ideology surrounding the sacred caste.

Due to his gender identity, a heterosexual teenage boy (16) was the only boy allowed to share a tent/dormitory/facilities for a fortnight with girls, even though the girls had signed explicit consent to single sex (sic) spaces.

I took this up with the National Citizenship Scheme (NCS) and the local authority's Children's Safeguarding Board; they both showed a worrying lack of understanding of Safeguarding and Equality law.

NCS felt that because this particular boy 'identified as a girl' that he was one and that the girls - some of whom had only just met him - had given their informed consent to sharing a room with "her". Yet nowhere on the NCS application form did they ask about Sex - just Gender - so they failed from the outset in their duty to set up a Safeguarding structure to keep girls safe. Plus a clear case of discrimination/indirect discrimination etc.

I asked to see a copy of their Safeguarding Team's risk assessment for this scenario but they had not done one. And, yes, I hate to say it but their policies for adult helpers leave them wide open to abuse.

The LA's Children's Safeguarding Board response was to ask if "anything inappropriate had happened" and batted it back to me to take up with NCS.

Yes, something inappropriate happened - a child Safeguarding board handwaved away the boundaries and consent of teenage girls.

It is disturbing when Safeguarding authorities don't really seem to understand the purpose and nature of safeguarding frameworks which is partly to attempt to STOP BAD THINGS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE because we already understand what the risks are, rather than just trying to pick up the pieces once the bad thing has happened.

This is an area where I believe the law on Safeguarding is being misinterpreted, including in the Thread with the minister for Safeguarding today.

The case-by-case basis is not supposed to be about 'how nice does this particular individual seem?' 'Did anything inappropriate happen?'

This is not Safeguarding.

Rather, that the principle of, say, a single sex space for the safety, privacy and dignity of girls means that, in overnight sleeping accommodation for teenage strangers, only people of the female sex should be in there. And that all males, the lovely ones, the gay ones, the vulnerable and the confused ones, the trans ones together with the occasional downright awful ones should not.

No exceptions.

ANewCreation thank you. Hugely important points, and I agree with every word. I've been in situations in volunteer organisations where the manager has gone off for a day to do 'safeguarding training' and it is simply a tickbox exercise, nothing passed on with any accuracy, and a prevailing attitude of 'oh, I'll just follow my instincts on this specific case' rather than following the blanket policies which exist for a reason.

The problem here is 100% communication. People do not get it at all. Hence this thread. Pushback is way overdue on the slack and slapdash application of this.

Absolutely @fallingirl. Shut the door, don't leave it open & look to the courts for a remedy.

Everyone please complete your 'Violence to women & girls' gvmt consultation survey, as this is one of the points to include.

I'll start a new thread with the link, we have 1 week left (deadline 19/2/2021)

Thanks Datum should have read the OP before jumping to conclusions Will now start again

@ANewCreation - these are such important points. My interest is safeguarding came from my childs a swim club where a just-teen girl complained about being hugged repeatedly by a male coach, who carried on hugging her after she complained. Then other girls came forward and said it made them uncomfortable too. Eventually he was dismissed because he refused to undertake safeguarding training - in breach of the clubs own policy. They hadnt made xxx do it before as he was so special (long standing member, old and friendly)

After he was dismissed for not doing safeguarding training (rather than touching girls without consent) the club shared their finding with the over arching body as he also volunteers at meets right up to a national level.

He still volunteers at those meets and is a big part of the community. The club got a 'no evidence of wrongdoing response'.

So you are right there is still an 'evidence of wrongdoing' mentality rather than a 'stop it happening mentality' and zero understanding of consent, grooming or even how someone might get their kicks out of hugging a 13 year old in a swim costume in full public view knowing she hates it and no one stopping him. Because 'he is just friendly and its not sexual'

There is so much to do.

@highame

Unfortunately the bullet points aren't showing up for me. Could someone c/p and see if that works. Thanks in anticipation

Sure, here's the full list of groups who may bypass the basic safeguarding protocols:

... I think that's all of them.

If you have a problem with safeguarding then you are a safeguarding problem.

That’s all that needs saying. However many times it takes.

This is why I don't understand how Girl Guiding can stand by their current trans inclusive policies. They have become mixed sex but are not telling their users...

An organisation can be trans inclusive but still retain basic safeguarding for girls, based on sex.

They never answered my question about the insurance when I emailed.

No ones been able to explain what happens with insurance. Especially if the insurance hasn't been updated with SW policies

[quote MillieEpple]@ANewCreation - these are such important points. My interest is safeguarding came from my childs a swim club where a just-teen girl complained about being hugged repeatedly by a male coach, who carried on hugging her after she complained. Then other girls came forward and said it made them uncomfortable too. Eventually he was dismissed because he refused to undertake safeguarding training - in breach of the clubs own policy. They hadnt made xxx do it before as he was so special (long standing member, old and friendly)

After he was dismissed for not doing safeguarding training (rather than touching girls without consent) the club shared their finding with the over arching body as he also volunteers at meets right up to a national level.

He still volunteers at those meets and is a big part of the community. The club got a 'no evidence of wrongdoing response'.

So you are right there is still an 'evidence of wrongdoing' mentality rather than a 'stop it happening mentality' and zero understanding of consent, grooming or even how someone might get their kicks out of hugging a 13 year old in a swim costume in full public view knowing she hates it and no one stopping him. Because 'he is just friendly and its not sexual'

There is so much to do.[/quote]
Jesus fucking wept.

I really hope that all those girls understood very clearly that the coach had transgressed boundaries, that they'd done the right thing, and got support for speaking up. Very concerning that such a basic understanding of consent and suitable behaviour wasn't understood.

I filled in the VAWG consultation but didn't mention the safeguarding specifically, as I was focussing on other issues. I wonder if one can fill it in more than once?

I filled it in and was as focused on safeguarding and all the reasons it matters as you might expect me to be. The more people press the matter, the better.

@happydappy2

This is why I don't understand how Girl Guiding can stand by their current trans inclusive policies. They have become mixed sex but are not telling their users...

An organisation can be trans inclusive but still retain basic safeguarding for girls, based on sex.

God forbid it ever happens to anyone but if my daughter went to Guide camp and got pregnant because of their lack of safeguarding that would make for some uncomfortable headlines.

Organisations that do this are playing with fire, both for themselves and the girls. The legal action combined with the explosive bad publicity could shut them down - can they not see that?