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.)

ArabellaScott - the girls had the support of their parents and then several members of the committee. However, as I say he is still able to volunteer for county/national competitions so it has sent a message to the girls that your club has listened to you but the wider sporting world doesn't recognise your boundary.

I had never understood how Jimmy Saville happened until this situation and it all became so clear. it became clear how people are prepared not to respect a girls boundaries for fear of upsetting an higher profile man, it became clear how a 'not xxx, he is so nice, buys a raffle ticket blah blah' could mean policies that exist are not followed unless someone is prepared to push very hard and risk their career etc to get them followed. I also finally understood that something can happen in front of lots of people and everyone can just write it off 'that's just how xxxx is and he is ok'.

At work we are always told 'it could happen here' but I really feel the wider society is still on 'that would never happen'

Millie, it's so little they need to do to be above the law

My church removed a children's group leader because they wouldn't follow safeguarding procedures. The activity was also part of a larger national group. He just moved to a different church and continued. Now, we don't believe he is a risk, or that anyone he enabled to access the children is a risk. But leaving doors wide open will attract predators, and sooner or later something will happen.

Agree with everyone here.

Safeguarding protects everyone. Adults, children, carers, service users... All of us
Having a clear DBS isn't an excuse to disregard safeguarding. It just proves you've never been caught. Being nice isn't an excuse. Being 'diverse' isn't an excuse.

ArabellaScott - the girls had the support of their parents and then several members of the committee. However, as I say he is still able to volunteer for county/national competitions so it has sent a message to the girls that your club has listened to you but the wider sporting world doesn't recognise your boundary.

I'm glad they had that support, but yes, to see the institutional carelessness and disregard on this is appalling. They are saying that it doesn't matter if girls' consent isn't respected.

@ANewCreation

‘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.’

Absolutely THIS. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what safeguarding means creeping in to a whole raft of organisations that work with children and vulnerable adults.

I think what people don't get with safeguarding as well, is that you can personally know YOU are not doing something for the wrong reasons, but if you do that you're contributing to a culture in which someone CAN do the exact same thing for the wrong reasons.

I don't think I've explained it properly, but if you're an adult and you're privately messaging a child because you're worried about them, they then don't realise there's anything wrong when DodgyBob69 is also privately messaging them pretending to be concerned but actually grooming them.

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children so they understand acceptable behaviour and learn to spot when someone is breaking them.

Yes. Very much.

My daughter hates people kissing her on the face. When she was a cute little toddler, she was so scrumptious I wanted to kiss her lovely face all the time, and it would elicit cute little toddler giggles. Eventually, as she grew, she articulated to me, when she was about 7, that she didn't like being kissed on the face. She set her boundary and I have never crossed it.

Did I ever have any nefarious intent when I kissed my child's cheek? Of course not, the suggestion is outlandish. But that is not the point. By her feeling able to state a boundary, and me respecting it 100%, she learned that her boundaries matter, and that she can say no even if the person she is saying no to has no obvious ulterior motive at all.

Totally, lasagne. And it's frustrating as hell to operate in that straight jacket. But it's essential because not to do so allows abusers to follow.

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children

Well put!

We don't need to just enforce boundaries on those who could have bad intentions, we need to demonstrate healthy boundaries to vulnerable children so they understand acceptable behaviour and learn to spot when someone is breaking them.

Yes. Completely.

And the other thing is that having no exceptions for safeguarding procedures makes it far easier for everyone to know, understand and recognise the rules, and avoids any suggestion that any one person or group is under disproportionate suspicion. Everyone is subject to safeguarding, therefore nobody needs to feel targetted. Nobody is exempt; nobody is unfairly singled out.

Everyone is subject to safeguarding, therefore nobody needs to feel targetted. Nobody is exempt; nobody is unfairly singled out.

Indeed. However much they try to say they are.