If Only Bigots Have Boundaries - How Will Safeguarding Be Possible In This Brave New World?

[EmbarrassingAdmissions]

If Only Bigots Have Boundaries - How Will Safeguarding Be Possible In This Brave New World?

There's so much gaslighting and minimisation. "They're just bodies." "Don't look." "Don't go there." "You're a bigot."

If only bigots have boundaries - and bigots are to be suppressed, deplatformed, sacked, and harassed for their boundaries and educated into dismantling them - how do people who identify as non-bigots hope to retain safeguarding in any meaningful way?

Or do children, women, and vulnerable people not need safeguarding any more?

Did someone solve that while I wasn't looking? Because it feels like a societal level decision in which I was neither consulted nor involved.

Well, if you're going to talk about an invented world, then perhaps it'll be done by space aliens with pet lizards and a 5G chipping machine.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

@trollopolis

Well, if you're going to talk about an invented world, then perhaps it'll be done by space aliens with pet lizards and a 5G chipping machine.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

Safeguarding best practice exists by considering the worst case scenario though. For example the vast majority of people who have to apply for a DBS check to do certain jobs are not criminals or perverts but we do it to keep the vulnerable safe.

I assume you are in favour of abandoning the DBS system because it's 'just plain wrong'?

I agree op. Wanting single sex spaces isn't bigoted, and safeguarding is about mitigating risks to keep more vulnerable people safe. If this offends certain sections of the population, they need to consider why their sense of offence overrides the safety of women and children.

@trollopolis

Well, if you're going to talk about an invented world, then perhaps it'll be done by space aliens with pet lizards and a 5G chipping machine.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

You won't die if you use the correct changing room for your sex, or even just use a cubicle (if not).

Sex and child safety will always trump gender identity - or should but I don't know with the way things are going. Doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist to believe that

assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong

So we should stop safeguarding altogether because everyone share some characteristics with perverts in some way or other.

Should the fact that males commit 98% of sex crimes, and not one bit of evidence exists to say that transitioned males have female levels of criminality, should be ignored too? Because we are all human?

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

I think this answers your question, EmbarrassingAdmissions.

In this brave new world, safeguarding will be done away with completely as people like trollopolis have been trained to think that safeguarding = "assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts".

This proudly display of ignorance is utterly depressing, and it's women and girls who will suffer from people with influence and power going along with this kind of cloudy, illogical thinking.

The basis of safeguarding is to always presume the worse of everyone, so stop that and yes you may as well do away with safeguarding.

We have our current system due to the massive overhaul after Ian Huntley, I think people often forget that.

@ifyourefeelingsinsiter: "they need to consider why their sense of offence overrides the safety of women and children."

And why everybody else gets to say who's part of their group. I mean, god forbid you should identify as a black or American Indian merely on your say-so. But groups of women are to be told.

Some might be pleased to include males. Some not. Why are women the only group without veto power over who takes part?

Who could possibly be offended by safeguarding that protects women and children? 🤔

Safeguarding presumes worst case scenario. That's the fucking point. Yes most males aren't sex offenders, but most sex offenders ARE male.

It doesn't matter if a tiny minority 'see the world differently', it doesn't change the facts.

Maybe those space aliens have a device that zaps any person who has abusive thoughts towards another person.

Then I guess we might tone down the safeguarding. When a male is in the news for buying a boarding school to have access to victims, not sure why people think safeguarding should bypass any person on this planet.

I am saddened that I no longer believe in a fairytale world though.

Personally I want a deep dive into the hard drives of adults arguing that children have no right to boundaries and that they and women must accept the presence of any random male penis if said male chooses.

Some people seem to be under the impression that "safeguarding" means imagining somewhere safe, a woodland glade perhaps, with elves and rainbows, where everyone is lovely and nice and lives happily ever after together.

Safeguarding in reality means:

-imagining the worst case scenario, arising either accidentally or deliberately
-asking awkward questions
-saying No
-sticking your head above the parapet if you feel something is not right
-prioritising the safety of the vulnerable above the feelings of everyone else
-taking action rather than hoping something might just go away

We need to start shouting about it. Loudly.

Safeguarding in reality means

I'd agree with your list. I'd perhaps add:

accepting that there are no sacred castes and I should not take safeguarding measures as a challenge to my own integrity or actions

When I trained as a school governor it was all about safeguarding. 15 years later the buzz word seems to be “offence” and insanely it seems that if a school visitor wandered round with their trousers round their ankles dangling their penis about the first thought would be a) are they a woman and b) their mental health and somewhere around z) would be the kids’ welfare.

Good safeguarding puts needs above wants and wishes - a child might wants you to not disclose self harm, but they need support, a family might not want professional intervention but might need it to safely care for their children, a child might want to stay with their chaotic, abusive family but might need to be removed for their very survival. A trans woman might want to access female changing rooms/refuge spaces/but women and children need single sex safe spaces for their safety.

It’s not about assuming everyone is dangerous, but acknowledging some people do present a risk to others, and addressing the needs of the other above the wants of the particular individual.

Having seen some of this week's contributions on here from adults arguing that safeguarding, high quality medical care are not needed for this group of vulnerable children alongside the celebration of a flasher's rights, it seems that certain adults feel emboldened to celebrate the removal of safeguarding boundaries.

This will not end well.

somewhere around z) would be the kids’ welfare.

And way before that will be

) children should be taught not to stare at other people's genitals as it's rude.

@trollopolis

Well, if you're going to talk about an invented world, then perhaps it'll be done by space aliens with pet lizards and a 5G chipping machine.

Assuming that a different way of looking at the world = 'don't care about safeguarding' or assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong.

Please educate yourself about safeguarding and crime statistics and read these threads. It is an astonishingly naive attitude to take (at best), not just a "different view".

Please don't be blinded by "be kind".

twitter.com/FemmeLoves/status/1412316271698448386?s=20

twitter.com/JamesBarry1789/status/1412154364618227721?s=20

twitter.com/DaniBado/status/992406693450518529?s=20

Virtually nobody under 30 seems to get this. Perhaps because they have no children? A young friend has been cancelled by many of his friends. He's not even a member of any GC group. His crime seems to be sharing a rather anodyne Guardian editorial on the subject. This is very insidious and a lot of relationships will never recover from the fall out. I fear for the future.

Cancel culture is very real and has almost become a gladiator sport in some instances.

There was a great video posted I think by Belstaffie, a Leeds lesbian who was a social worker and then a probation officer working with sex offenders, about how early on in her university training as a social worker she and her cohort of maybe 70 students went to a lecture where a lecturer talked about knowing what normality looked like. One of the students interrupted and said something along the lines of 'Who's to say what's normal?' and the lecturer responded by saying that all good social workers had a clear idea of what normal was, because it was only by knowing what was normal that they could do their job. The lecturer gestured around the lecture theatre at all the students and said that at least one of those there, and possibly two or three, would be there because they had decided to train as social workers in order to gain access to vulnerable people and children with the intent to abuse them. The lecturer said that the abuser in their midst was likely to be likeable, charming and the last person anyone there would identify as a safeguarding hazard. No one was above or beyond suspicion.

Every time I see Stonewall pushing the boundaries of the acceptable back a bit further and teaching young people that any concept of normal is discriminatory, I remember that. It's an abuser's charter. Stonewall are befuddling all their diversity champions into believing that 'normal' is a bad word and that the more diverse their workforce, and the more accepting of every form of diversity, even extreme forms, they are, the better. Does anyone remember how, when a member of their staff filmed himself masturbating in his leather gear in the workplace toilets and posted it online, the NSPCC defended him and blamed prurient complainants?

I've always been a bit embarrassed about being seen as a prude but I'm really learning the importance of boundaries.

@Helleofabore

Cancel culture is very real and has almost become a gladiator sport in some instances.

The creepy part is he only found out by accident. They sometimes don't unfriend you officially. This way they can see anything you post on various pages? Apparently a woman he'd known for over ten years was putting the poison in. It is desperately sad. And scary 😨.

The creepy part is he only found out by accident. They sometimes don't unfriend you officially. This way they can see anything you post on various pages?

Why would somebody you know reasonably well do that rather than have a conversation with you if they have concerns? It's almost as if they've made up their minds.

assuming that all people must be perverts because some who share a characteristic with them are perverts, is just plain wrong

Again louder for the people in the back..

THE👏🏻ONLY👏🏻WAY👏🏻TO👏🏻TELL👏🏻THE👏🏻DIFFERENCE 👏🏻IS👏🏻IF👏🏻WOMEN👏🏻ARE👏🏻SEXUALLY 👏🏻ASSAULTED 👏🏻OR👏🏻NOT

Why oh why is it so hard to understand. Zero functioning penises in women’s spaces keep women safe. It’s literal sexual violence roulette. Will this be the one that attacks me?!

@Abhannmor

Virtually nobody under 30 seems to get this. Perhaps because they have no children? A young friend has been cancelled by many of his friends. He's not even a member of any GC group. His crime seems to be sharing a rather anodyne Guardian editorial on the subject. This is very insidious and a lot of relationships will never recover from the fall out. I fear for the future.

And yet somehow, we're the bigots.