The Samaritans: a "Specific Demographic"

[Jaysmith71]

Samaritans volunteers abused their position of trust by having sex with vulnerable callers, The Telegraph understands, prompting the charity to 'listen in' to conversations for the first time.The “shocking” incidents are believed to include volunteers meeting up with callers for inappropriate relationships.It is understood that there was a “specific demographic” of some "middle-aged men” who were abusing female callers by meeting up and having sex with them.The charity, which provides a helpline service for people in emotional distress or at risk of suicide, has strict rules concerning volunteer contact with callers.The incidents have prompted a mass overhaul of policies announced...

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/08/01/exclusive-samaritans-listen-conversations-volunteers-had-sex/

I suspect they may lose some brilliant volunteers because of the change to a very corporate approach. Which, IMO, is utterly wrong for a charity and particularly one that deals with daily contact about people’s feelings, which are too nuanced to fit in a box.

How infuriating and frustrating it must be for those wanting to give up their time to help truly desperate people in very great need to also have to deal with volume of sex callers

(almost exclusively men) they get.

Well yes, and it’s stopped. Over 30 years ago.

Yes, the Brenda line was closed in the 80s, but huge numbers of sex calls continue to be made. When I was a volunteer two years ago, around a third of the calls I received were sex calls.

Shortly before I left a new system was introduced whereby if a caller made 25 sex calls in a 30 day period they would be banned for a few months then reinstated. Better than nothing I suppose but still totally insufficient.

OMG the “Brenda Line.” They kept that going till 1987? That’s horrific. There’s something rotten in the DNA of this organisation. (Aside: it’s interesting how often “crossdressers” are mentioned in the context of the Brenda Line when you Google it.)

I wonder about this “specific demographic” of abusers. The demographic seems to be more specific than “men.” I have to wonder if they all came up with it independently or if there’s a forum somewhere where men are giving each other tips on how to exploit women as a Samaritans volunteer. With it being so widespread, you have to wonder if there’s an organised quality to it.

There’s something rotten in the DNA of this organisation.

I'm no expert but that change was made 34 years ago, and its had plenty of new people in that time to develop the organisation, and it is obviously bringing in new measures now to address recent issues which suggests a lot of reflection. I'm not sure judging it by its history in this way is hugely helpful.

It's a valuable service for many people.

And a valuable access to the vulnerable for abusers.

It's not right that survivors and whistle blowers are required to shut up.

My (limited) understanding was that Chad Varah set up the Brenda Line so sex callers didn’t take away time/volunteers for genuine callers. Also, because if they got their ‘thrills’ that way they were less likely to commit sex offences.

If that was the case, I can understand to a point. It’s not addressing the root problem but was trying to protect women in its own way 🤷‍♀️

It's not right that survivors and whistle blowers are required to shut up.

Is anyone saying it is? Do you think that is a current concern? There is a complaints procedure, and presumably the safeguarding concerns arose from a process of some kind to identify/respond to issues

I believe people here who say they have had bad experiences in the past. Not every organisation gets it right all the time, especially one of this size, that relies so much on volunteers and is made up of independent local branches.

Previous posters have said they were told to keep quiet. And that is a particular problem with charities - "they are doing their best, don't complain". Jimmy Savile got away with repeated child rape because he did so much for charity.

Yes I believe them.

Charities as well as many other institutions will hopefully have learned from what happened with JS and others. I'm sure it's a process of continuous improvement.

What do you want to happen?

The main thing is to be open about it.

Look at Oxfam. Child rape became undeniable in Haiti, then it turned out it was worldwide. The key thing was that the media caught wind of it, and Oxfam is a big name. They had to come clean. They responded to media questions. They set up a full enquiry. Penny Lawrence resigned.

The whole thing was media driven, and the Oxfam Press Office did the right thing by insisting on action and change.

There is no telling whether the Samaritans Press Office will be as honorable.

I would like a full investigation to be opened, inviting women who have been abused by Samaritan men to come forward and share their story, along with the many, many people who must have witnessed the early grooming and manoeuvres.

Oxfam is similar, or actually bigger, in having offices worldwide and vast numbers of volunteers as well as staff worldwide.

@Gatehouse77

My (limited) understanding was that Chad Varah set up the Brenda Line so sex callers didn’t take away time/volunteers for genuine callers. Also, because if they got their ‘thrills’ that way they were less likely to commit sex offences.

If that was the case, I can understand to a point. It’s not addressing the root problem but was trying to protect women in its own way 🤷‍♀️

Read that articles I linked to earlier from the Wellcome Trust. That was not the aim at all.