Girl Guiding Safeguarding Concerns

[2fallsfromSSA]

There have been concerns about GG's understanding of safeguarding for some time. The latest focus on ACE week brought some of those issues into sharp focus.

Here is the statement from SSA where we outline the safeguarding concerns. We have shared this with GG and hope they will meet with us to address the issues we raise.

If you are a member of GG, or your daughter is, we urge you to share this with the organisation and urge them to talk to us.

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2021/11/02/girl-guiding-and-asexuality/

@KatieAlcock

And many younger children read older siblings' accounts. Hey Lily, your Brown Owl says she's pansexual. Brown Owl, what does pansexual mean?

Do they though? I don’t think my DS has ever read my DD’s phone, it has a pin code. That’s a parenting fail if they do.

I would have thought a person with predatory intentions would use any leverage to gain trust.

Do they though? I don’t think my DS has ever read my DD’s phone, it has a pin code. That’s a parenting fail if they do.

And? Parents fail. That's not the kids' fault, nor should it mean the children of these parents don't deserve protection.

Anyone wishing to send the link should send it to here:

[email protected]

Also, there could be a plethora of reasons for what you term a "parenting fail". Some parents might not have the resources for their children to have anything other than shared technology, making the chances of one sibling seeing the other's higher. Some parents are too disabled, too hard keeping food on the table, don't have the intellectual capacity or technological ability, etc etc to be able to monitor their children's use of technology.

And why wouldn't a 13 or 14 year old guide share something she's seen on the GGUK social media with a younger sibling? How is she to know that content produced by GGUK is not age appropriate?

@NoThankYouSaurus

Also, there could be a plethora of reasons for what you term a "parenting fail". Some parents might not have the resources for their children to have anything other than shared technology, making the chances of one sibling seeing the other's higher. Some parents are too disabled, too hard keeping food on the table, don't have the intellectual capacity or technological ability, etc etc to be able to monitor their children's use of technology.

And why wouldn't a 13 or 14 year old guide share something she's seen on the GGUK social media with a younger sibling? How is she to know that content produced by GGUK is not age appropriate?

I agree with you, but this applies to content regarding all sexualities, though.

It is interesting that the example given by KatieAlcock mentions pansexuality. It could just as easily be homosexuality or heterosexuality, words which are not familiar to children.

But the statement above is not about all discussions of sexuality and safeguarding. It is about asexuality, and it is not just about safe-guarding, it makes ill-informed statements about asexuality and does not even get it right what it is.

So either the problem is safeguarding in relation to discussion of all sexualities and sexual matters in GG (which I would support and see where you are coming from) or it is discriminatory against asexual people.

Personally, I think the issue is specific to how GG (but equally could apply to many other organisations) deal with the complex issue of adult volunteers/child & young person participants/inclusion and safeguarding.
Activities and clubs for kids are always targeted by people with bad intention - GG have traditionally a very good track record in keeping girls safe, however recent issues have been reported on in Scouts (especially in the USA) gymnastics, football - affecting both boys and girls.
This particular discussion has been instigated by GG tweeting about ace but it's surely about the wider implications of talking about sex and sexualities to a young audience and how you do that appropriately?

I think the first step of appropriacy is a) everyone without exception is safeguarding trained and assessed to be competent to be working in this capacity - remembering a member of the Green party where an inquiry described their not having the capacity to understand safeguarding after repeated attempts to help them.

and b) is in a situation where it is not possible for adults to be confused on their role or whether what they are doing is appropriate, and where it is absolutely certain that what is happening is solely for the benefit of children and not for the benefit, self expression or affirmation of the adult.

This does mean in fact that anyone working in this capacity should be working in a professional, qualified, supervised role with ongoing assessment of competency and performance. Which restricts it and means it should not be something that a social club for girls gets involved in. Safeguarding now needs to mean: no one outside of these set professional, qualified, supervised roles may involve themselves in these conversations with children.

There are now too many very confused adults without a grip on basic social appropriacy and with way too much committment to arguing safeguarding boundaries out of the way. Anyone doing this must automatically be regarded with due caution as to their motives. This is a situation in which the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate. Being kind to adults is absolutely irrelevant.

It's very scary that GG ever permitted themselves to become confused on this. I'm afraid they are probably now fatally compromised, and it's down to poor safeguarding and absolutely shocking basic competency, standards and personal boundaries on the part of those leading this mess.

I also think Stonewall, Mermaids et al do themselves no favours whatsoever by showing such over eagerness to open up these conversations with children, and doing it with no qualifications to advise on safeguarding (which is impartially for all children, not just the ones of interest to this political lobby group) and not only disregard for safeguarding but a whole lot of obfustication and reasons why safeguarding should come second to their agenda.

Serious case review rule 1: Think the unthinkable. Do not ever assume that everyone is acting from pure motives. Did you properly consider the possibility that you failed to thoroughly consider what if this person/party is not acting in good faith?

rule 2: Ask the difficult questions. Were you too afraid of upsetting people to be challenging, thorough, to investigate what was going on behind that person/party's actions and involvement, and avoided anything that might be regarded as offensive or suspicious?

rule 3: have you been sucked into meeting the needs and the agenda of difficult or challenging or needy adults and devoting your time and interests to them instead of remaining solely focused on the best interests and safeguarding of the party you are there to safeguard?

What a good post Artichokeleaves. Especially this:
There are now too many very confused adults without a grip on basic social appropriacy and with way too much commitment to arguing safeguarding boundaries out of the way. Anyone doing this must automatically be regarded with due caution as to their motives. This is a situation in which the benefit of the doubt is not appropriate. Being kind to adults is absolutely irrelevant.
It's very scary that GG ever permitted themselves to become confused on this. I'm afraid they are probably now fatally compromised, and it's down to poor safeguarding and absolutely shocking basic competency, standards and personal boundaries on the part of those leading this mess.

In the past we've been lectured on here by adults who claim an expertise in sex ed / working with children, while their every post displays a comprehensive lack of understanding of safeguarding children /child development along with a level of self obsession that renders them unfit to be working with children.

Parents now have to call out organisations allowing these people power over the young. They're too bloody dangerous to left to run amok with their personal agendas.

So either the problem is safeguarding in relation to discussion of all sexualities and sexual matters in GG (which I would support and see where you are coming from) or it is discriminatory against asexual people.

Asexuality is the topic of the SSA memo, because that's the topic GGUK chose to tweet about with seemingly no regard for safeguarding considerations. It's an answer to the immediate issue. Why are you whatabouting? I don't particularly want them to be promoting anything that falls under the PSHE remit, but as ACE is what they are pushing, ACE is what's being addressed.

I agree with PPs who say that these conversations should only be the remit of the child's parents or people who are properly trained to have these conversations with children and are supervised and vetted to do so responsibly. Breaking down boundaries of what and what isn't acceptable to discuss between children and adults is very dangerous. Without those boundaries in place, children don't hear alarm bells when an adult with bad intentions strikes up inappropriate conversations with them.

Furthermore, delivering sex education is an absolutely grave responsibility that needs to be properly planned. I used to deliver sex ed lessons and part of it is planning exactly how you're going to answer tricky questions in an appropriate way. When these conversations become casual between children and adults who aren't their parents and aren't trained to handle them, they can stray into areas that the adult isn't prepared to tackle properly.

I'm concerned that some people seem to think that saying this could be bigotry. It's absolutely appropriate for children to be aware of different sexualities and to discuss them in the context of families- for example, a leader talking about their holiday with their partner. What concerns me is discussions of sexual feelings etc. Children get this information in an age appropriate way in school sex ed and from their parents. They don't need it from adults in their extra curricular activities without proper training to deliver it.

General social groups meant to be impartially welcoming children of all faiths and beliefs should not teach one of those beliefs as specifically dominant over others, and really it's questionable that they should be teaching about faith at all. Children get this learning in other places from better qualified people.

Sexuality is exactly the same. The group welcomes all, and all do the activities regardless of their diversity. The group is not there to teach them anything, particularly politically biased information intended to specifically weight children's opinions in a way that suits a specific adult agenda. And let's be honest, this is exactly what it is. There are words for what this is. It's not even remotely acceptable.

And some of the subjects of concern are both beliefs and sexuality and the belief being pushed actively holds discriminatory views towards children of other faiths and beliefs.

Absolutely unjustifiable.

actively holds discriminatory views towards children of other faiths and beliefs.

AND sexualities.

@NoThankYouSaurus

So either the problem is safeguarding in relation to discussion of all sexualities and sexual matters in GG (which I would support and see where you are coming from) or it is discriminatory against asexual people.

Asexuality is the topic of the SSA memo, because that's the topic GGUK chose to tweet about with seemingly no regard for safeguarding considerations. It's an answer to the immediate issue. Why are you whatabouting? I don't particularly want them to be promoting anything that falls under the PSHE remit, but as ACE is what they are pushing, ACE is what's being addressed.

I am not whatabouting at all. The premise of the statement is supposed to be safeguarding, and yet it makes ill-informed claims against one particular group. It doesn’t take asexuality is an example of a problem or concern, or the starting point, it takes asexuality as the problem or concern.

I think it was aimed at ace as that was what the tweet was against.

I am also part of the ace umbrella. I am demisexual. It would be completely inappropriate to discuss this with children. I would have to explain that I only would have sex with someone I felt a deep emotional connection with. That is a completely inappropriate discussion to have with someone else’s child. I don’t have it with my own primary school children.

They should stay away from all sexual orientations. GG can do so many amazing things involving camping, skills etc, etc.

Thank you for posting. Excellent piece by Safe Schools Alliance.