LGB Alliance starts Helpline for teens and young adults

[IwantToRetire]

This isn't a specifically for women, lesbians but aimed at young people who are feeling confused or bullied whilst trying to work out who they are. Thought some on FWR might have siblings, children, who might find this useful.

Q: Why did you select the age range 13 – 24?

Adolescence is often a time of turmoil and change and teenagers can struggle as they begin to think about who they are.

Whilst acting on any sense of same-sex attraction may be years away, the worries and fears associated with the idea that you are ‘different’ often start early.

Young adults, on the other hand, may be more settled in their sexual orientation but struggling with a new world of relationships.

Whilst the support would be framed differently and always in an age appropriate manner, the underlying message from our volunteers will be meaningful to all teens and young adults – it’s always fine to be you.

Q: How is it different to any other service?

Like other helplines, we’ll be there to support teens and young adults facing a whole host of issues – ranging from coming out and bullying to break-ups and family alienation.

What makes us unique is that the service won’t suggest to a teenage girl who feels different, because she prefers short hair and playing sport, that she might really be a boy. And it won’t tell a teenage boy who is being bullied for being effeminate that maybe he’s really a girl.

Many young adults report being shamed for their lesbian, gay or bisexual relationships by those who would say that same-sex attraction is in some way bigoted. We start from the premise that homosexuality is perfectly natural.

There is much more info about safeguarding and how volunteers were recruited on this web page https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-helpline-is-open/

The problems with Mermaids wasn’t only a lack o f safeguarding. It was also the desire by an organisation to push a particular line regardless of what was right for the individual child or young person. Although I acknowledge that being so wedded to a specific ideology may well have impacted on the ability of Mermaids to prioritise safeguarding.
I also think it was unhelpful for some posters to imply that anyone who thought the 13-24 model was workable had some sort of nefarious interest in blurring the boundaries between children and adults. It’s just a difference opinion about how a service can be delivered.

Nobody implied that?

Safeguarding involves considering worst case scenarios.

I ran my training company for 14-19 vulnerable and behaviourally challenged people with my best friend who I trust 100%.

We had to have procedures and practices assuming 0%.

We didn't take it personally! We could never let each other out of our sight for protection of us or the people on site. We also had to do the same when the staff came with the people on our programmes. And we expected the staff to do the same with us.

Yes we still had to deliver a service, and we would review it every single session and make adjustments as things occurred. Sometimes we would make a decision mid session and text it to the staff on our little site for their info even if they were 3 feet away for them to quietly retire and read it and come back to the group after. We would then tell the people on the programme if it was necessary for their safety. Sometimes they didn't need to know.

Note ours was on council land, a community garden, insured with my name on the policy, taking PRU and other older intensive supervision and surveillance service users, using tools that were quite dangerous in a mixed sex setting with an all use single use composting toilet.

Safeguarding is a constantly shifting evolving conversation about how to continually improve things. Not a policy that gets brought out when a breach has been made.

That's where I am coming from on this, the accusations that I am a bad faith actor is, well, quite astonishing.

Why don't you propose what a worst case scenario might look like, so that can be explored?

Two replies to me

I find it very concerning how comfortable you are with a lack of clear boundaries between children and adults.

At this point because you just sound way too comfortable with mixing children's and adults, do you always feel that way?

I don't think anything I posted supported that claim, but I hey. I've worked with this age group. I've undergone a lot of safeguarding training. I've brought up 2 children, one of whom is still in this age group. I just have a different opinion about the value of a single helpline, And, as I'm pretty sure I made clear, with the proviso that it has robust safeguarding policies and processes for dealing with different age groups.

Now this is bad faith.

And frankly creepy.

The second quote there is totally uncalled for, I agree. The first is expressing concern.

It's actually useful to look at these and see the difference.

Maybe, that's not what I took from the specific thread, but there's probably little value in rehashing it.

For the record, I don't think that the posters who have a different viewpoints are posting in bad faith. I think that we may sometimes lose sight of the fact that people can have the same information, similar experiences, similar backgrounds and reach different conclusions. That goes beyond this thread.

Yes that was me - I found your insistence that grouping 13-24 year olds as a peer group together a good thing without presenting any counter evidence to the risks raised very odd. If you want to read into that an implied nefarious interest, read away, but I didn't say that. I found it odd and concerning that you said posters were making "a fuss" talking about the blurring of children and adults and the adultification of children hence why I asked if you would be as supportive of this always or do you just feel it's ok when LGBA do it ? With all your safeguarding training, perhaps you could have provided some more substance to your argument instead of implying bad faith when people raise concerns -something you should have learnt not to do in your training surely.

Mixing children with adults? This is a one-to-one text helpline.

Well if you want to rehash it... I'm not sure I did accuse anyone of 'making a fuss'. In fact I'm pretty sure I said several times I appreciated the concerns that people had.. And to repeat I made it clear that any helpline should have the appropriate safeguarding policies & processes.
In terms of 'counter evidence' I also suggested that the helpline may have been set up in this way to be more effective in reaching those teens who may not approach something set up in their eyes 'for kids' (even though they are obviously children).

By all means disagree, but try to do it without misrepresenting what I've posted.

It's not creepy at all. It's what anyone involved in safeguarding should do — try and think of the worst case scenarios and then work back to prevent them happening.

You did say you didn't see what all the fuss was about. I must have missed where you appreciated the concerns, perhaps as you didn't provide any response to them except that you didn't understand what the concern was. I still find your suggestion that it may encourage teenagers to call because they feel the service isn't for children is adultification of children when the age range includes up to people in their 20s and we shouldn't be encouraging that in children as young as 13. You obviously disagree with that, and I'm surprised that you hold that opinion with a lot of safeguarding training but it's your opinion.

I'm very sorry that I misrepresented your dismissal of safeguarding concerns as fuss as "making a fuss" however since you implied I basically called your a pedophile, perhaps take your own advice about misrepresentation?

The context of that is within all the previous posts explaining what is meant by the mixing of children and adults, don't be obtuse.

Bad faith actors is what I see. There is ZERO evidence of a safeguarding problem. Lets repeat that - ZERO evidence. So no sacred caste just no evidence of a problem that needs attention. Running more than one helpline would require more resources, which LGB Alliance probably wont get until they are demonstrating that they can run a helpline.

Raising the problem with Mermaids is not wahtaboutery, it's what some of you want to be the only resource available to young people. You want to see a dangerous service continue and will try anything to block an alternative.

I've not read the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered but what is the safeguarding issue for a 1-1 helpline that is intended for 13-14 year olds to use?

If it was an open forum where 13-24 year olds were talking to each other I could understand the problem, but it isn't?

They aren't going to be talking to each other, just whoever is on the other end of the phone, who presumably will have had all the required training to tailor their advice to the age of the caller?

What am I missing?

It would also be helpful to know what processes they should put in place to manage the possibility of people using the service lying about their age

Apologies. I did say ‘I don’t see the fuss’. It would probably have been better to say ‘I don’t see it as a problem’. I think there are multiple post where I’ve acknowledged other poster’s concerns. And I specifically agreed that if they were not in fact asking for ages that was indeed a major issue

As you seem determined to go back round the houses again though l, I’d bringing it back to an earlier post. You’ve talked about specific under 18s safeguarding. I’ve raised the fact that a 10 year old and a 17 year old, while both under 18 are very different. Any safeguarding policy for under 18s would need to recognise this. There would be differentiation within the policy. Similarly any LGBA safeguarding policy could and should differentiate between callers of different ages, and in fact they may well have separate policies for under and over 18s. As the people using the service are being dealt with individually there is no reason why this can’t work. They do not have the additional risk of mixing children and adults either online or in person

Oh ok, so the issue is not because it's a service for 13-24 year olds, but because people could lie about their age when calling in?

The objections I saw initially at the start of the thread looked to be on the basis of a 13 year old or 23 year old dialling the same number.

How is that risk mitigated by having a separate line for under and over 18's?

I think ppl are worried about both tbh

it's not my area of expertise tho

If the triage is done by LGBA then the flaw is on them if they are tricked for not putting adequate safeguards in place.

If the person calls the child number and not the legal adult one, or goes onto the child chat then the onus is on them.

By triage, this includes trying to determine the person's age.

Thing is LGBA will be at risk of people trying to get them to do the wrong thing and so getting a child to make contact and lie, and then try to get the LGBA person talking about things outside of the risk assessment for their age, will be screenshot and used against them. Probably in a complaint to the Charities Commission.

From my point of view, this is to protect LBGA as much as anyone contacting them.

Fucks sake stop making shit up.

Nobody has said that they want Mermaids to be the only option.

I'm not interested in going back around anywhere, especially when you're still not providing any actual substance to your position except coming across that you're just assuming everything is fine. That's your opinion however others feel differently have expressed concerns detailing why. I responded to again because you decided to quote sentences from my post implying I was accusing you of something. I responded to clarify not because I want to rehash everything I have already said. You don't sound like you have safeguarding training if you don't understand that under 18 safeguarding policies do accommodate for children of different ages while still being distinct from adult safeguarding.

Bollocks.

I'm just going to assume at this stage you either can't read very well or you are just trying to pick a fight