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/

I'm not being obtuse. The only people anyone using the helpline will encounter will be adults trained to ask the age of the caller and then responding appropriately.

You're welcome to provide the reasons why you're confident that there is no safeguarding issues based on something other than you think it's fine. Me responding to you because you tried to imply bad faith once again is not me picking a fight with you. Please stop insisting people who disagree with you or have raised concerns are here only to cause problems.

People have been clear that they know this service is not putting 13 and 24 year olds in direct contact with eachother. When people are talking about mixing children and adults, they have explained in detail that they mean grouping them together as "young people". Either you haven't RTFT, you skimmed over people's posts or you're being obtuse and repeating a question already made pages ago.

You don't sound like you have safeguarding training

Im sure I’m not the only person on this thread that hasn’t had safeguarding training. I’ve never been in a situation that’s needed it. It’s been very frustrating reading some of the lofty comments in this thread from some posters that clearly are knowledgeable in this area but seem to regard it as a deficiency of others if another poster isn’t similarly up to speed, as a response along the lines of “don’t you know that, how ignorant are you then” really aren’t conducive to a constructive debate.

i get that no one is obliged to spend time typing out a detailed response explaining the ins and outs, but I’m with recent posters still not understanding exactly where the safeguarding concerns are having a single point of access for any contact in the age range of 13-24, given they will only be interacting with one adult who will be trained and supervised. With the provisio, again, that the helpline volunteer will do their best to establish the age of the contract and tailor their responses appropriately. Which is what LGBA have said will happen.

This is beyond exasperating so it really isn't worth explaining the same point over and over.

If you don't understand why not book onto some basic safeguarding training then maybe you might?

That was in response to someone who said they had done safeguarding training but at the same time saying posters are making a fuss and asking about how safeguarding policies allow for differences between 10 year olds and 17 year olds, hence the comment about it not sounding as though they did have the training. It wasn't to imply that every poster needs it in order to comment. When people have raised concerns and their reasons for having them, it's not also not conducive to constructive debate to keep responding that you don't get why they're concerned without actually offering a counter argument to the reasons already provided.

I and others have made the point that if you have separate guidance and policies for children and adults it protects the volunteers and the users to have volunteers working with either group at a time rather than having people flit between the two. It leaves margin for error. I know you're saying the volunteer will "do their best" but that's not really how safe services operate. It's best if they do their best while working within a framework that actually tries to put things in place to reduce mistakes instead of putting all the onus on someone volunteering for something in their free time.

That really isn’t helpful

I and others have made the point that if you have separate guidance and policies for children and adults it protects the volunteers and the users to have volunteers working with either group at a time rather than having people flit between the two. It leaves margin for error

OK, so you’re concerned that if the volunteers aren’t dedicated to one age range then there is a risk that they will forget which set of policies they should be using and say something inappropriate to a child contact. I can understand that. Reading the LGBA website it seems they’ve considered this and mitigated for it as well as they can within the constraints they have when starting up this helpline. Is it that you think their mitigations don’t do enough to meet minimum safeguarding standards, or is it that they’ve taken a different approach that you would have done and the minimum standards are met, but in an ideal world could be stronger?

Oh no.

The "grouping together" seems to manifest entirely as words on a page.

Oh dear - a child calling a helpline not aimed at their age group the fault is apparently theirs - yet if they lie about their age to try and make the volunteer give inappropriate advice that is apparently on the volunteer and the Charity Commission will take THAT complaint seriously when it took them months to get around to looking at Mermaids and they still have not reported. And you expect people to take your "safeguarding concerns" seriously. 😂😂😂

Not sure how you read this

"Any safeguarding policy for under 18s would need to recognise this ( the differences between ages). There would be differentiation within the policy."

As not understanding "that under 18 safeguarding policies do accommodate for children of different ages" . That's exactly what it says. Similarly where organisation's have a single policy for children and vulnerable adults, they differentiate within the policy between under and over 18s

And I've also said, quite clearly, that I didn't think people were posting on bad faith. I think there is a difference of opinion on approach.

Well yes it is on the advice providers to ensure that they do as much as possible to give the correct advice - having separate entry lines is just one way of starting to do it.

Glad you find it all so hilarious.

Been away for a few days and I am stunned at how this thread has gone.

To recap, I can't see any posts advocating for a 'sacred caste' / saying that service delivery by providers that the poster agrees with ideologically shouldnt be subject to adequate safeguarding.

LGBA have said they welcome feedback, which is surely a positive.

Those with concerns are welcome to feedback to them - would be interesting if anyone who has done so has had a response that they could share?

I, along with some other posters, am still struggling to see what the problem is with 13-24 year olds being helped by the same staff (NB not mixing in a group together), that is different to the challenges any other organisation dealing with both over and under 18s would encounter, and presumably have already adequately addressed.

I am not a bad faith actor, nor affiliated with LGBA, I have done some basic safeguarding training and read all the posts. Im afraid those with concerns really haven't spelled out specially what those concerns are in a way that non experts can understand.

Which of course, you're under no obligation to do, but it doesn't move the discussion along.

It is currently sounding a bit frustratingly like the classic soap opera argument "well if you can't see what's wrong, I'm not going to tell you!"

Yes, I could go and read up on safeguarding, but I haven't got the time or energy tbh. If some people here have more info/ training than those of us who are a bit ignorant, it would be really helpful if they could share it in a few lines. That would help to share the message more widely and possibly change some minds, than exhorting all readers to go and do their own research - which most will not (they're more likely to just conclude that there isn't a significant problem).

I want to understand and right now I don't. I genuinely hope someone can help.

Absolutely. And to echo the poster upthread the 'If you can't see what's wrong with this scenario I'm not going to tell you' refrain is really not helpful either.

How else can we explain it when it has been explained again and again?

What would help you understand the issue?

And yet here we are, intelligent women used to processing information, all too aware of the predators charter that GI supports, still not entirely sure after reading your (and others' responses) that your concerns are valid or haven't already been considered by the LGBA and their safeguarding lead and team.

Sad to say that all my worst prejudices about the kind of people who specialise in safeguarding and the way they treat other people have been upheld in this thread. I thought my experience of one or two lofty, exceptionally defensive and opaque safeguarding specialists was just bad luck, but apparently not.

Still none the wiser.

As I can't see what the issue is as you have explained it thus far, it's difficult to articulate what would help as I'm not sure what I'm missing, iyswim.

I have discussed this with husband and he can't see it either. I'd like to think that it's not because we're complete idiots (we do have 5 degrees between us, although admittedly none of them in teaching, social work or a related subject ).

Maybe you could just spell out what, specifically, is the issue?

iirc, in the thread we've identified 2 potential issues with the 13-24 age group:
The need for different policies and procedures for over and under 18s (afaik we dont know that the service doesn't have this)
and
The fact that the age group spanning 18 perhaps encourages people or younger teens themselves to view themselves as more adult as they are, which could be problematic. I hadn't appreciated this initially.

These points could be flagged to / explored with LGBA by anyone concerned about them.

Are you saying that this age group is just so problematic that it should not be catered to by one service, in any way, even if these issues are addressed? Even though other organisations manage it?

Or is there another issue relating to the age group that I, and others, remain unaware of?

Apologies if you have explained it but I cannot find a post that does so.
In trying to understand whether you (and others) see that there are issues but they could be resolved, or do you feel it's just a wholly bad model?

Edited for clarity/typos

Ah I meant to add, also there was the related 'lying about the age issue' - I see this could be a risk for them but again surely for any organisation dealing with over 18s only where ID can't be checked?

As I see it at the moment, some potential issues have been identified that LGBA need to have procedures in place to deal with (which they might well do, we don't know).

I haven't read anything yet to convince me that the model is not workable, with the right checks and balances.

If you think it isn't, the onus is really on you to set out why that is and what, if anything, would make it OK.

Not accuse others of being anti safeguarding.

I had typed out a long response but fuck it.

Not accuse others of being anti safeguarding

And yet I can be called a 'bad faith actor' with no recourse.

Got it.

If you don't understand that dealing with underage people about the topic of sex is a pervert magnet then I am unsure what more I can say.

If you don't understand that a whole ream of activists will be trying to break their processes and report them for anything and everything, again I cannot explain it in more words than I already have.

I made this post https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5099388-lgb-alliance-starts-helpline-for-teens-and-young-adults?reply=136192567
several days ago in response to @Smoothiesaresoups - if she is available to reply we might get somewhere in understanding the issue in basic terms. Particularly with respect to whether our resident experts think minimum safeguarding standards are not being met at all, or its a case of “well ok, but I wouldn’t have done it that way myself”.

LGBA know they are attracting perverts , they made a video on day one saying there was 78 abusive contacts.

They know what they are up against, and it's the reason they exist actually.

What they are not doing is putting the abusers in contact with the clients obviously.

I hope the abusers tail off to a manageable level.

Particularly with respect to whether our resident experts think minimum safeguarding standards are not being met at all, or its a case of “well ok, but I wouldn’t have done it that way myself"

Precisely, that's what I'd like to understand.

Of course it's clear that some people who want to see the service fail will be trying to trip the volunteers up and break their processes. That's not a 'safeguarding risk ' though is it? And does that mean that it shouldn't therefore exist?

It is a risk for the service that they should have anticipated and taken steps to manage - again, we don't know that they haven't.

@AlisonDonut I haven't called you a bad faith actor, and I don't think you are, (although I do think that some others on this thread are). I'm interested in what you think although I don't understand your anger towards me and others asking you questions .

You inferred that you and your husband with all your assorted degrees and cleverness just cannot see what the issue is.

I have 4 degrees all of my own but I don't use that to infer intellectual superiority.

Genuinely, if people cannot see why this is a safeguarding concern then I am not sure that explaining it in words that are different to the words I've already used are going to help.

You cannot assume anything. The cries of 'obviously' from a previous poster detail the point. There is not 'obviously' in safeguarding.