Safeguard deniers - horrific details - Vincent Chan paedophile

[dick27]

It always blows my mind when people dismiss safeguarding concerns. Horrific reminder of why safeguarding is needed.

https://www.the-londoner.co.uk/abuse-at-a-north-london-nursery-the-disturbing-perplexing-case-of-vincent-chan/

This is what I was wondering. The combination of high testosterone and a culture that accepts mens' sex drives/obsessions are causing massive harm. If the harm was to the person themselves it would be treated. But because it's to others it isn't.

If you were a man and your life was all about pursuing your obsessive sexual fantasies, why wouldn't you WANT to get treated?

If someone pointed out that I was making an argument that didn’t align with clear data or that I was ignoring the clear data in taking a position, then I’d hope I’d be big enough to go look at the data and revisit my views. Arguing from a position of robust evidence is what differentiates opinion from argument.

I also think a lot of people seem to misunderstand the purpose of comparisons of different things - it isn't to say they are the same - if they were the same it would not be useful to compare. They are to test the logic of particular points in isolation from other elements.

So, I’ve looked at this claim and I cannot work out your argument here about the point of using comparisons. Yes, the point being made about women working in finance was to argue that a decision based on group averages can lead to unjust outcomes for individuals. I got that, thank you.

However, in cases such as these, to me, context is everything. Such a comparison is a false equivalence in comparing men’s rates of sexual offending and higher rates of sexual assault against minors ie a specific and severe risk with a performance variation of women in finance. The latter is not a risk of severe harm to babies and very young children who are completely vulnerable and dependent on responsible adults in that they cannot say no or even tell anyone.

I respect many of your posts @TempestTost but here, it feels that in arguing for the principle of whether we should ever generalise from group data, you are taking insufficient account of the context and nature of the risk as, to me, the justifications for action are clearly not analogous in these two scenarios.

I'm not saying race does or should form part of safeguarding considerations. I'm saying that if safeguarding is limited to being open to cohorts of a population rather than addressing individual risk, one shouldn't be surprised when prejudices "refine" acceptable cohorts in ways they really shouldn't.

It wasn't that long ago when organisations used to population characteristics to refine cohorts that were acceptable to them for filling their senior positions. It shouldn't have happened for that purpose and it shouldn't happen for this one either.

Nobody is arguing that "safeguarding is limited to being open to cohorts of a population rather than addressing individual risk".

Safeguarding data is analysed in order to look at preventive measures. Yes safeguarding is about addressing individual risk along with identifying which groups appear in the data and numerous other patterns. And then working out what that means.

If you look at data about child neglect, it can be difficult to extrapolate issues of poverty and deprivation from neglect. Yet safeguarding professionals do precisely that in individual cases. And at a global level we analyse how safeguarding intersects with poverty / deprivation / class and look for issues / lessons from that.

Experts analyse safeguarding data about numerous cohorts to better inform society about potential risks and prevention.

In the light of these cases we must be able to discuss the risks that some men pose in childcare situations - while remaining aware that certain women also pose risks to babies and children they care for.

Safeguarding does not mean judging and banning/allowing a group based on a minority of individuals who belong to that group (unless the group in question is "people who've exhibited related behaviour/committed relevant criminal offences").

Surely this is basic risk assessment and management? Why would we ignore proven risk factors around being male when looking at safeguarding?

Look at the number of children abused by male nursery workers when male nursery workers make up 2-3% of the workforce. I notice you couldn’t provide an equivalent list of female paediatric consultants (your example) who have sexually abused patients. And even since we started this thread, yet another male anaesthetist has been convicted of sexually assaulting patients.

The stakes are really high. When we get it wrong, real children get harmed. Can you explain what practical ‘safeguarding’ approach that you think should be employed and why it should ignore the biggest risk factor of being male? Are you worried about upsetting men? I love the men in my life and they wouldn’t hurt a woman or child but they understand that safeguarding measures that factor in sex are necessary because they know what men are capable of.

Such a narrow minded approach blinds those in positions of responsibility to the minority of women who do abuse those in their care.

So you are aware it is a minority? No one is saying that women don’t offend, just that men are far more likely to than women. You make spurious and quite honestly offensive comparisons to financial decisions and repeatedly try and obscure the difference in risk between male and female which makes me suspicious.

7% of women make bad financial decisions, therefore we should safeguard against potential damage to the economy by viewing women in accountancy as probable wrong uns. It's just too big a risk not to

Is there evidence to support high testosterone being a risk factor for male offending?

Correct me if I’m wrong but are you suggesting that we should ignore the statistical risk presented by one identifiable group - men, because some people may do this to another identifiable group - say, people of colour, in a racist way? That how the direction of your posts is reading to me.

This is quite ridiculous. Good men know that they are not going to harm women and children but they also recognise that some men do so precautions must be taken. My dh and ds know that their personal level of risk is zero but they appreciate and would contribute to measures intended to prevent harm by other men.

I’m not sure how many times we can say NOT ALL MEN in this sort of conversation in order to make that clear to those who would rather we didn’t talk about it.

If you’re an NHS doctor, even being caught and convicted is not enough to weed out the sex offenders seemingly.

Is it not rather a male problem that violence & sexual offending are so much more prevalent among men & boys? Reproaching women for observing those facts seems unlikely to do anything to improve matters.

Rule Twelve: Women’s ability to recognise male behavior patterns is misandry.

And a side-order of selffellatingouroborosofhate's corollary to Rule One: women are responsible for what men feel.

This is interesting rather than definitive, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X22001544

@BundleBoogie Ridiculous... I agree.
@HildegardP A male problem... definitely, but men aren't going to solve it alone ... they need a strong society, research, maybe even treatments for specific indivuals.
@selffellatingouroborosofhate Rule 12 🤣 . Of course recognising patterns of behaviour in a population is called sociology not misandry.

But if we are going to group men as the problem, then we must admit that we are referring to biology. Chromosomes, testosterone etc. Probably too broad a group to treat effectively. Maybe a more targeted approach is needed.

There is a statistical risk attached to every group of people but everyone is different within each group and presents with a different level of risk and will be greater than zero for everyone.

At present there are nearly 105k people on the barred lists (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dbs-dataset-4-barring-cases-and-appeals)

Assuming (incorrectly) that they are all male, this means at least 99.6% of males have not done anything that would make them unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults or children.

Banning almost half the potential workforce for (at most) 0.4% of the group seems more than a little excessive because it's not based on the actual risk an indivisible poses.

And, yes, my other point is that if you permit one set of unevidenced bans to be introduced, the door is now open for the same approach to be applied in many other settings in ways that would disadvantage many groups.

But I think the chances of public policy on safeguarding being set by this discussion are miniature so I'll be quiet.

No, it means that 99.6% haven't been caught yet. Lisak and Miller found that around 6% of men are rapists.

And how do you envision individually risk arising each and every individual in a practical and timely manner?

Are you suggesting that we assume every male has exactly the same offending risk as a female until they prove otherwise by offending?

Or can we use data gleaned by millennia of bitter experience to inform policies and rules to prevent or minimise offending where possible and not wait until actual children are harmed?

And, yes, my other point is that if you permit one set of unevidenced bans to be introduced, the door is now open for the same approach to be applied in many other settings in ways that would disadvantage many groups.

This sounds exactly like the trans activist argument that if you make a rule for one set of people (like banning men from women’s spaces), you will disadvantage another unrelated set of people (women of colour) for *reasons so that rule is disallowed.

But I think the chances of public policy on safeguarding being set by this discussion are miniature so I'll be quiet.

This is true. Most public policy is already set by understanding the differences between male and female do doesn’t need changing. The issue we have is that there is a big push from various groups including trans activists to undermine that public policy by pretending that there are no identifiable behaviour differences between men and women at a group level. Why would anyone choose to do that?

Why would any woman want to be part of a profession that was exclusively male, day, medicine? There must be something suspect about a woman who wants to ignore the caring profession of nursing etc etc (all the other blanket "reasoning" applied to men)

The sex discrimination act being celebrated on another thread works for all and fortunately this is a theoretical exercise. To be able to do what some think is sensible would need that act (and its successors) to be repealed. That would very likely see incredibly retrograde situations that we don't miss to re-emerge.

Usually, women want to get into male-dominated work because the pay is better, they are good at it, or both. Women are not motivated by a desire to gain access to children for the purpose of molesting them. Your attempt to apply a "sauce for the goose" argument fails because women are not 80-90% of molesters, men are.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate I'm not disagreeing with you but to go reductio ad finem (an important test of any idea) ...
We would need to set in law the idea that men are less than women in rights, women can access all jobs/positions/roles, men are so hopeless as a sex class that they must be prevented from certain parts of society, jobs or roles. Individual men would have no right to object, because they might be a molester due to their chromosomes. Boys in school would need to be taught this principle of the superiority of women.
Am I on the right lines?

1. Women are less in law than men. Women cannot inherit an English or Welsh peerage, nor most of the Scottish peerages. Oh no, men would now know that feels.
2. We already accept in law that men as a class pose a threat to women. That's why single-sex and sex-segregated services are legal to begin with.

'The consensus here is that to be born male is a genetic crime.'

Hyperbole.

' They are more likely to commit violent or sexual offences. '

Correct. Many, many times more likely. 99% of sexual offences.

'Its biology.'

Nobody said that.

' They should be treated with suspicion, banned from jobs or situations with access to children, women or girls'.

Safeguarding means risks are acknowledged and athempts made to minimise.

' Men are increasingly seen as a lesser form of humanity. '

Hyperbole.

'I think men and boys are starting to realise this, as they listen to women discussing them and their behaviour's. '

Plurals don't require an apostrophe.

'Equality cannot be applied to them, as other members of society must have priority of security and feelings.'

Women's safety matters more than men's feelings? Yes. Yes, it does.

' A tough message for our young men to hear.'

Well, too bad.

It's not about being 'hopeless' its about statistical risk.

Honestly, if men are upset at statistics showing they commit 99% of sexual offences, how the fuck do they think girls feel at hearing they are 80% of victims?

'I'm upset that women are afraid of men' means women are obliged to pretend we arent fucking at risk from men? For fear of hurting your feelings?!

Good christ.

We need to start seeing more through safeguarding rather than equality. Prioritising equality for workers in a nursery
setting is ignoring the purpose of the service.

Its not about equal opportunities for employment, more the service it provides. A lot of nursery work is intimate care and very high levels of trust.

Adults can decide that they do not want to be touch by a man, even one with a clean DBS certificate. We dont have to justify it, everyone knows why. But its unthinkable when we are talking about the care of babies?

@ArabellaSaurus Great criticism. So would you ban men from working in childcare settings and/or improve safeguarding so no adult is alone with (non verbal?) children.