As we have entered a new school year we had the obligatory safeguarding and Prevent update.
I may have to redo my ‘basic’ to hear about it, but has the Corps mentioned Prevent at all as safeguarding matter?
Something that we were informed of this year was something called breast ironing and yes it is what is says on the tin, along with reminders on FGM and arranged marriages.
I wonder if the ATC there is a real concern about safeguarding in the broadest sense or is it just about CSE, social media and ‘bullying’.
Also at school we have the LADOs number which any of us can call and just let the designated staff know. I don’t have our local (to the squadron) one, but could we use it if we had it?
The corps, as far as I know, doesn’t really get safeguarding in the grander scheme.
I’d be surprised if they knew what prevent, FGM, HBV, CSE meant.
Every area has a LADO. Their job is to investigate claims of abuse perpetrated by people working with children, but some are happy to give advice too. As for using it - it depends on where you are. Some areas will allow no names consultations (i.e. ring up explain what’s happening without giving names and they’ll give advice). Mine won’t do that anymore and won’t give advice without you telling them who you’re talking about.
Maybe the fact that many of these seem to be ‘restricted’ to ethnic minority groups and Cranwell being ‘out in the Shires’ and largely ‘out of sight’ of the cities where many of these things happen, don’t see them as an issue for the Corps, Hopefully not because it’s too difficult to deal with.
Perhaps they don’t see the ethnic mix across the country in terms of Corps membership, unless you live in a city or town with large BME communities, when I am sure they will make capital of it, ironically exploiting the situation for their own ends, publicity wise. We have over the years had a few cadets from the BME community locally, but not very many. But that could be more about the perception of cadet forces as the ACF have only had one for as many years as I can remember.
Maybe the Cranwell grandees think that Prevent is all about ‘eastern’ religions and the publiciased ‘radicalisation’, when the talks we’ve had on it in twilights has also focussed on football teams’ ‘supporter’ groups with racist leanings, and, young people being drawn into criminal activity, in particular gangs, where they get used as ‘patsies’ and carriers. Both of these can affect all young people, regardless of background, with disaffected white boys more so wrt supporter groups.
I think HQAC are aware of CSE (but not in broader contexts) given that the majority of literature alludes to this and most things relating to people being asked to leave for ‘safeguarding’ issues have been related to it. But it does seem to be the only aspect, along with bullying that gets a mention.
I would seriously hope not. I think this is why we get the SCRs, situation gets too tricky and someone hopes that someone else deals with it, in the end no one does.
From my understanding of Prevent, not being made aware of it is bad, given the scale / number of things that seem to happen which are under the Prevent banner.
It would be interesting to see how the Corps would deal with it if someone escalated a concern.
I would suggest if it were the latter they’d be more jumpy so as to not get accused of racism or something similar.
A far-right White group would be much easier to escalate in a moral high ground way and I would say it would be easier to spot in people. Having known a few people when I was younger who got involved in football “supporter groups” they were easy to spot.
Safeguarding? One is led to believe in the wake of the BBC programme that all MOD Youth Groups have robust systems in place, so there should be no concern whatsoever. In 2014 the Charity Commission issued guidance on safeguarding for Trustees, (which means those members of the Civilian Committee), but I would hesitate to suggest that the ACO has heard of it, let alone likely to take notice of it.
Within that guidance it talks about reference to the LADO, which appears to be an integral part of the process, but it seems that the LADO has no statutory power of intervention, such that if referral has been made, and then someone within the organisation makes assurances that the situation is under control and being investigated (bearing in mind that someone at Wing will be designated child protection officer/adviser), the LADO will simply forego any involvement, or can be kept at bay, unless the case involves much more serious matters, and the law has to be involved.
This way the ACO manages to keep everything in-house and avoid public exposure. The odd one or two episodes escape, but are quickly dealt with to avoid embarrassment, so as to minimise fall-out.
It is difficult to say whether safeguarding is a reference to vulnerable individuals, or toward protecting the reputation of those who have been caught out.
As described to us part of a LADO’s role is to make sure that things are dealt with expediently (big problem for the ACO) and that the accused are treated fairly (big problem for the ACO), probably why they don’t and act as central point for cases (big problem for the ACO).
I think we all know that it is the latter. While they wish to protect the organisation, handling it all in-house (or trying to) can only lead to more problems in the future. Better to get it out there on page 5 column 3, rather than a page 2 banner headline.