"Safeguarding" - I don't get it.

Bold Seagull said:

Kids can be allergic to suncream, could bring on a separate condition in an individual child etc. therefore a school cannot apply a generic bottle of sun cream to every child - medically inadvisable.

So, do the school then hold an individual bottle of suncream for each child? Again, logistically is a teacher seriously supposed to apply sun cream to each of their 30 pupils during a hot day? How do they determine which child had it applied at home?

Parents seem to want to shift responsibility and blame institutions. Apply sun cream before they leave home, send them in with a hat and suitable covering of clothing. Shouldn't be too difficult.

Click to expand...

Kalimantan Gull said:

My daughters' primary has a form to fill in - are you happy if we apply sun-cream to your child? We also have to provide the sunscreen. So sign the form start of the year, put the sunscreen in their bag, jobs a goodun, no problem

Ridiculous if a parent hasn't told the school if their child is allergic to anything, god knows you have to fill in enough forms to explain all this.

Click to expand...

Bob'n'weave said:

A few months ago one of the kids at my youngest's junior school ended up getting a nasty bit of sunburn on her face and arms. After much ado, the school told parents that under 'Safeguarding Policy', teachers are not allowed to touch a child, so the application of suncream is 'out of the question'. I confronted the head of the school and asked her straight, "is this about protecting your school from litigation?", and she replies 'yes'. So I said, ' Thats fine, but what about your duty of care to the child, surely that must come first? She had no answer, just that 'its policy' along with a condescending smile.
Last week a 7 year old kid at the same school had a tantrum because he hates the place and did not want to go in. End result, he was physically dragged in by two teachers, quite roughly, with no thought of his wellbeing or state of mind.
This shite makes my f**king blood boil. WTF is going on when teachers will watch a child burn under this bullshit flag of "Safeguarding" but then manhandle a 7 year old kid about like a pair of untrained bouncers with no regard to the child's safety.
This safeguarding scam is guarding only one thing, the jobs of the c***s in on the swindle, and while they're counting out the 'funding', our kids are burning.
censored:

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

Which is fine if that is the school policy and you've done all that. If that isn't, then you obviously take your own precautions, and if your child is susceptible to burning, you'd probably make sure the school knew in advance etc. Of course in the case of applying anything that hasn't been supplied by the parents, it might be something that no one yet knows the child is allergic to, so rightly you wouldn't apply it if it hasn't been supplied by the parents.

Click to expand...

Coach_Carter_92 said:

Apparently now teachers and nursery practitioners are also unable to check if a child has head lice

Click to expand...

Wrong-Direction said:

Don't blame the teachers for dragging the kid about, having worked at a few schools, most kids could do with a good slap!

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

If they are making things up then what has actual conduct got to do with it, I suspect you mean minimising the chance of misinterpretation of actions. ?

At what point does someone flip from putting a young girl needing assistance into the recovery position whether in a hockey skirt or not go to brushing her boobs and their hand disappearing up her skirt, odd as hell.

Click to expand...

DavidinSouthampton said:

Minimising the chance of misinterpreting actions is one part of it.

But the other side of it is having a solid defence if people are "making it up". If the complainant says "he put his hand up my skirt when he was putting me in the recovery position", you're OK is you can say either "but her team-mate Miss X did it", or I have three witnesses who saw how carefully I did it so as not to put my hand up her skirt".

Some people will make malicious accusations purely for the fun of it or the hell of it, to get themselves noticed or because theu have some sort of problem themselves...... even if people have been trying to help them.

Click to expand...

Bob'n'weave said:

I wonder (edit) whether some of those people who complain about safeguarding and political correctness are also the same people who organise anti-paedophile witch-hunts (rather than letting the police and legal system do its job)... maybe not, but if they are, then I guess they are reaping what they sow.

Click to expand...

giveusfalmerplease said:

LOl this is madness - in my day our PE teacher used to send the boys on long runs around the fields and followed us on a bike. To encourage us to speed up he would sometimes come behind us and push us. lost count of the number of boys falling over and going back to the changing room with grazed knees. And then there was the head teacher who would throw the board rubber at anyone talking whilst he was taking class...So sorry for teachers these days some of whoom get bullied themselves because they are too scared to react Also...A relative of mine is a care worker looking after under fives and they have to get written permission from parents to help the child with their "bathroom duties" for fear of accusation of you can only imagine. If parents dont oblige and apparantly some dont ( sigh...) then the child has to fend for themselves or get sent home..

Click to expand...

BigGully said:

What exactly are you saying ? that if a young individual might be in need of critical qualified help we shouldn't intervene and offer that help due to some inevitable spurious allegation against you, with seemingly one individual on a safeguarding course questioning the recovery position bizarrely of a young female hockey player with a short skirt that he might then be accused of brushing her boobs and his hand disappearing up her skirt, that in my view is an odd priority assumption from an older male participant on the prospect of helping a young critically injured young girl.

Click to expand...

Garage_Doors said:

I was a 70's child and never know suncream existed.
Is the sun really stronger now that it was 40 years ago?
I know sales have increased though.

Click to expand...

DavidinSouthampton said:

That's not what I am saying at all.

If someone is critically injured, you are the only person there and you know what to do, then you do it. Even if there is someone else there and the situation is that bad, then you would still do whatever was needed anyway. It's probably not a very good example, though, for safeguarding.

If it's less fraught and some sort of action needs to be taken and there are other people around, then you might get someone else to do it........ but in the heat of the moment you probably wouldn't think about it.

I am thinking, though, about less critical situations as well. If a young woman was very upset for some reason and needed comforting, an older man would be stupid to take her in to a quiet room and shut the door. I am involved in all sorts of things with the voluntary sector and the Churches where the strong advice would be that, if you need to have a private conversation with someone in any sort of delicate situation, you would not do it behind a closed door with just you and the individual concerned.

Click to expand...