Embedded Files
Using the scale means that the team can make decisions that are fair and standardised, with limited bias. We can also be held accountable by having a clear structure to follow. It is up to the survivor to think about where the level of harm lies, and to give us as much information as they feel comfortable - to give a rounded view of the accusation. One person's boundaries are not the same as another person. We never assume or judge a survivor - and will believe your experience of the incident.
A disclosure is not a recording of events by an unbiased camera, it is the subjective experiences of a person who has experienced harm. As such inconsistencies, differences of opinion or perceived hyperbole are not disqualifying of the real and palpable harm experienced.
The aim of the safeguarding team is to support those involved
and make recommendations to the team to support you in continuing/attending BiCamp.
Our categorisations are as follows: Least Urgent, The Scale of Harm (1-5) and Most Urgent.
All incidents or disclosures, no matter where they fall on the scale of harm, must be recorded on an Incidents/Disclosures form.
Least Urgent - For example: Gossip or rumours, third party information or non-safeguarding related issues that have caused distress.
Example Outcomes:
an email outlining the problem and suggested behaviour
informal discussion
issue to be discussed by organising committee/trustees
no further action needed
Scale of Harm 1 - For example: Non-deliberate misgendering, minimal accidental harm done or minor individual boundaries pushed in a non-harmful way. No evidence of prior problematic behaviour. Low likelihood of behaviour being repeated.
Example Outcomes:
informal discussion
informal warning email letting the perpetrator know that there has been a concern raised and why
advice or resources to stop it happening again
Scale of Harm 2 - For example: Sending unsolicited messages online, using a person's dead name after being corrected, repeated Scale of Harm 1 level infractions, microaggressions to a person of colour, ableist language and sexist language. Some likelihood of repeated behaviour if steps not taken.
Example Outcome:
formal warning email / second formal warning
advice and resources to challenge ideological or ignorant origins
depending on the severity and likelihood of behaviour being repeated, this may be a first or last warning before a ban
Scale of Harm 3 - For example: Pushing consent boundaries deliberately, misgendering the same type of people consistently (eg. AFAB/Trans women), unintended illegal acts, violating conditions of venue, acting in a dangerous or reckless manner. Some likelihood of repeated behaviour if steps not taken.
Example Outcome:
formal warning with formal meeting
temporary ban
ban on attending any BiCamp events until a plan is agreed with the survivor with necessary steps completed by the perpetrator
attending consent workshops
writing a formal apology
attending a mediation session
Scale of Harm 4 - For Example: refusing to engage with rehabilitation or apology after a warning, repeat or sustained pushing of consent or other personal boundaries, abusive behaviour, knowingly acting in a dangerous or reckless manner. High likelihood of behaviour being repeated.
Example Outcomes:
permanent ban from BiCamp and BiCamp events
sharing summary with other relevant groups
contacting relevant authorities
establishing that time and work have elapsed which reduce the risk of the individual causing further harm
ensuring the individual is not involved in areas relating to their harm
asking the perpetrator to engage with appropriate work (e.g. consent training) that lower the risk of behaviour being repeated
asking the perpetrator to not contact the survivor, to avoid events the survivor is attending and to do the work to be vigilant to stay out of their way at events
Most Urgent: For Example: immediate serious danger to self or others, evidence of repeated Scale of Harm level 3 or level 4 behaviour (perhaps historically), risk associated with volunteers approaching. High likelihood of significant danger.
Outcome:
emergency services telephoned without consultation
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse