For my personal situation, we are a private school operating within 2 umbrella groups that do accreditation and training for private schools. Given that you know of someone still teaching at a gov’t school despite espousing ideas contrary to local law, I would conclude that the private standards are actually higher, not the other way around. Probably b/c for us it is at-will employment with a private employer and munciple employees may have more rights, collective bargaining agreements, etc.
I love that you are naming Duncan McIntosh over and over. That’s such a clever approach to spreading the word.
I guess I just don’t understand what “staying current with the training” (YankeeDuchess mentioned this) means if someone “current with the training” posts publicly like that and it’s not seen as an addressable problem. In our training, posting like that is incontrovertible proof that the subject is NOT current with our training despite the fact that they can prove they sat through it and ticked the boxes. They’d get bounced in a heartbeat. That stuff he’s writing is so profoundly disturbing.
I don’t see the contradiction. He’s done the training, presumably understands the rules, and there are no allegations, as far as I know, that he himself has violated the code.
He is questioning whether it was necessary and fair to ban some of his respected friends, like RG and GM, because he disagrees that what RG and GM did warrants being banned.
I completely disagree with him, but don’t see any actual violation of the code, or inconsistency in his position.
I think the inconsistency might be that part of the training is to spot and report grooming behaviour and abuses by other people, and that his posts seem to suggest that Duncan wouldn’t report. But it’s that whole proving a negative thing.
This minus the “proving the negative thing” thing. His posts actually read as grooming behaviour - or at the very minimum, justification for behaviour SS is set up to sanction. If you (DM) are justifying that stuff and even adding some of your own extra-creepy behaviour into the mix, I don’t think you understood or are complying with your training to counter such behaviour. If it’s no bigs to go public about disagreeing with the entire point of SS after being certified as SS compliant, I’m at a loss as to what the value of that training and certification is.
Based on Duncan McIntosh’s posts, I wouldn’t view SS compliance as providing any comfort whatsoever when choosing a trainer for a child. Now I know you can be fully SS trained/certified for the season while publicly declaring 11 year olds aren’t necessarily victims or abused when adults have sex with them (esp if they are gay males I guess) and 10 year olds who begin menstruating may have personal body clocks that might mean they are ready for sexual relationships with adults in coaching positions and such adults shouldn’t be reported and/or sanctioned. AND, that such positions publicly declared are not a problem and not reportable and should simply be taken care of in the marketplace.
Well yes. Just because you train people in how not to be a jerk, a rapist, a groomer to prey on a child doesn’t mean everyone takes to it. It’s why the training in most professional settings is annual. If it made the people like Duncan McIntosh have a light bulb moment after one round of the course we wouldn’t need annual training.
The purpose of the training is to not stop the people who are predators. The rapist or child predator doesn’t all of a sudden think “oh wow my behavior is wrong!” after training modules. The purpose is to make the rest of society aware of how they operate so we can contact the correct authorities be it Safe Sport, the police, school administrators etc that the person is a problem and might be engaging in inappropriate behavior or helping those that do. The purpose is to educate the people like the asshat who makes excuses for Tom Navarro because she asked his side of the story and she never leaves her child alone at the barn.
I also agree with every word you are saying, and this is why I really wish USEF would make a more active stand against giving people like Diane Carney money and a platform. (I know shows hire the judges, but I would like USEF to start banning or disallowing officials who are openly and publicly hostile to Safe Sport–it is a club, USEF is part of the market place)
I think many of us want that. However they have proven time and time again they are not willing to stick their necks out for what’s right due to the position(s) the likes of Diane Carney and others hold in the organization.
It would be great if it could work like what @FitzE described.
I’m not saying his stated position is “not a problem”; I’m saying that I don’t think it is actionable. If you think it is reportable, report it. SS has sanctions much less severe than suspension- they can issue a letter admonishing his behavior and warning him to cut it out.
As far as I know, there is not even any evidence that he has witnessed grooming behavior by someone else, and failed to report it. You say “His posts suggest he would not report grooming behavior if he saw it.” Yeah, so? You can’t hang a man for what you “interpret” his statements “suggest” he “might do” in some “hypothetical” situation. Again, as long as he has not violated the code, including not failed to report obvious grooming behavior in others, I don’t see how SS can go after him.
I also think his writing style - incomplete sentences, no clarity, lots of question marks - protects him, as he creates a lot of disturbing ideas, but never quite states anything clearly. I don’t give him the credit that this lack of clarity is intentional, though.
But you have put yourself in a position of saying that you think he is actively encouraging grooming behavior and perhaps actively encouraging abuse, so perhaps you are now in violation if you fail to submit a report.
As much as I think his posts are vile, I genuinely don’t see that in his actions he has crossed a legal line, so I’m sticking to “just” the marketplace for sanctions, which I also believe are a lot more onerous than a private letter from SS.
But given your take on it, seems you are obligated to report him.
Can I? I’m not a USEF member and I don’t live in America (though I’m there at times and my child rides there in the summer). I’m just trying to understand this whole SS thing and how it works and what it’s meant to do. I defer to those of you with more experience that this is not a reportable issue (a certified SS-trained trainer putting out hugely repulsive statements about very young children and sexuality and that he doesn’t think adults should be reported or held accountable for engaging in sexual relations with them). That’s what I’m understanding, and then the logical follow on question is: what good is SS training if one is still in compliance having ticked the boxes even if one is behaving as noted parenthetically above.
“You say “His posts suggest he would not report grooming behavior if he saw it.” Yeah, so? You can’t hang a man for what you “interpret” his statements “suggest” he “might do” in some “hypothetical” situation.”
I understand I am lumping together several posters who all expressed similar thoughts.
If you are not a member of USDF, then you are under no obligation to report, as I understand it. But I don’t see anything preventing a non-US based, non-USEF member from calling or emailing SS to report your concern over McIntosh’s problematic statements.
Perhaps you should, if you think SS can and will do something about it, even just write him a letter. I will not be doing that because I don’t think he has crossed the line and I don’t think SS can do anything. Plus they have a backlog of serious, physical, less hypothetical cases to work on.
When someone becomes certified as having taken the SS training, what is certified is that:
They have taken the training.
It is NOT certified that:
2. They understand all the nuances.
”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹”‹3. They agree with the code.
4. They are not pedophiles or abusers.
If you were thinking that USEF requires the training so that parents can relax their vigilance, and assume all trainers who are certified can now by trusted absolutely with no parental oversight, well, what were you thinking?
A major purpose of the whole certification requirement, I would think, is to raise awareness among all of us non- pedophiles: Here is what can go on; it is not OK, be aware, and don’t look away.
Presumably GM was SS certified for the part of 2019 prior to his ban.
I said it, and should have been more precise. His quotes suggest that he wouldn’t report, because he does not view as inappropriate the behaviours that ss training highlights as grooming, predatory, and/or abusive.
I agree with you that his vile, disgusting posts “suggest” that because he himself, in his own personal mind, does not see sex with minors as morally wrong, you might “speculate” that “hypothetically” if he witnessed grooming or abuse he “might” not report it. I agree with all of that.
But the use of quotes is to highlight all the slippery wiggle words that you need to string together in order to condemn him.
Until you have evidence that he groomed or abused someone, or witnessed or aided and abetted someone else in a violation of the code, I just don’t see what SS can do. I also think that strategically, SS should keep their power dry and only go after infractions in which they can clearly prevail.
I guess I don’t see how training trainers raises awareness among consumers. If I understand correctly, Tom Navarro would be the type of professional who required training, but the woman defending him (his client) would not be required to take training, is that correct? If so, how does the training raise awareness in that consumer group?
Just because no training can do 4. on your list does not mean that it cannot do 2. and 3. If a teacher cannot grasp the nuances of behaviour and reporting, then they demonstrably aren’t certifiable as training compliant. If they openly disagree with the Child Safety codes of conduct, banned conduct, reporting requirements, and sanctions, then they are not certifiable. This is a pretty straightforward concept re: certification.
Finally, the idea that parents take certification as an excuse to relax their vigilance is absurd (and I think you know that’s not true, you just wanted to take a swing at parents, or me, or both. What was I thinking? Spare me.). Parents don’t relax their vigilance when they look into the certification of teachers, coaches, tutors, etc. They use such certifications as one part of their evaluation process. If some certifications are utterly meaningless, they should know that and discount that particular certification in their analysis. That’s valid information for a parent or guardian to have when evaluating any instructor. It’s also valuable for non-parents who may be asked to recommend a trainer or coach for an adult client’s child. My questions are exploring whether SS cert is this kind of meaningless metric.
I didn’t suggest that his comments alone could or should be used to ban him, I explicitly stated that this was an example where market forces are probably the best tool.
The training is for all USEF members pro and amateur a like. The reaction to Duncan McIntosh is that his statements read like he’s justifying the behavior and leads one to question if he’s grooming his own child. Compound that with the fact that he is registered as a pro and works with his wife running a barn with a large children’s lesson program… well it’s frightening to see how his brain works.
No one is saying he should be sanctioned but his behavior online is enough to make many of us want to put him on the radar of SS in the event it’s not just online blathering.
What he writes online is part of what the training helps people recognize as abhorrent.
Interesting, thank you. So all members must now take this training. That’s certainly a step in the right direction.
Your last line gets at the crux of my questioning. It makes sense to me that, as you say, the stuff he writes is part of what the training is meant to highlight as unacceptable. Now that he has done so, what is the remedy? I think I understand there isn’t really a remedy at present; one can be certified and also write these things publicly. That seems to be a huge loophole SS should want to address. How horrifying that the man writing that stuff runs a big children’s lesson program.
The vast majority of the people who take SS certification are clients rather than trainers. One can become a member of USEF by paying the dues. To be eligible to compete, both professionals and amateurs must be certified. Actually, if you are a professional, but don’t compete, maybe you don’t need to take the training.
Not sure if minors who compete take a different certification process, or it the parent of a minor must take the training for the minor to compete. But yes, I think a big element of the training is to raise awareness among non-pedophile adults like me. And yes, I thought you did ask, what is the point of certifying trainers if they can be certified and still post stuff like this? The point of certifying trainers is to put them on notice that if they violate the code, they can be kicked out. Same reason for certifying adult amateurs.
I took the training; I understand that I can be kicked out if I violate the rules.
Did I take an oath swearing that I agree with the rules? (I do agree with the rules, but don’t remember taking an oath that I agree with them.)
People aren’t really certified in Safe Sport more so the certification is proof they completed the training. Like I said the training is more bystander intervention training. What I mean by that is it gives people training on how to recognize situations that could be indications that something terrible is going on while at the same time giving them a place to report things. One never knows if their report of online posts by anyone helps the case of a victim.
The remedy IMO is for people to vote will their wallets, spread the word and as some are doing, asking Safe Sport on how best to navigate what they see people saying.
