Absolutely not. We believe that abuse—whether physical, sexual, financial, or emotional—is a crime. It should be treated as a crime, investigated by the Police, and prosecuted in a Criminal Court with a full burden of proof.
What we do not condone is the current “Safeguarding” industry. We argue that the state has hijacked the word “safety” to build a system that is, in itself, abusive.
1. The “State Abuse” of the Innocent When 88% of NHS safeguarding reports fail to meet the statutory threshold, the state is effectively committing “Institutional Harassment” against hundreds of thousands of innocent families. To the SSNC, a baseless allegation that results in a child being snatched or an elder or vulnerable adult being locked in a home is a profound act of State Abuse.
2. Safeguarding is NOT Child/Adult Protection There is a critical difference that the authorities don’t want you to know:
Protection is a reactive measure to save a person from evidenced, significant harm. We fully support this.
Safeguarding is a proactive “dragnet” that allows the state to intervene based on “opinion,” “lifestyle choices,” or “perceived future risk.” We believe that by stopping “Safeguarding,” we allow the authorities to focus their resources on actual Protection.
3. The “Financial Abuse” Hypocrisy For the 65+ demographic, the most common report is “Financial Abuse.” Often, this is the state’s way of saying: “We want the family’s money for care fees, and the family is ‘abusing’ the elder by trying to protect their inheritance.”
The SSNC believes that stripping a family of Power of Attorney and liquidating their assets to pay for a forced care home placement is the ultimate form of Financial Abuse.
4. Our Zero-Tolerance Policy We do not support, defend, or allow membership to anyone who has committed a criminal act of abuse. We are a coalition of families who have been wrongly accused or institutionally harmed. If you are looking for a way to hide actual criminal behavior, you have come to the wrong place. We demand a system of High Thresholds—one that is so focused on real criminals that it stops wasting its time harassing loving families.
The Verdict: We don’t condone abuse; we oppose the state’s monopoly on it. We want a world where the Police catch actual abusers, and the Social Workers are stopped from “safeguarding” the innocent into poverty and isolation and where we secure justice for those sub-humans that have so profoundly offended humanity.
Did you know? The UK Government’s own statutory guidance (Care Act 2014) defines “Organisational Abuse” as including: “Discouraging visits or the involvement of relatives” and “Unnecessary involvement in personal finances.” > When a Social Worker prevents you from seeing your parent or takes control of their bank account without a criminal conviction, they are committing the very act of Institutional Abuse that they are supposedly trained to prevent.
Sources
(1) The Legal Distinction: Proactive vs. Reactive
Source: Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 (Updated 2025/2026 Guidance), HM Government.
Context: This is the “Bible” for social workers. It defines Safeguarding as a broad, proactive set of actions to “promote welfare” (which SSNC argues is overreach), whereas Child Protection is the reactive response to “significant harm.”
(2) The Shift from “Crime” to “Safeguarding Concern”
Source: Safeguarding Pressures Phase 9 (2025), Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS).
Context: This recent report highlights a “notable safeguarding trend” where activities previously classified as crimes (such as trafficking, exploitation, and gangs) are now being re-labeled as “Safeguarding Concerns.”
(3) Institutional Abuse: The State as the Abuser
Source: Care Act 2014, Section 42 (Statutory Guidance 2025/26 Update) and Buckinghamshire/Havering Safeguarding Adults Board Definitions.
Context: These official boards define Organisational or Institutional Abuse as “mistreatment caused by systems, policies, practices, and culture.”
(4) Human Rights and “State Abduction”
Source: Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) Inquiry: Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System (2025).
Context: This ongoing Parliamentary inquiry is specifically examining whether the state is breaching Article 8 (Right to Family Life) and Article 5 (Right to Liberty) through the use of Deprivation of Liberty (DoL) orders.
(5) The Failure of the “Dragnet”
Source: CPS Data Summary Quarter 2 2025-2026, Crown Prosecution Service.
Context: While “safeguarding concerns” are at an all-time high, the number of these that translate into actual criminal charges remains a tiny fraction.
(6) “Did You Know”
Source: ADCS Safeguarding Pressures (2025); JCHR Human Rights Inquiry (2025); Care Act 2014 Statutory Guidance.