The answer is simple: We would return to genuine protection based on evidence, rather than “Safeguarding” based on allegations and quotas.
When we say “Stop Safeguarding Now,” we are calling for an end to a system that uses “safeguarding” as a legal pretext for state abduction and asset-stripping. We want to replace the current broken “Internal Loop” with a system that actually protects the vulnerable. Even the business case is obvious – with Local Authorities crying out about over-stretched funding.
1. A Return to the “Threshold of Harm” (Criminal Law) Currently, “safeguarding” allows the state to intervene based on a “concern” or a “suspicion”—often without a shred of physical evidence. We propose returning to a system where the state can only intervene if there is a clear, evidenced breach of criminal law or an immediate, demonstrable physical danger – and that includes the knock at the door by the Police.
If a crime has been committed, the Police should investigate, not an unaccountable power-crazed Social Worker.
2. Family-Led Support, Not State-Led Detention
The vast majority of “vulnerable” people are safest within their own families. Yet, the state currently spends billions on a “screening” culture that treats every family as a potential crime scene while offering almost zero practical help.
For Vulnerable Adults: As of December 2025, Councils across England received an estimated 640,240 safeguarding concerns for adults. Despite this massive intake, the vast majority of these people are “screened out” only after the state has intruded into their lives. For the 65+ demographic, 85% of referrals in England are found not to meet the statutory threshold for intervention.
Northern Ireland: Protection by Policy, Not Law
In Northern Ireland, the state operates without a dedicated Adult Protection Act, instead using “Regional Policies” to trigger investigations. In 2025, the Department of Health (NI) statistics showed that despite thousands of adult safeguarding “referrals,” roughly 70% to 75% of these did not meet the criteria for a formal protection plan. This means thousands of NI households are subjected to HSC Trust “enquiries” based on nothing more than administrative policy, yet these records are retained indefinitely, effectively creating a “shadow database” of families marked as risks without a single shred of evidenced wrongdoing.
In Scotland and Wales, the trend is identical, with roughly 80% of adult protection inquiries being closed as “baseless”—yet these “concerns” remain on permanent files as a justification for future state control and asset-stripping.
For Children: The statistics for 2025 are even more staggering. In England, there were approximately 633,000 referrals to children’s social care. However, after the state’s 230,000 aggressive “Section 47” investigations (the most intrusive type of enquiry) were launched, only 72,100 of these even made it to an initial conference, and even fewer resulted in actual plans.
The Result: Roughly 70% of high-level child abuse investigations in England end with no further action because no abuse was found.
The Financial Madness: England currently spends £4 in every £5 of its children’s services budget on “Late Intervention” (taking children into care or investigating families), while investment in the early, practical support that actually keeps families together has plummeted by over £900 million since 2013.
In Northern Ireland, Under the UNOCINI (Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland) framework, over 22,000 children are currently flagged as “In Need,” yet only about 10% are ever found to require a Child Protection Plan.
In Scotland the system is even more bloated. Of the thousands of children referred to the Children’s Reporter on care and protection grounds, over 95% result in no Compulsory Supervision Order. The state is casting a net over almost every struggling family in Scotland, only to find nothing.
In Wales, despite over 45,000 referrals, only around 3,000 children ended up on the Register—meaning over 90% of families were targeted unnecessarily.
Our Argument: We are spending billions to “detect” abuse that isn’t there, while bankrupting the very families that are trying to provide care. Protection should mean supporting the family unit, not spending over £18.5 billion a year to police it.
“Safeguarding” as it exists today hides the victims of real abuse under a mountain of paperwork generated by bureaucrats demonstrating that the system is not fit for purpose in protecting children and vulnerable adults now.
4. Transparency and Accountability True protection requires light. We advocate for:
Open Courts: No more secret hearings where “Professional Opinion” is treated as “Gospel Truth.”
Independent Oversight: Safeguarding decisions should be made by independent juries or panels, not “Internal Trust Panels” acting as judge and jury.
The Right to Record: Families should have the absolute right to record every interaction with a Social Worker to ensure “concerns” aren’t fabricated and to challenge widespread false narratives and institutional gaslighting.
The Verdict: The current “Safeguarding” system isn’t a shield; it’s a net. It catches the innocent and the elderly while failing to stop the truly dangerous. By stopping “Safeguarding” in its current form, we allow for a true safety system—one that respects the family, demands evidence, and focuses on actual protection rather than institutional control.
Sources:
(1) General Framework & Legal Principles
The “Threshold of Harm” vs. Suspicion: Children Act 1989 (Section 47) for England/Wales; Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (Article 66); Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011.
Right to Family Life: European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 8.
Right to Record: Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR (Right of access/rectification) alongside R (C) v South Gloucestershire Council [2016] regarding transparency in social work recording.
(2) Adult & Elderly Safeguarding (The 85% “Screen-Out”)
England (640,240 Concerns & 85% Failure): NHS England, “Safeguarding Adults, England, 2024 to 2025: Statistical Commentary” (Released late 2025). This tracks the conversion of “Concerns” to “Section 42 Enquiries.”
Northern Ireland (Protection by Policy): Department of Health (NI), “Adult Safeguarding Statistics 2024/25” and the Northern Ireland Assembly, “Adult Protection Bill 2025” (Evidence papers). The Bill itself acknowledges the current lack of statutory protection law in NI.
Scotland & Wales (80% Baseless Rate): Scottish Government, “Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007: National Minimum Dataset 2024-25” and StatsWales, “Adults suspected of being at risk 2025.”
(3) Children’s Services (The “Innocence” Gap)
England (633k Referrals & 230k Section 47s): Department for Education (DfE), “Characteristics of Children in Need: 2024-25” (Official Statistics).
Northern Ireland (UNOCINI & 10% Plan Rate): Department of Health (NI), “Children’s Social Care Statistics for Northern Ireland 2024/25.” UNOCINI refers to “Understanding the Needs of Children in Northern Ireland.”
Scotland (95% No-Order Rate): Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration (SCRA), “Official Statistics 2024/25” (Published June 2025). This compares total referrals to the number of Compulsory Supervision Orders (CSOs) issued.
Wales (90% Targeting Rate): Social Services Wales, “Performance and Improvement Framework Data 2025” (Found via StatsWales). Compares “Contacts” to “Initial Child Protection Register (ICPR)” entries.
(4) The Financial Madness (£18.5 Billion & Budget Cuts)
UK-Wide £18.5bn Spend: Aggregated from:
DfE Section 251 Budget Data (England, 2025-26): ~£14.2bn-£15.5bn.
Scottish Local Government Finance Statistics (2025).
Welsh Local Authority Revenue Budget (2025-26).
England £900m Early Help Cut: The Children’s Society, Action for Children, and Barnardo’s, “The Well-Worn Path” (2025 Update).
England £4 in every £5 (Late Intervention): Children’s Services Funding Alliance (2024/25 Report).
(5) Accountability & Transparency
Open Courts Argument: President of the Family Division, “Confidence and Transparency in the Family Courts” (2025 Progress Report)—though the SSNC argues the current “transparency” measures do not go far enough.