Home > Safeguard Community Support EDI policy: questions and concerns
Safeguard Community Support EDI policy: questions and concerns
An EDI policy is not meaningful just because it exists. For a group claiming to act in the name of community safety, equality and inclusion must be backed by accountability, training, safeguarding, complaints routes and evidence of practice.
Repeated claims of links with public bodies
The policy states that Safeguard Community Support collaborates with Dorset Police, BCP Council and NHS Dorset. However, it does not explain whether those relationships are formal partnerships, informal contact, referral routes, or simply agencies the group may interact with.
The policy heavily presents itself as working alongside public agencies while there is no endorsement from those agencies.
Well-written, poorly enforced
The policy repeatedly says discrimination will be taken seriously, and goes into great detail defining buzzwords like intersectionality, discrimination and victimisation.
However, the strongest disciplinary action outlined in the policy is that “volunteers may be subject to retraining, disciplinary action, suspension, or dismissal”
Who decides whether discrimination occurred? What evidence is required? What timescales apply?
The policy also does not clearly identify an independent body responsible for handling escalated complaints. It says unresolved complaints may be escalated to the “company Commission”. This is vague and unclear. If this refers to the Charity Commission, Companies House, or another body, the policy should say so plainly.
The policy is designed to look professional and provide reassurance, without any real accountability.
Racial profiling
The policy says volunteers must not make assumptions based on “appearance, language, or behaviour.” It also specifically states that “refugees, asylum seekers and migrants may face language barriers, cultural misunderstanding and prejudice”.
With a history like founder Gary Bartlett’s, it’s hard to believe the words written in their policy.
Evidence shows Bartlett has posted Islamophobic material, mocked refugees and engaged with content celebrating or trivialising harm against Muslims and migrants.
How can we trust a group that claims to be inclusive and anti-discriminatory, when their founder appears to be the complete opposite?