When Safeguarding Means “Prove He Meant It”

There’s a sentence in a recent Wales Online report that should chill anyone who actually understands safeguarding:

The committee recognised the message could be seen as sexual but did not find any sexual intention.

Read that again.

Because what it really says is this:
If an adult can plausibly deny intent, a student’s discomfort doesn’t matter.

And that right there is the problem.

A college lecturer privately messaged a teenage student at night, on social media, after being explicitly warned not to do so. He asked her to imagine him as “pocket-sized, like six inches,” told her she could “do anything she wanted” with him, and added that “only you and me would know.”

The student said it felt sexual.

But the Education Workforce Council Wales panel decided it wasn’t, because he said it wasn’t.

Welcome to modern safeguarding, where harm must be explicit, provable, and undeniable before it counts.

Intent Is Not the Point

Safeguarding was never supposed to revolve around whether an adult admits sexual intent.

If that’s the bar, safeguarding is already dead.

The entire purpose of professional boundaries is to prevent situations where intent becomes irrelevant, because the power imbalance already exists. A teacher doesn’t need to be sexually aroused to cause harm. They don’t need to want a relationship. They don’t need to “mean it that way”.

They just need access, influence, and plausible deniability.

And this case has all three.

This Wasn’t One “Weird” Message

The panel described the behaviour as “bizarre, weird and inappropriate.”

That language matters because it sanitises what actually happened.

This wasn’t an isolated lapse of judgement. It was part of a wider pattern:

Acting as a “father figure” to a vulnerable student
Physical contact with students, hair touching, hugging
Personal comments about students’ relationships
Private messaging outside approved channels
Continuing after being warned
Deleting messages once investigated

That’s not awkwardness.
That’s boundary erosion.

Safeguarding frameworks are designed to identify patterns, not excuse them.
This case had multiple red flags, but they were treated as quirks instead of risk indicators.

“She Thought It Was Sexual” Should Have Been Enough

Here’s the part that should end the debate entirely:

The student experienced it as sexual.

That should have been the point where the conversation stopped.

Safeguarding is about impact, not intent. About how behaviour is experienced by the person with less power. About how it lands in a vulnerable context.

Instead, her experience was acknowledged, then quietly overridden.

Because he didn’t mean it.
Because it wasn’t explicit.
Because it wasn’t provable enough.

That sends a brutal message to students everywhere:
Your discomfort is negotiable.

Deleting Messages Is Not “Panic” — It’s Awareness

Another moment brushed aside far too easily: he deleted messages once the investigation began.

In safeguarding contexts, deletion isn’t neutral. It indicates awareness that boundaries were crossed, that something wouldn’t look right under scrutiny.

Whether those messages were “innocent” or not is beside the point. If you truly believe your behaviour is appropriate, you preserve evidence. You don’t erase it.

Calling this “panic” minimises a serious safeguarding concern.

The Outcome Speaks Volumes

Despite everything:

He is not banned from teaching
The reprimand lasts two years
He may continue working with students

The panel even wished him luck.

Meanwhile, the student lives with the knowledge that her experience was acknowledged, but not believed strongly enough to matter.

This is how trust in safeguarding systems erodes. Not through dramatic failures, but through quiet decisions that prioritise adult explanations over student safety.

This Is How Grooming Cultures Survive

No, this case does not prove he is a paedophile.

That’s not the argument.

The argument is that systems like this create the conditions where grooming cultures thrive, where boundary-blurring is tolerated until it escalates, where early warnings are dismissed as “misinterpretations,” and where responsibility is diluted by technicalities.

Safeguarding shouldn’t wait for explicit sexual harm.
By the time that happens, the system has already failed.

The Question We Should Be Asking

The real question isn’t:

Did he mean it sexually?

It’s this:

Why does safeguarding still rely on adults’ intent instead of students’ safety?

Until that changes, we will keep seeing rulings like this.
And students will keep learning the same lesson:

Speak up! but don’t expect the system to act until it’s already too late.

Original reporting on this matter can be found in Wales Online: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/teacher-insists-six-inches-message-33062374.

Editor’s Note — The Grooming Files

The Grooming Files does not engage in harassment, vigilantism, or personal targeting. This article is an opinion-led critique of safeguarding frameworks and professional decision-making processes. It does not assert criminal guilt. It examines how institutional systems repeatedly minimise risk by prioritising adult intent over the lived experience and safety of students and young people.

Byline

Sophie Lewis
Founder & Editor – The Grooming Files
Investigative writer and researcher
NUJ press card holder
BA (Hons) Social Sciences (Criminology, Psychology & Social Harm)

Sophie Lewis produces survivor-led investigative journalism examining grooming cultures, safeguarding failures, and institutional responses to harm. Her work focuses on systemic patterns rather than individual sensationalism.

Copyright Notice

This article is the original work of Sophie Lewis. No part of this publication may be reproduced, republished, archived, or redistributed in any form, whether digital or print, without the express written permission of the author.