Safeguarding and the Abuse of Power
Abuse by those in authority is never only about the individual concerned; it exposes wider failures in culture and oversight that should preoccupy every safeguarding professional, every boardroom, and every organisation.
The Safeguarding Perspective
The recent headlines involving a trainee doctor facing serious safeguarding allegations is a stark reminder that, when trust and authority fall into the wrong hands, the results can be devastating.
Seen through a safeguarding lens, abuse by those in authority is qualitatively different from misconduct between peers. It makes disclosure harder, it hides patterns of harm, and it distorts systems that should protect into shields for the perpetrator. It underlines how coercion can be disguised as consent and why victims often remain silent: He is respected, everyone trusts him, who will believe me? When authority is misused, the balance of power leaves victims in a position where resistance feels almost impossible. Careers, resources, and reputations may rest in the hands of the very person causing the harm. Speaking out can feel more dangerous than enduring the behaviour.
Such abuse rarely begins with a dramatic act. More often, it creeps in slowly, through a comment that pushes a boundary, a request for secrecy, or a deliberate act of isolation. Each step blurs the lines until control becomes the norm.
Institutions can deepen the damage. Complaints are too often processed with legal liability or reputation in mind rather than safeguarding. Concerns are brushed aside as misunderstandings, minimised, or hidden through non-disclosure agreements.
The result is chilling. Victims fear disbelief or retaliation. They worry about careers ending, communities turning against them, or organisations rallying to protect the accused. Silence takes hold, the abuse continues, and safeguarding systems collapse.
Thirlwall Inquiry
The Thirlwall Inquiry has shown how warnings from staff were overlooked, raising serious questions about leadership and governance. In other parts of the health service, disciplinary cases involving sexual misconduct have moved painfully slowly, often because institutions were reluctant to act against highly regarded professionals.
David Carrick
The case of David Carrick, a serving police officer convicted of multiple offences, highlighted how power and role can be exploited. Internal reports and complaints were repeatedly ignored, showing how loyalty and culture can smother accountability.
In Westminster, the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme has logged a steady rise in reports of bullying, harassment, and misconduct. Yet the influence of the machinery of political parties and the glare of public image negatively impact accountability.
Whyte Review
The Whyte Review into British Gymnastics revealed how the authority of coaches, left unchecked, allowed abusive practices to spread. Young athletes and whistleblowers carried the weight of speaking up, only to watch institutions protect those at the top.
John Smyth
The John Smyth case illustrated how faith communities built on respect and trust can fall into silence and deference when faced with allegations. Similarly, in education and private tuition, cases such as a driving instructor exploiting a student highlight how one-to-one relationships create serious safeguarding risks.
Conclusion
These cases should not only concern us, but they should also prompt structural change. Safeguarding cannot operate as an afterthought. Best practice must anticipate risk and build defences long before a scandal breaks and this begins with a frank acknowledgement of the dangers power imbalance may present. Training and codes of conduct must be clear about the risks that authority may bring.
Organisations must also track patterns rather than treat incidents in isolation. Complaints, HR records, exit interviews, and staff feedback must be viewed collectively to enable repeated concerns, even minor in themselves, to be treated as warning signs.
Reporting systems need to offer genuine choice. Victims must not feel trapped in a single chain of command, and external channels should always be available. Case handling must be free from the influence of prominent or powerful figures, with oversight assigned to independent trustees, outside legal support, or impartial panels.
Safeguarding has to sit at the heart of leadership. Boards and executives should receive regular reports that show more than numbers, to highlight trends and near misses. Whistleblowers must be protected with anonymity and well-being support, with strong consequences for retaliation.
Roles involving one-to-one work, such as coaching, tutoring, or clinical care, need structured oversight. Regular check-ins, shadowing, and rotation reduce the risks that thrive in isolation. Sanctions must also reflect risk rather than status. No one should be considered untouchable, and regulators must act decisively when public protection is at stake.
Finally, transparency matters once cases close. Organisations should publish, in a careful and anonymised way, the lessons learned, and the changes made. Demonstrating such exposure leads to reform and is central to best safeguarding practice and restoring trust.
The real challenge is whether we build systems strong and independent enough to shield the vulnerable, to prevent power and prestige from continuing to serve as protection for the abuser.
Sara Spinks
SSS Author & Former Headteacher
8 October 2025