Both Sinn Féin (SF) and the British Heart Foundation (BHF) have struggled over the past few weeks to minimise and repair ‘reputational damage’.

Their respective prioritising their public image has not enhanced the reputation of either.

Both reacted as if the storm surrounding Michael McMonagle’s presence at the BHF Stormont event was the problem when it was actually the consequence of the real problem.

On proper internal investigation, the problem will, I expect, lie somewhere within the triangle of governance, policy and practice of both and the systemic weakness in Safeguarding legislation.

Readers may be familiar with ‘nidirect’ – a very useful government services website providing information for any resident, UK citizen, or organisation within Northern Ireland needing a starting point to clarify how to access government services.

It also provides information on rights, entitlements and responsibilities, and you will find it at https://www.nidirect.gov.uk.

For employers and employees, it provides information in relation to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), the purpose of which is to help protect children and vulnerable adults from exploitation, neglect and abuse, physical, emotional or sexual.

It also helps protect organisations whose work involves engagement with children and their families from unwittingly increasing the access to children (or vulnerable adults) of a person likely to harm them.

Both SF and the BHF should be more familiar than the average person with the legislation, policy and support in place.

We have all, as John Keats wrote, had “our eyeballs vexed and tired” by reading report upon report and assurances that “lessons have been learnt” by statutory bodies, churches, schools, sporting organisations, charities, political parties and Uncle Tom Cobbley as each ‘new scandal’ regarding child welfare breaks like the waves on Tennyson’s “cold grey rocks”.

Yet the failure to adequately protect children and vulnerable adults in our society continues.

It is entrenched, enduring, institutionalised and systemic.

Organisations circle the wagons to minimise the damage to reputations; noises are made; the crisis passes. Lessons are learned.

Nobody gets to find out what lessons were learned, implemented and what examination, routinely conducted, ensures mistakes aren’t repeated. The circus moves on.

The quote below is taken directly from the government ‘nidirect’ webpage:

If you think someone shouldn’t be working with vulnerable groups.

“If you’re an employer and you have removed one of your staff, or you would have done so had the person not left, because you think that they have harmed or may harm a child or vulnerable adult, the law says you must tell the DBS.

“You’ll need to fill out a form and send it with any evidence like details of any disciplinary process ... If the DBS receives information that indicates that a person may pose a risk of harm to vulnerable groups, including children, they will look into this and may make a decision to include this person on a barred list.”

If the appropriate form was received, a record of its receipt will exist, as will any decision arising from it. I suspect that the DBS got no form, but I could be wrong!

I quote again: “Safeguarding legislation enables organisations to carry out background checks on those individuals they engage to work, or volunteer, in regulated activity.

“The checks are issued by AccessNI ... The Disclosure and Barring Service helps employers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups, including children.

“The DBS decides whether it is suitable for a person to be placed on or removed from a barred list.”

Chief Executive Officer, Feargal McKinney, has said the BHF did not seek an AccessNI check before hiring Mr. McMonagle as the job role did not require it.

It is a fairly lame response, given that it is established good practice for community and voluntary sector organisations engaging with children and families, where building a trusted relationship is involved, to require Accessing (the Northern Ireland equivalent of a DBS basic) pre-employment checks. Why was Mr. McMonagle routinely accompanying a young child and his family, including to Stormont and to London, if it wasn’t part of his job?

On how many occasions did he have the opportunity to build trust with individual vulnerable adults or children?

The media interest is primarily in Michele O’Neill as First Minister of the NI Executive, and as Vice-President of Sinn Féin.

The BHF has consequently got off relatively lightly, the safeguarding system even more so, if safeguarding children is the heart of the matter.

There is, however, no doubt that the lion’s share of responsibility lies within Sinn Féin and the tangled web which underlies the mess in which they find themselves.

This goes much deeper than the despicable actions of the reference-providing duo, their motives, and whether ‘Michelle saw McMonagle’ at a Stormont event in 2023.

Now, just when they least needed it, the former Belfast Mayor, Niall Ó Donnghaile, has outed himself as the senior member of the party who sent inappropriate messages to a 17-year old party member.

Mary Lou McDonald‘s RTÉ interview gave a more credible account of Sinn Féin’s handling of the matter in removing him from the party and reporting it to the relevant authorities, who did not consider it merited further action in safeguarding.

Conducing internal discipline when mental health is also on the table is never easy, so not disclosing the person’s identity at the time has a plausible argument.

I have no doubt that the media already knew at the time, but weighed the same issue in the balance.

Why Mr. Ó Donnghaile chose this point to name himself is another matter.

Nonetheless, time is running out for Sinn Féin to learn the lessons of open, democratic and accountable organisation and leadership.

That’s especially so since it first needs to undertake some serious unlearning in its organisational culture, including institutionalised exceptionalism and arrogance; organisational elitism and proteon ctionism, and an inherently undemocratic factional ‘cell’ infrastructure of internal authority which has its origins in secrecy, and male supremacy.