This is quite natural given that ultimately the law poses the greatest threat to the leaders of charities, schools etc. You really don't want a high profile failure on your watch.
When I was trained to lead shifts of volunteers, it stood out to me that the only instruction I received was in safeguarding...
My first thought was that something simply isn't quite right, since safeguarding is far newer than the organisation itself.
But actually I think this is just the way of things. If you have enormous punishments, then you will have commensurate reactions from management.
We've lost a large number of volunteers because we can no longer guarantee anonymity to young people. Initially we were reassured that we would only be expected to report things when identifying information was willingly given to us. This has since been revised to instructions that we are to actively seek such information.
The law itself was brought in following high profile instances of horrific abuse that went overlooked by social services. However, the scope of the law is surprisingly wide.
For instance, this would all apply to a 17-year-old who mentions that they were being bullied by peers.
I myself do feel conflicted - abuse is terrible, and it's worth tolerating other kinds of indirect harm to prevent. But it's still shocking to me that the second order consequences don't appear to get discussed at all in the public sphere. I do worry that this has been snuck in as a "Save The Puppies Act" without proper deliberation.
I'm unsure if there are other countries who have pretty much identical laws, or if it is just the UK?