We were groomed too!

One of the things that concerns me about contemporary discussions of grooming is the way the concept can sometimes be appropriated by people in positions of authority — educators, school leaders and institutions — to explain or even excuse their own inaction. I have encountered arguments along the lines of, “We were groomed too,” as though being manipulated by an offender somehow absolves those with professional responsibilities from recognising, questioning or responding to what was happening.

I’m interested in where we draw that line. Grooming is a mechanism of abuse; it can explain how an offender creates conditions in which abuse is normalised, concealed or made difficult to recognise. But when the concept is extended to institutional actors, does it risk shifting responsibility away from those who were actually entrusted with safeguarding children?

In other words, when does an account of how people were manipulated become an account that inadvertently excuses their failure to act?

And I think this matters because if we continue to frame institutional inaction primarily through the lens of “they were groomed too”, we risk making the very people who were supposed to prevent abuse part of the narrative of victimhood.