Under 18s

[alex]

Hi all,

I'm back from holiday tomorrow, and wanted to check on the status of the under 18s before researching it over the weekend.

As far as I can tell, we are keen to admit under 18s, but feel that there might be regulatory reasons that make this too difficult, although no-one understands what these reasons may be.  Is that a fair assessment?

Alex

[Martin Dittus]

Yes, very much so. Any help is still appreciated. We did some initial research (e.g. SamLR spent a lot of time on this; and _Jane and others helped us loads), but we're way too overcommitted already to figure out this mess. Haven't found out where to get reliable advice yet either.

There's now a fairly decent summary here:
http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_is_there_currently_an_age_limit.3F
http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/Under_18s_Need

m.

[alex]

Thanks Martin,

Thoughts based on initial research:

We include children in a risk assessment,  which should be done in any case.

Baby changing is a non-issue, everyone brings their own tent.

Everyone should be registered including children, we make sure to have contact details for two of their carers.

We combine lost children point with info desk, who have contact details of on-call (ie non-drunk) ecrb checked campers and social services.

We contact local police with our plan for lost children and ask for feedback.

In my opinion, it is not acceptable to explicitly exclude those with dependants because we do not have time to understand their requirements. It is discriminatory, and we should make that time. For this reason I feel we should remove the requirement now.

Alex

[Martin Dittus]

We're running in a loop here. As was pointed out before, this topic mainly poses a problem for us because:
1.) After repeated requests on multiple channels (and in person) we have not yet found a suitable person who can take this on as a project. This is not something we can do on the side; like any other larger project this requires at least one dedicated staff.
2.) We have not yet found a person of suitable legal standing that can not only advise us reliably, but is publicly willing to stand for it. At the very least this person should have experience running such events and know where to get definitive answers.

I would actually love it if you volunteered for this. We really need someone to take over. Any other project we're running that has safety considerations (particularly power, Internet, sanitation, …) fulfils these criteria; admittedly because they're mostly tech problems (easy for us), but also because the expertise is much easier to come by; and because legislation hasn't drastically changed in the last few years and any legal issues are often much better documented.

This is something we could very easily lose our license over. We're not keen to risk that.

m.

[Charles Yarnold]

From my limited dealings with needing to work on the *legal* side of having children at events it is alot more than just saying we should have them, so much so that the theatre groups I have worked with need a dedicated team to work on this with the venues they own. And the amount of ring binders dealing with the paperwork were scary.

Sadly I can't help more than knowing its alot of work for theatre land to sort out (both for those on and watching the stage) its not something that can be willed away by saying not to would be discriminatory.

Charles

[alex]

Running a theatre group seems like a very different proposition.

We are proposing running a primarily adult event where people are allowed to bring their own children provided they take full responsibility for them at all times.

Alex

[SamLR]

Alex, you are correct, theatre and a 3 day festival are different but the core points are the same:

1. No one, who is currently working on emf camp, has the time to deal with this
2. There are at least some legally required processes that have to be completed to enable under 18's to attend, we don't know what these are and don't have time (see 1.) to find out. 

If you are volunteering to do this job then go and do it. You'll need to make the required contacts and do the research so that you can convince us that what ever proposals you make are a) correct and b) feasible then we will be happy to have under 18's attend. 

But if you're just here to argue that "we should have under 18's" then kindly stop. We agree. We should have under 18s but having personally lost at least 10 hours trying to figure out: what the law regarding under 18s in this sort of situation actually is; which bits are (currently) applicable and finally what it actually means (3 separate problems) I can say it is not a simple problem and there are apparently no clear guidelines. 

And frankly I'm getting sick of people whinging that under 18's can't come. We know, it sucks. If you care that much go and find out how to make it happen and we will be amazingly grateful and laud you until the ends of the earth. But if you all you're going to say is "well it should happen" please kindly fuck off. 

S

[alex]

Hi Martin,

I'm happy to look into it but am not a lawyer. I find this caution troubling, there is no tangible  indication of a blocking problem that hasn't been answered on the wiki.

I hope the same cautionary  approach would not be taken if a carer of an over 18 (eg with learning difficulties) wanted to come on site.

Of course this is a largely external perspective as I haven't been to meetings etc. I'll write a cited report on the wiki in the next day or two to try to reassure.

Best wishes

Alex

[SamLR]

Alex, please excuse the final paragraph of my last email. It's not directly solely at you and I realise that you've been away but I'm getting very frustrated with people asking why under 18's aren't allowed and then when we explain it to them acting as though we are just being lazy. I promise you a lot of work has gone into the current state of the research and as you can see we've not got much to show for all that work. 

This is is not a simple problem. As far as I can tell a lot of festivals simply ignore it; fine. But as it stands we've decided that we'd like to be on the right side of the law and that is apparently a lot harder to achieve than we thought

[SamLR]

Thank you

[alex]

Hi Sam,

No need for that. Read my mails again - I am intending to put time in.

The reason this is a reoccurring issue is because it is important, and the current position is offensive, at least to me. I think it needs reversing asap.

Traveling back today, more later.

Alex

[Charles Yarnold]

Running a UK wide group of theatre venues and events is quite like our situation, you have to provide venues, facilities and staff trained to handle their needs. "We are proposing running a primarily adult event where people are allowed to bring their own children" describes 80% of the events they handle.

And we have having a camping area too!

I would point out my one useful bit of knowledge relevant to this, due to the "Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977" its not possible to say "allowed to bring their own children provided they take full responsibility for them at all times" as a consumer can't sign away liability from the business they are interacting with. Should anything happen we would be just as responsible.

[Benjamin Blundell]

I've put a shout out for a person who can get us the full skinny. If I hear back I'll update the group.

B

[Andy "Bob" Brockhurst]

On 14/06/2012 07:16, alex wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> No need for that. Read my mails again - I am intending to put time in.
>
> The reason this is a reoccurring issue is because it is important, and
> the current position is offensive, at least to me. I think it needs
> reversing asap.
>
> Traveling back today, more later.
>
> Alex
>

Alex,

If you do step up and assist, I'll be happy to help.

Including manning at EMF should children be viable (I'm CRB'd for close
contact etc. etc.)

The caveat being that I have very limited free time ATM but will help
where/when I can.

Bob
a.k.a b3cft/Andy

[Benjamin Blundell]

I think saying that is 'offensive to you' simply fans the flames of resentment because we all feel the same way and you haven't acknowledged that. Its not a question of being offensive. Its fine to say 'put the time in' but can you really? If you really want to put the time in, move your anger towards an objective goal - i.e find someone who can help us. Already I've asked a few contacts in the business. Might not hear anything but its worth a shot. I dont think people are necessarily objecting, rather that a longer view needs to be taken. Better the camp happens at all rather than not because we couldnt get under 18s. Ultimately, if its a success, we can get more people in with the skills we need. Ultimately, thats the bottom line. So unless anyone else can pull in a person with definitive answers and not just good will, I figure thats the end of it.

B

[Benjamin Blundell]

I am good friends with the crew who run this:

http://animation12.cs.manchester.ac.uk/

They have many kids of all ages and it is a risk environment. Im hoping to hear back soon.

B

[Benjamin Blundell]

I have a reply. Not what we want I suspect but its a help.

From: Toby Howard <toby....@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: 14 June 2012 16:23
Subject: Re: EMFCamp - Children
To: Ben Blundell <o...@section9.co.uk>
Cc: Steve Pettifer <s...@cs.man.ac.uk>


We only have experience with inviting Schools -- and Schools have their own redtape which they look after. We have to prove Risk Assessment documents, to give to them.

I believe you only need to have CRB checks on adults when they are alone with children.

Beyond that I'm afraid I have managed to hide from the redtape.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

T

[alex]

Thanks Ben,

That is helpful, and much the same story that I've heard from the fine
folks from Lovebytes festival, who are CRB checked and do extensive
work with children both in and out of schools. I don't want to share
their email publicly as they give detail about their working
practices, but in summary we shouldn't have anything to worry about.

From here:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/employment/startinganewjob/dg_195809

CRBs are generally considered essential if you...
- will be working regularly with children or vulnerable people
- will be working in an establishment that is wholly or mainly for children
- will be working in healthcare
- have applied to be a foster carer, adoptive parent or childminder
- will be working in certain other professions

As AlisonW and NigelW asserted on June 1st, none of this applies to
us. Their mails are worth referring back to. I feel they were
dismissed as pure speculation, when they are very useful indicators of
current practice.

I said in my brief initial proposal we should do a top level risk
assessment and include children and other vulnerable people in that.
As part of this we should take advantage of the several CRB checked
volunteers we already have.

In my view we should not continue to single out under 18s as we have
been doing so far. In my view this means either lifting the ban now,
or changing it to "under 18s and other vulnerable people".

Lovebytes suggested we talk directly with the CRB people, who they've
found helpful by phone. I'm happy to do this, if you are OK with me
acting on your behalf. I think failing to support under 18s is very
unlikely at this point, so think the best plan of action would be;

1/ Lift the ban on children (or vulnerable people) to facilitate
outreach activities, making sure we record the age of dependants
2/ Draft a plan for a lost children facility that we would be able to
deliver with current volunteers
3/ Check our plan with local police and CRB people.
4/ Include vulnerable people in risk assessment

The worst case scenario would be having to refund tickets, but from
what I can see this is very low risk.

Best wishes,

alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[Charles Yarnold]

I don't see that lifting the restriction for children can happen right now when Martin's second point hasn't been at all resolved:

On 13 June 2012 23:24, Martin Dittus <dek...@gmail.com> wrote:

2.) We have not yet found a person of suitable legal standing that can not only advise us reliably, but is publicly willing to stand for it. At the very least this person should have experience running such events and know where to get definitive answers.

Also who do you class as vulnerable people? If this is people with physical or mental disabilities we have clear guidance on that. 

Charles

[Rob Myers]

On 06/14/2012 09:01 PM, alex wrote:
>
> In my view we should not continue to single out under 18s as we have
> been doing so far. In my view this means either lifting the ban now,
> or changing it to "under 18s and other vulnerable people".
>
> Lovebytes suggested we talk directly with the CRB people, who they've
> found helpful by phone. I'm happy to do this, if you are OK with me
> acting on your behalf. I think failing to support under 18s is very
> unlikely at this point, so think the best plan of action would be;
>
> 1/ Lift the ban on children (or vulnerable people) to facilitate
> outreach activities, making sure we record the age of dependants
> 2/ Draft a plan for a lost children facility that we would be able to
> deliver with current volunteers
> 3/ Check our plan with local police and CRB people.
> 4/ Include vulnerable people in risk assessment

Heya Alex.

This is great, thank you.

Did Lovebytes mention any issues other than CRB checks? For example any
other particularly relevant legislation, or any issues for insurance?

I'm sure this would come up at stage 3, but it's better to be forewarned.

- Rob.

[Jasper Wallace]

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012, Charles Yarnold wrote:

> I don't see that lifting the restriction for children can happen right now when Martin's second point hasn't been at all
> resolved:
> On 13 June 2012 23:24, Martin Dittus <dek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2.) We have not yet found a person of suitable legal standing that can not only advise us reliably, but is publicly
> willing to stand for it. At the very least this person should have experience running such events and know where to
> get definitive answers.

It was mentioned at the last meeting that we had access to legal advice
from somewhere, has that been followed up?


--
[http://pointless.net/] [0x2ECA0975]

[alex]

Hi Charles,

On 14 June 2012 21:17, Charles Yarnold <charles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see that lifting the restriction for children can happen right now
> when Martin's second point hasn't been at all resolved:

> 2.) We have not yet found a person of suitable legal standing that can not
> only advise us reliably, but is publicly willing to stand for it. At the
> very least this person should have experience running such events and know
> where to get definitive answers.

Martin can speak for himself, but I think things have moved beyond
this requirement. However, I am a legal adult, and have experience
running many hacker/maker camps in the UK, including several on scout
camps. You might argue that we really need someone who has run a
large UK hacker camp that has allowed children but I hope I don't need
to point out the problem with that requirement.

I have found where to get definitive answers:

1) Ourselves
2) The CRB advice line
3) The police
4) The Milton Keynes Safety Advisory Group, who as I understand it
will need to be contacted in any case.

The first one is actually the most important, as our main obligation
is to show that we have performed a risk assessment of ourselves:
http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/licensing/documents/SAG_Guidance_document.pdf

Are there already plans for a risk assessment? Have the safety
advisory group been contacted yet?

Best wishes,

alex

[Charles Yarnold]

On 14 June 2012 21:45, alex <al...@slab.org> wrote:

Hi Charles,

On 14 June 2012 21:17, Charles Yarnold <charles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see that lifting the restriction for children can happen right now
> when Martin's second point hasn't been at all resolved:

> 2.) We have not yet found a person of suitable legal standing that can not
> only advise us reliably, but is publicly willing to stand for it. At the
> very least this person should have experience running such events and know
> where to get definitive answers.

Martin can speak for himself, but I think things have moved beyond
this requirement.  However, I am a legal adult,

Are you a lawyer? I find this sentence very ambiguous, I myself am a person of 'legal' age and could call my self a legal adult, could you expand?  

 

and have experience
running many hacker/maker camps in the UK, including several on scout
camps.  You might argue that we really need someone who has run a
large UK hacker camp that has allowed children but I hope I don't need
to point out the problem with that requirement. 

No you don't as I didn't argue that. I was arguing that we need someone that can offer us legal advice on the matter and is willing to stand by that advice in the event it is challenged as has been said before. 

I have found where to get definitive answers:

1) Ourselves
2) The CRB advice line
3) The police
4) The Milton Keynes Safety Advisory Group, who as I understand it
will need to be contacted in any case.

That's great, but calling for a restriction to be lifted before we have those answers and have acted on them isn't the correct order of events.

You also haven't answered who you would want to include to exclude with "vulnerable people".

Charles

[alex]

On 14 June 2012 22:03, Charles Yarnold <charles...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > However, I am a legal adult,
> Are you a lawyer? I find this sentence very ambiguous, I myself am a person
> of 'legal' age and could call my self a legal adult, could you expand?

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be ambiguous. I mean I am an adult of
sound mind, etc.

> No you don't as I didn't argue that. I was arguing that we need someone that
> can offer us legal advice on the matter and is willing to stand by that
> advice in the event it is challenged as has been said before.

This is the wrong approach in my view, much easier and more reliable
to just ask the licensor (i.e. milton keynes safety advisory group)
about anything.

> That's great, but calling for a restriction to be lifted before we have
> those answers and have acted on them isn't the correct order of events.

I disagree for the reason I mentioned -- low risk of failure, and as
everyone agrees, the current policy really sucks.

> You also haven't answered who you would want to include to exclude with
> "vulnerable people".

Perhaps the definition of vulnerable should be defined as part of the
risk assessment process, perhaps differently for each risk? If we're
unsure we should ask the milton keynes safety advisory group. I don't
see the need for lawyers.

alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[Martin Dittus]

Ok Alex. I'd like Russ and Jonty weigh in (since they sign our contracts and licenses), but provided you're keen to keep running this I'd be fine to move forward.

The main things you're contributing to this debate, in my opinion:
- you'd be perfect to have on the team, for all kinds of reasons
- you're clearly motivated to make this happen
- you don't mind doing the research, and evidently can use your existing contacts to progress this fairly quickly

My main open question is whether you're also available to execute this. Meaning, to work with our volunteers/security team and any others to ensure people are briefed; and to ensure we're making the proper precautions, which you list yourself; which includes chasing people for sign-offs etc. (Or finding people who can do it for you.)

As I said, I'd love it if you were available for this.

m.

[alex]

Hi Martin,

Yes I'm happy to take responsibility for this and keen to make it
happen. I am very short of time (I can share my weekly availability
with you if you like), but several fine people have contacted me with
offers of help so I don't see a problem in making this work.

My only reservation is that there may not be discrete under 18s needs.
What's needed is a full risk assessment, with children and other
vulnerable people taken into account. For example "lost persons" can
include people under medication (legitimately or not) who can't find
their tent late on a cold night. However I can feed into this
process, taking responsibility for making sure under 18s are properly
considered and included in guidelines/procedures.

It'd also mean I'd have less time to contribute to the events side,
but there are plenty of good people on that.

By the way I've updated the wiki with how I see things, I've been bold
with my edits, and cut out the talk, but motivated (preferably
partial!) reversions are fine by me:
http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/Under_18s_Need

Cheers,

alex

> --
>
>
>



--
http://yaxu.org/

[Martin Dittus]

Woohoo! Yessir.

Jonty and Russ, please have a look at the offer below. Alex is keen to help make this happen. Let us know what you think.

(And yes Alex, we've generally found that once someone takes on the seemingly "hard" part -- the mere responsibility for making sure it gets done -- suddenly loads of offers for help come in. It's always this first step that is the hardest. I don't expect that you'd do all the work yourself, and we could help you find more people if needed.)

m.

[Martin Dittus]

Haven't heard back from them yet (they're unsurprisingly amongst the most busy of us), I'll bring it up at the planning meeting on Monday.

m.

[Benjamin Blundell]

More information from people who run kids things:

"It's certainly tricky, one regularly finds oneself signing away all legal protections. I suspect key will be whether or not accompanied by a legally responsible adult; if not, the responsibility will transfer.

People to talk to? Scouts/Guides? Woodland Folk? Companies that run outdoor activity weekends?"

Again, not immensely useful but certainly, we must know someone who does this sort of thing?

B

[alex]

Hi Ben,

That is useful thanks, as it reconfirms the situation once again, that
we don't have any reason to ban children from emfcamp. Contrary to
popular opinion, absence of evidence is evidence of absence (there is
no rhino in my fridge).

At this point I feel the only people it is worth contacting over the
details is MKSAG and MKSCG, as they'll be able to give authoritative
answers tailored to our situation.

I have already contacted lovebytes festival for advice, who work
extensively with providing children's workshops and activities. I see
no reason to question them further over this question, but it would be
great to have them involved. As they have children we are not yet in
a position to invite them to participate though.

alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[Jannette]

Hi,

I think that this volunteer organization team acts towards a ban of people under 18 for reason that are not clear to me too.

I find it is a pity since the effort that went into this topic can not be successful this year even so it was known that people would like to bring children from January 2012 (0.) on. 

Advise child protection policy (aka missing child desk and a source of inspiration for the event guide) has not been confirmed with Milton Keynes safeguarding children board (3.) but also the offer to contact the child board have been dismissed.

The website of the NHS (1.) defines vulnerable people as "people who are at greater than normal risk of abuse". 

The benefit of this public mailing list is that can be accessed by people that are interested in the event. This people might also fall in particular situation under this definition of the NHS.

I except that the people who are mostly authorize themselves as organisator (2.) take into account the needs of vulnerable people in the planning phase. Volunteer or not, people can have accidents.

The trick is, to prepare the people who are attending this event. So they can demonstrate their ability to act up such incidence. 

x Jane

0. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/uk-hack-camp/wMaJt75iUgE uk-hack-camp children activities

1. http://www.nhs.uk/CarersDirect/guide/vulnerable-people/Pages/vulnerable-adults.aspx

2. http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/User:Martind/Induction

3. Milton Keynes safeguarding children board http://www.mkscb.org/mkscb/

 

wiki article

http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/Under_18s_Need

http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/Event_Guide

http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/FAQ

http://wiki.emfcamp.org/wiki/Children

Missing child desk

The primary concern with a missing child desk is that it should:

• Separate from HQ, first aid etc (so another tent will be needed)
• Staffed by at least 2 people at all times
  • Staff have to be CRB checked - this can take up to 8 weeks. In effect this can be arranged no later than 5th July and then we would only be certain children can attend on the 30th Aug
    • Correction: "You can't predict how long an enhanced CRB check will take because it involves asking every police force where you've lived for data. The VBS says that 90 per cent of enhanced checks are done within 8 weeks, but apparently the long tail is long."
  • This will require 20 shifts worth of people (at least 4 more reasonably 6 people for the entire event)

Based on the work of Darlington Public Event Safety Advisory Group Darlington Public Event Safety Advisory Group

• Children should not be left in the sole care of one person.
• To prevent any allergies, do not offer food or drink, except plain water to children.
• The identity of the person that claims to be the carer of a missing child needs to documented
• Caregiver should be informed when entering the emfcamp area whom to contact if a child goes missing

[Benjamin Blundell]

All this is great, but it still doesnt address the issues that we need:

1) Someone to run this and not just talk about

2) Someone who actually knows this stuff inside and out and can speak with authority

I have tried to find such a person but have come up short. Until we find someone, we should consider this a non starter. I dont consider Alex, Janette, myself or anyone on the core team competent in either regard.

B

On 16 June 2012 18:17, Ben Blundell <o...@section9.co.uk> wrote:

All this is great, but it still doesnt address the issues that we need:

1) Someone to run this and not just talk about

2) Someone who actually knows this stuff inside and out and can speak with authority

I have tried to find such a person but have come up short. Until we find someone, we should consider this a non starter. I dont consider Alex, Janette, myself or anyone on the core team competent in either regard.

B

--
S E C T i O N  9

|- Benjamin Blundell 

|- www.section9.co.uk 

|- www.twitter.com/secti0n9

|- Unit 30, Cremer Business Centre, Hoxton, London

[alex]

Hi Ben,

Not sure why you think 1) is a problem, e.g. I have a track record of
running events successfully. I can send you my CV if you like.

2) is MKSAG etc

This is getting frustrating now.

alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[alex]

On 16 June 2012 17:31, Jannette <mensch...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I think that this volunteer organization team acts towards a ban of people
> under 18 for reason that are not clear to me too.

I don't think this is true, I think they are overloaded and have made
a bad decision, swayed by inapplicable guidelines and perhaps some
London-centric bias (as I think Martin implied when giving context for
the questionnaire results).

> I find it is a pity since the effort that went into this topic can not be
> successful this year even so it was known that people would like to bring
> children from January 2012 (0.) on.
> Advise child protection policy (aka missing child desk and a source of
> inspiration for the event guide) has not been confirmed with Milton Keynes
> safeguarding children board (3.) but also the offer to contact the child
> board have been dismissed.

Yes I don't understand that part, but everyone has agreed that this is
an important issue. I hope we can work together to sort this out, but
think lift of the ban has to be the first step, so that we can
progress more positively.

alex

[Benjamin Blundell]

I am concerned that, given what little we already know, its a considerable change to things already. It impinges on all teams so although one person may be able to deal with legal, it becomes a much greater responsibility for all concerned. Reading back over the thread it appears that you are happy to run with organising the legal side of things Alex and the responsibilities we would need. Im sure at the monday meeting a more clearer picture will emerge. I think we'd all feel happier with a definitive answer to our legal responsibilities. 

An example would be that I need to find ECRB people - thats my responsibility as volunteer co-ordinator. Charles may need to cost in another tent (does a lost child point really need to be different from a HQ if we are under 500 people - I suspect not). So I think we need to be utterly clear on this. Having asked around and reading the threads here, we have *some* research but no-one (it seems) from a legal and responsible post who can give clear answers. 

B

[alex]

Hi Ben,

On 16 June 2012 19:10, Benjamin Blundell <onid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am concerned that, given what little we already know, its a considerable
> change to things already. It impinges on all teams so although one person
> may be able to deal with legal, it becomes a much greater responsibility for
> all concerned. Reading back over the thread it appears that you are happy to
> run with organising the legal side of things Alex and the responsibilities
> we would need. Im sure at the monday meeting a more clearer picture will
> emerge. I think we'd all feel happier with a definitive answer to our legal
> responsibilities.

Yes it's a bit of work, but I think it is essential, for reasons of
gender equality alone.

I am not happy to organise the legal side of the camp. I have offered
to contribute consideration of children and other vulnerable people to
the risk assessment exercise, make sure the measures get communicated,
and related responsibilities.

> An example would be that I need to find ECRB people - thats
> my responsibility as volunteer co-ordinator.

Yes that would be useful for dealing with any vulnerable people, we
already have several ECRB people volunteering. We could potentially
do without, but it would be useful to name ECRB checked people while
mitigating risks.

> Charles may need to cost in
> another tent (does a lost child point really need to be different from a HQ
> if we are under 500 people - I suspect not).

I agree, that it just needs to be somewhere where the child is not
left on their own with a single person. The way to progress is to
write up our plans within an risk assessment and pass it by MKSAG to
make sure it's OK.

> So I think we need to be
> utterly clear on this. Having asked around and reading the threads here, we
> have *some* research but no-one (it seems) from a legal and responsible post
> who can give clear answers.

Again, that's the MKSAG.


alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[Jannette]

Hi,

I am concerned that, given what little we already know, its a considerable change to things already. It impinges on all teams so although one person may be able to deal with legal, it becomes a much greater responsibility for all concerned.

I think you right Ben. It is a greater responsibility for all concerned. But if you know who you are protecting/fencing off, it is easier to provide cover. My interest is that friends that I recommended this festival enjoy themselves and can
represent themselves. We can talk about complains or feedback or loop: important is that participation means that you can develop yourself in guidelines that become more and more invisible because they are common ground.

I don't think this is true, I think they are overloaded and have made
a bad decision, swayed by inapplicable guidelines and perhaps some
London-centric bias (as I think Martin implied when giving context for
the questionnaire results).

Alex, I agree this seems to be most likely. Reading through the conversation in Jan and the what followed afterwards: accommodating people under 18 is difficult. But hey, if we have a specific question we could ask the community
and take our research to local experts to make it working.

x Jane

[Mat Burnham]

This struck a chord with me. I asked a Scout about it.

1. Why didn't we look into using a scout camp as a site? Maybe worth looking into next time - may already have power, toilets and even Internet. And all in probably cheaper than a spartan site and doing it ourselves.

2. Life is lot easier if parents/guardians retain responsibility, versus a scout camp where the kids are on their own. Worth getting parents to sign something or get this in the booking conditions.

3. We need to think about CRB checks for first aiders (unless this is completely outsourced to St. John for example and they can deal with it). So that's enough people checked to cover 24 hours a day. And at least two CRB checked people to look after lost children 'on duty' (one of which could be the first aider presumably).

4. We need one person responsible as child protection officer for liaison with police, etc. if necessary. Probably one of the main organisers (or in scouting circles generally their wife). Probably worth main organists bring CRB checked...but then what do we do if they fail?

No expert advice, but advice from someone who's done it before.

Mat

[Mark Steward]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Mat Burnham <matbu...@gmail.com> wrote:

This struck a chord with me. I asked a Scout about it.

1. Why didn't we look into using a scout camp as a site? Maybe worth looking into next time - may already have power, toilets and even Internet. And all in probably cheaper than a spartan site and doing it ourselves.

We did. It was considered "too scouty" and I didn't get a response from them anyway:

  http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:UK_Hack_Camp/Candidate_sites#Potential_Candidate_Sites

The final site was on the order of £15,000 cheaper than any other site we managed to get a quote for.  Any suggestions for next year are of course welcome.

2. Life is lot easier if parents/guardians retain responsibility, versus a scout camp where the kids are on their own. Worth getting parents to sign something or get this in the booking conditions.

There's no doubt that parents/guardians will be responsible for their children.  Please read the previous discussions.

3. We need to think about CRB checks for first aiders (unless this is completely outsourced to St. John for example and they can deal with it). So that's enough people checked to cover 24 hours a day. And at least two CRB checked people to look after lost children 'on duty' (one of which could be the first aider presumably).

The first aiders don't seem to have a problem with this.  For the "lost children point", please see previous discussions.

4. We need one person responsible as child protection officer for liaison with police, etc. if necessary. Probably one of the main organisers (or in scouting circles generally their wife). Probably worth main organists bring CRB checked...but then what do we do if they fail?

There's definitely no time to do that now.  Can you point to evidence that we need a child protection officer for an event of our size?

No expert advice, but advice from someone who's done it before.

Much appreciated, but (still) we're not short of advice, just facts.

Mark

[Russ Garrett]

OK, right. Firstly thanks to Alex for volunteering to keep an eye on
this. Based on the input we've had from other events, I don't see any
reason why we can't go ahead with allowing under-18s on site. At any
rate, all the documentation I've been sending to the authorities has
been based on the assumption that we will be allowing under-18s.

However, there is an elephant in the room here: What price do we
charge for children's tickets? The site capacity is fixed at 499
people, and our budget assumes that 479 of these will be paying full
ticket price.

--
Russ Garrett
ru...@garrett.co.uk

[SamLR]

I think they pay full price, it's kinda crappy but it's budgeted for with full paying people and I don't think we can change that. 

I think also it will help drive home the point that this is not an event aimed at children. They're welcome but it's aimed at others. I don't know about anyone else but I think that's fair..

S

[Benjamin Blundell]

Hello there. I have spoken with my Oxfam Stewarding contact (i.e Katie) and this is what I've heard back:

On the lost children point, the tent does not need to be separate, it just needs to be 'an agreed location' that is always manned - i.e HQ

It does need to have an ECRB person at the place at all times.

This makes sense for it to be the same place as medical (also, I am ECRB'd)

A clear policy and set of guidelines are needed in the event of "finding a lost child" and "a parent reporting a lost child" - Stewards need to be briefed. This falls under volunteers (i.e, Sam and Myself). This will include radio guidelines. This may be a list of mobile numbers linked to ECRB people - it just needs to be clear. Stewards will be in pairs anyway. Stewards just need to know how to 'hand off' to ECRB people quickly.

The rest boils down to how much we want to provide and we need to be clear and upfront at point of sale as to what that should be. Childrens tickets will need to have specific conditions - do we allow a 15 year old wandering the camp alone or should we insist they are accompanied at all times (I say 15 year old as an 'example' of this kind of thing).

Bar staff will need to have a strict policy on ID. 

Health and safety is an area that needs some attention. This is where risk assessment comes in. 

I would wager that what we REALLY need is a concrete policy for the stewards so they know precisely what to do. 

(one tip apparently, for small children, is to ask the parents to write their mobile on their child's arm in pen - apparently this works).

Given that other events (and im kicking myself now because I've been to biker events where there have been camping and beer and kids) have not had issues, we just have to be a little more careful and very clear. Aside from that, I think we could go ahead.

Agreed with Russ about the ticketing. That is an elephant in the room. Im not sure how we deal with that. 

B

[Charles Yarnold]

A agree with Sam.

[Martin Dittus]

On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:47, Russ Garrett wrote:

> Based on the input we've had from other events, I don't see any
> reason why we can't go ahead with allowing under-18s on site.

This is amazing. Thank you so much everyone for making this happen -- the many people who offered advice and suggestions, but most importantly everyone who offered their time and who is making commitments for this.

Alex, as I said earlier, it may seem like a small thing to you, but your largest contribution by far (and I do appreciate it a lot) is that you can actually commit to helping us figure this out. I have a lot of respect for this.

Everyone who wants to make sure we're having kids at the camp: there still are many open questions, and we will need volunteers. It is now on you to support Alex in making it a reality. There is no excuse any more for not offering your help and your time :)

(In concrete terms: email al...@slab.org and o...@emfcamp.org and tell them that you are available as a volunteer.)

Alex, I'd like to Skype/talk to you soon, introduce you to the team, and give you some details about our internals. We can figure this out as the week progresses.

m.

[alex]

Great stuff, thanks Russ!

It would be nice to have a certain number of cheaper tickets available
for young children (I guess the bar is usually set at under 11s or
under 5s). If it pushes the adult ticket price up a little bit, then
I think that is still fair, if we consider that not all people will
want to use wifi or have electronic badges, but these things are for
the overall good of the camp.

Difficult issues here though. Clearly a single parent with two young
children should be able to afford to come, but if that stops other
adults from coming, why should the places go cheaper? This needs a
frank discussion, probably not on a mailing list!

Best wishes,

alex

--
http://yaxu.org/

[Charles Yarnold]

The cost of the badges are not passed onto the ticket cost.

[bobmekensi]

great so under 18s are allowed but will they be abale to take part in the workshops and talks or will that be up to who ever is running the talk, workshop to decide?

[SamLR]

I don't think any of the talks so far have a policy. Obviously with young children it will be up to the parents to look after them and minimise any disruption they would cause. With respect to workshops I think it's a matter of the parents supervising and determining what they consider to be safe. 

Beyond that I can't see any problems. 

S

On 5 August 2012 07:57, bobmekensi <gumbo.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

great so under 18s are allowed but will they be abale to take part in the workshops and talks or will that be up to who ever is running the talk, workshop to decide?

--