18 year old explorers and CRB checks.
Geoff Briggs
HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
I asked:
"We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
instruction that no adult should have access to young people until they
have had CRB clearance.
As a DESC, I raised the situation of 18 year old Explorer Scouts, who,
by the strict wording of the new rules, should not take part in any
Scouting activity until they have been CRB cleared. Our ADC
(appointments) has already been on to you this morning regarding the
requirement (or not) for 18 year old Explorer Scouts to have submitted
an OH or AA form. She was told that they do not have to submit an OH or
AA form, but this still left us with a problem regarding CRB forms.
Can you please give a definitive reply to whether there is a strict
requirement to get CRB checks for 18 year old Explorers, and for these
checks to be in place (with a CRB return) before their 18th birthday,
else they will not be allowed to attend Unit Meetings.
Also, can you tell me whether this changes for 18 year old Explorers who
are also acting as Young Leaders, and is there a specific requirement
for these Young Leaders to submit a CRB and an AA or OH form before they
can continue working with the junior sections."
Their reply was pretty clear:
"The Association requires all members over the age of 18 to have a CRB
check, this includes Explorers and young leaders. In these instances,
we advise that an application be submitted as soon as possible so as to
avoid any overlap between them turning 18 and receiving their clearance
- 6 months into their 17th birthday would be a good starting point but,
whenever a form is submitted, please remember that we advise at least 3
months should be allowed for the disclosure to be issued. Sometimes
they will come back within a couple of weeks, but sometimes they do take
longer.
If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
With regards to their participation in activities with the rest of the
groups sections (Cubs, Beavers or Scouts), I have spoken to the
appointments section and they have agreed that this should be considered
on a case by case basis. If they are to be volunteering regularly, with
a view to becoming a "warranted" leader, it is advised that a full AA
form be submitted. If they are to be only attending once a month, for
example, whether by choice or limited through commitments elsewhere,
then an OH form would probably be more appropriate."
So, Explorers (and YLs) need a CRB check to be in place before they turn
18 if they want to continue as active members of their Unit after their
18th birthday.
Geoff Briggs
DESC
Rushcliffe, Notts.
Neil Williams
<geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
>responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
>checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
>contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
This seems to keep rearing its head - does it refer to the argument
about checking people from 16? Or is it a complete red herring?
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Ewan Scott
> 18 if they want to continue as active members of their Unit after their
> 18th birthday.
>
17 years 364 days and you are a minor. One more day and you are an adult.
ALL adult rules and legislation applies to everyone the minute they turn 18.
That means we have to CRB check 18 year olds who remain in Scouting.
In fact, I'd say that there are few, very few people in Scouting over the
age of 18 who can honestly say that they NEVER have access to young people
or confidential information, or funds. So, if you are over 18 in Scouting,
you get CRB checked as a minimum.
Ewan Scott
Paul Harris
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:55:33 +0100, Geoff Briggs
><geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
>>responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
>>checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
>>contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
>
>This seems to keep rearing its head - does it refer to the argument
>about checking people from 16? Or is it a complete red herring?
>
(using the flexibility on age range) as they are still members as
Explorers or Young Leaders.
Quite rightly the answer is that at 18 they must be checked and that it
is best to start the process six months before the birthday so that
there is time to get everything completed before the eighteenth
birthday.
--
Paul Harris
Dave
"Paul Harris" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:0fk58CQ2...@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
SNIP
> Quite rightly the answer is that at 18 they must be checked and that it is
> best to start the process six months before the birthday so that there is
> time to get everything completed before the eighteenth birthday.
> --
> Paul Harris
I agree - and I would go further in suggesting that HQ was giving advice not
saying what the rules are.
So when Geoff says "So, Explorers (and YLs) need a CRB check to be in place
before they turn 18 if they want to continue as active members of their Unit
after their
18th birthday."
I would say that HQ didn't say in their response that they MUST or that they
cannot continue to be involved. What they have actually done is covered
their backs by giving some advice - possibly just in case anything goes
wrong or if a District or County get a little shirty.
If they are saying this is the rule then it should be in POR and there
should be guidance as part of that rule how to deal with people turning 18.
You should not have to contact HQ for an answer.
Geoff has an answer that he has shared with us - there are about 900
Districts many will do their own thing if it isn't done right.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
"Ewan Scott" <ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:zfKdnYSEga4u0aLX...@bt.com...
I don't doubt what you are saying Ewan - the 'problem' it appears though is
that you have to get someone CRB checked under 18 if they are to continue in
Scouting when they reach that age, otherwise you sre supposed to tell them
"sorry you can't come anymore until you have been cleared, this could take 3
to 6 months". This is stupid - how many could we loose.
DaveB
West Yorks
rocoho
>
> I don't doubt what you are saying Ewan - the 'problem' it appears though is
> that you have to get someone CRB checked under 18 if they are to continue in
> Scouting when they reach that age, otherwise you sre supposed to tell them
> "sorry you can't come anymore until you have been cleared, this could take 3
> to 6 months". This is stupid - how many could we loose.
That is assuming that you have some crb forms , we have totally run
out and require at present about 50 - Gilwell advised last week that
they have none in stock and are awaiting supplies , which will be
dispateched when received .
quote
"""Unfortunately this is correct and we are waiting for a delivery of
CRB forms. If ...... has placed an order for the CRB forms, then as
soon as they arrive, the orders will be sent out. If they have not,
then you can still place an order for CRB forms on our online
catalogue and they will be added to the list awaiting for dispatch.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience. As I'm sure you can appreciate, we
send out 20,000 CRB forms every two months, but only get 6,000 back in
the same period. We are being asked to take a look at how many we are
sending out to people.""
GAGS
> Further to a discussion from a few days ago, I have now heard back from
> HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
>
>
> Their reply was pretty clear:
>
> "The Association requires all members over the age of 18 to have a CRB
> check, this includes Explorers and young leaders. In these instances,
> we advise that an application be submitted as soon as possible so as to
> avoid any overlap between them turning 18 and receiving their clearance
> - 6 months into their 17th birthday would be a good starting point but,
> whenever a form is submitted, please remember that we advise at least 3
> months should be allowed for the disclosure to be issued. Sometimes
> they will come back within a couple of weeks, but sometimes they do take
> longer.
I don't think anyone has an issue with this and this has been pretty
clear to many for a while.
Just 2 small points I would add: 1. 18+ Explorers should be the
exception not the norm; 2. Supporting a seamless trnasition would not
be helped by someone submitting a crb check well before 17.5 years. In
most instances a check submitted 3 months before their 18th should be
okay.
>
> If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
> responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
> checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
> contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
>
Now that's a bit stranger. That does seem to say checks in general
before 18 as opposed to the above discussion which was about checks
around the age of 18.
That does read to me as saying they will do checks on kids u18 in
general if there's a reason or some such like.
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:55:33 +0100, Geoff Briggs
>
> >If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
> >responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
> >checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
> >contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
>
> This seems to keep rearing its head - does it refer to the argument
> about checking people from 16? Or is it a complete red herring?
>
Yes quite.
There are some people here who hope that it does/will mean checking
16+ in the future.
GAGS
Chris.5th
>
> Yes quite.
>
> There are some people here who hope that it does/will mean checking
> 16+ in the future.
>
> GAGS
who?
I once said that it wouldn't be the end of the world and that i could
think of justifications for it... that is the warmest welcome that
i've seen for it!
Ewan Scott
>I would add: 1. 18+ Explorers should be the
>exception not the norm;
I've, so far, not had an Explorer who has stayed past his/ her 18th, who has
not stayed on till they went to University. Here ES staying on at 18 is the
norm because they don't have any interest in Network.
Network has little to offer them that they cannot, do not experience outside
Scouting, so they stay where they feel they belong till they depart.
It happens that I keep them on the books as skills helpers till they finish
Uni, and sometimes I get lucky and they come back as Leaders as a direct
consequence of that retained link.
So, whilst I of course understand what you are saying, perhaps the reality
SHOULD be that 18+ Explorers is the norm :-)
Ewan Scott
Geoff Briggs
The question came up (for me) because Explorers are a 'young adult'
section of Scouting, and Explorers can be aged up to 18.5 years old. I
have never considered Explorers as being a section where you have both
young people and adults, or requiring that some of the Explorers have to
sleep in one room and others have to sleep with the adult leaders. To
me, and Explorer is an Explorer. If they want us to treat 18 year old
Explorers as adults, then they should have a distinct cut off at 18,
rather than the +6 months flexibility. Obviously they don't have to
leave the Unit, but they will have to be registered as something other
than Explorers (Network, Occasional Helper, Unit Assistant), and all
aspects relating to Child Protection will change accordingly.
This isn't to say that I haven't suggested getting Explorers CRB checked
once they reach 18. At the very least, it is easier to get them to sign
bits of paper before they go of to University, and this then allows they
to be around Explorers if/when they pop in to Unit meetings when they
return home during the holidays.
I know GAGS suggests that 18+ year old Explorers should always be the
exception, but I don't see why we should chuck them out of Explorers
(and Scouting as there is no local Network) for the last few months of
their school year. As an aside: does this mean all school children will
have to get a CRB return before they are allowed to return to school for
their final few months after their 18th Birthday? Luckily this isn't my
problem or concern!
Geoff
GAGS
While I of course understand what you're saying the flexibility in the
transfer age at either end is for that reason - flexibility in
transfer. The core age range is 14-18. Above 18 should be the
exception. :-)
GAGS
GAGS
> On 22 June, 12:51, GAGS <gags...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes quite.
>
> > There are some people here who hope that it does/will mean checking
> > 16+ in the future.
>
> > GAGS
>
> who?
No not Dr Who! :-)
>
> I once said that it wouldn't be the end of the world and that i could
> think of justifications for it... that is the warmest welcome that
> i've seen for it!
End of the world? Er...no.
End of (scouting) career? Yes. End of Group existence? Almost Yes.
GAGS
Dave
"GAGS" <gag...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:93143f08-7251-49a7...@l8g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
To be honest I don't know what the situation is with Network locally.
I know it is supposed to be a County provision. I know that there can be
local Networks based in Districts.
I understand that there is a quite successful one in the District where I
live (understand as I don't KNOW - it is what I have heard). I have heard
there are others too in the County.
In my District they were looikng at starting one but for whatever reason it
didn't happen.
I do know that the ACC chases as soon as they are 17.5 but not sure how
sucessful he is with that.
What does intrigue me a little is the County have just changed how QSA is
administered from a Network point of view.
It appears that if you are a Leader but are doing DofE Gold and are not
registered as Network too then you will not get QSA. I could be wrong but it
certainly looks like that on paprer.
We have a young lady in that position who has done everything but chasing up
ACC, DC etc means that she could miss out (she has DofE Gold), which is a
pity as she has special needs and it means a lot to her. I'm just hoping
that all works out for her.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
"Geoff Briggs" <geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:h1ntql$fmp$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
SNIP
>. I have never considered Explorers as being a section where you have both
>young people and adults, or requiring that some of the Explorers have to
>sleep in one room and others have to sleep with the adult leaders.
Should they do that?
They may be adults but if they are in a training section they should not be
sharing with their leaders. Or have I read something wrong?
Where do we draw the line.
DaveB
West Yorks
Geoff Briggs
I don't know whether they should do that or not. However, if they
require CRB checks because they are over 18 and so are adults, surely
this follows? Or do we now need 6 different rooms (all of the correct
size) when we go away: under 18 ES males, under 18 ES females, over 18
ES males, over 18 ES females, male leaders, female leaders. (I know we
don't NEED to separate males and females, but most parents would prefer
this for the ESs, and most leaders would prefer not to share too).
Geoff
Notts.
GAGS
>
> To be honest I don't know what the situation is with Network locally.
>
> I know it is supposed to be a County provision.
Not supposed to be; simply, it is.
> I know that there can be
> local Networks based in Districts.
Yes.
>
> I understand that there is a quite successful one in the District where I
> live (understand as I don't KNOW - it is what I have heard). I have heard
> there are others too in the County.
>
> In my District they were looikng at starting one but for whatever reason it
> didn't happen.
>
> I do know that the ACC chases as soon as they are 17.5 but not sure how
> sucessful he is with that.
>
> What does intrigue me a little is the County have just changed how QSA is
> administered from a Network point of view.
>
> It appears that if you are a Leader but are doing DofE Gold and are not
> registered as Network too then you will not get QSA. I could be wrong but it
> certainly looks like that on paprer.
Rule 5.7 clause c
There is no requirement to register.
>
> We have a young lady in that position who has done everything but chasing up
> ACC, DC etc means that she could miss out (she has DofE Gold), which is a
> pity as she has special needs and it means a lot to her. I'm just hoping
> that all works out for her.
If she is a member of scouting and between 18-25 then she is
automatically a member of the CSN. She does not have to register to be
a member. Membership of the SA qualifies her.
GAGS
Neil Williams
<dave.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>It appears that if you are a Leader but are doing DofE Gold and are not
>registered as Network too then you will not get QSA. I could be wrong but it
>certainly looks like that on paprer.
Not my understanding of how it's supposed to work - if you have Gold
DoE then you just need to do the extra bits to get QSA. I don't think
it matters when/how you got Gold DoE.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>If she is a member of scouting and between 18-25 then she is
>automatically a member of the CSN. She does not have to register to be
>a member. Membership of the SA qualifies her.
I *thought* that had changed...
Dave
Difficult - I was led to beleive (not that its right) that if YLs and
Explorers go away and it is only 14+ (or Explorers and adults) then they YLs
and Explorers can share.
But if the YLs are going as YLs with the Scout Section then any Explorers
there should not be with the YLs.
It may be a misunderstanding somewhere but it has been said.
If that is the case then it could be argued that 17.5 Network should not
share with Network and 18+ Explorers should not share with under 18s.
Am I mistaken (luckily it has never been a problem for us).
DaveB
West Yorks
GAGS
> Ewan Scott wrote:
> >> So, Explorers (and YLs) need a CRB check to be in place before they
> >> turn 18 if they want to continue as active members of their Unit after
> >> their 18th birthday.
>
> > I can't understand why this question was required in the first place.
>
> > 17 years 364 days and you are a minor. One more day and you are an
> > adult. ALL adult rules and legislation applies to everyone the minute
> > they turn 18.
>
> > That means we have to CRB check 18 year olds who remain in Scouting.
>
> > In fact, I'd say that there are few, very few people in Scouting over
> > the age of 18 who can honestly say that they NEVER have access to young
> > people or confidential information, or funds. So, if you are over 18 in
> > Scouting, you get CRB checked as a minimum.
>
> > Ewan Scott
>
> The question came up (for me) because Explorers are a 'young adult'
> section of Scouting,
Grrr.....sorry. But I do not like to use the term 'young adult' except
when it's absolutely clear one is referring to 18-25 year olds.
Explorers is not a young adult section of scouting. With the exception
of those young people in transfer around the age 18 - 18.5 there are
no young adults (at least in E&W). There aren't any young adults
across the whole range of the section.
> and Explorers can be aged up to 18.5 years old. I
> have never considered Explorers as being a section where you have both
> young people and adults, or requiring that some of the Explorers have to
> sleep in one room and others have to sleep with the adult leaders.
Largely there should be a demarcation at 18, hence this should occur
somewhat infrequently.
> To
> me, and Explorer is an Explorer. If they want us to treat 18 year old
> Explorers as adults, then they should have a distinct cut off at 18,
> rather than the +6 months flexibility.
There is a 'cut-off' at 18. The core age range of Explorers is 14-18.
The extra bits at either end are to facilitate transfer.
It would be simpler if there was a sharp demarcation at 18, e.g. no
one over 18 can be an ES.
> Obviously they don't have to
> leave the Unit, but they will have to be registered as something other
> than Explorers (Network, Occasional Helper, Unit Assistant), and all
> aspects relating to Child Protection will change accordingly.
?? Confused.
If they are 18 - 18.5 and are in transfer to network or an adult
appointmernt but still in explorers, then all they still have to be
registered is as explorers.
You can be 18 - 18.5 and still be an explorer (though you should at
the time also be looking to transfer to network and/or an adult
appointment).
>
> This isn't to say that I haven't suggested getting Explorers CRB checked
> once they reach 18. At the very least, it is easier to get them to sign
> bits of paper before they go of to University, and this then allows they
> to be around Explorers if/when they pop in to Unit meetings when they
> return home during the holidays.
>
> I know GAGS suggests that 18+ year old Explorers should always be the
> exception, but I don't see why we should chuck them out of Explorers
> (and Scouting as there is no local Network) for the last few months of
> their school year.
Grr.....
18 year+ Explorers should be the exception. The core age for the unit
runs from 14 - 18. Anyone who is over 18,(and u25), is a member of the
SA, and is not in Explorers, is a member of the CSN.
A name on an envelope. A list on the county co-ordinator's wall. You
do not have to have a formal network structure.
You don't have to register to join Network. You are automatically a
member.
No one is kicked out of scouting in this situation!
> As an aside: does this mean all school children will
> have to get a CRB return before they are allowed to return to school for
> their final few months after their 18th Birthday? Luckily this isn't my
> problem or concern!
No because school children do not fit a crb check category/code. They
hold no adult responsibilities (or should not/ must not).
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:51:17 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gags...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >If she is a member of scouting and between 18-25 then she is
> >automatically a member of the CSN. She does not have to register to be
> >a member. Membership of the SA qualifies her.
>
> I *thought* that had changed...
>
No you didn't think it had changed! :-)
You knew it had changed, I suspect. And no, it hasn't been widely
communicated.
So how do you join the CSN?
GAGS
Dave
SNIP
> You can be 18 - 18.5 and still be an explorer (though you should at
> the time also be looking to transfer to network and/or an adult
> appointment).
>
Here is an odd one.
Technically there should be NO 18 year olds in Scouting.
If they should not/ must not etc be CRB checked until they reach 18 and can
have no involvement until 'cleared', if it is taking 3 to 6 months to get
clearance then they are not allowed to be an Explorer, Network, Fellowship
or and other role until it is returned clear.
I know this is taking it to the extreme and I don't believe that is what HQ
are saying but on the other hand they are.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
Round here you need to be told by someone about it.
If you appear on the census the CNC will contact you eventually. If you come
from outside I guess that if you join a Network it will be sorted from there
otherwise it will be when your name appears on a census return.
DaveB
West Yorks
Neil Williams
wrote:
>It would be simpler if there was a sharp demarcation at 18, e.g. no
>one over 18 can be an ES.
Would it?
It would just expand the similar situation in Network, in that what is
primarily an adult section can contain a small number of children.
You could, I suppose, have an absolute cut-off - but people will want
to move up together. So the +/- 6 month flexibility is a fairly
pragmatic way to allow this.
Neil Williams
<dave.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I know this is taking it to the extreme and I don't believe that is what HQ
>are saying but on the other hand they are.
HQ are *not* saying you cannot CRB check below 18. They're saying
they suggest you *do*, so they are checked in time for their 18th
birthday.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>No you didn't think it had changed! :-)
>
>You knew it had changed, I suspect. And no, it hasn't been widely
>communicated.
Fair point :)
>So how do you join the CSN?
Register with the CSNC - basically just have your name on a list.
One reason it changed was that many CSNCs (including me when I was
one) felt that because every 18-25 was a member, you'd have to
communicate with all of them about opportunities. As a good chunk of
them weren't interested, this was a waste of time and effort.
Thus, making Network an "opt-in" section reduces the amount of
paper-pushing needed.
Dave
"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4a3fa70e...@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gag...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>It would be simpler if there was a sharp demarcation at 18, e.g. no
>>one over 18 can be an ES.
>
> Would it?
>
> It would just expand the similar situation in Network, in that what is
> primarily an adult section can contain a small number of children.
>
> You could, I suppose, have an absolute cut-off - but people will want
> to move up together. So the +/- 6 month flexibility is a fairly
> pragmatic way to allow this.
>
A bit like the 17.5 year old wants to go to the pub with his 18 year old
mate.
In this case though he could be breaking the law - not by going but by what
he does whilst there.
Or going to the flicks to see an 18 film.
DaveB
West Yorks
Neil Williams
<dave.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>A bit like the 17.5 year old wants to go to the pub with his 18 year old
>mate.
>
>In this case though he could be breaking the law - not by going but by what
>he does whilst there.
>
>Or going to the flicks to see an 18 film.
Which is a fair point, but there are other things you can do with both
a 17.5yo and 18.5yo. In Scouting, they can either be an Explorer or a
Networker during that overlap. If they could only be one, you push
that flexibility one way, if that makes sense. It has to go one way
or the other, or we'd lose people because the rules would say they
couldn't stay together in a Section during those 6 months.
Grant Mitchell
> Further to a discussion from a few days ago, I have now heard back from
> HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
>
>
> "We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
> discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
> instruction that no adult should have access to young people until they
> have had CRB clearance.
>
Geoff - is this slightly lax wording, or is it a change to remove the
"unsupervised access" clause to amend it to any access? If the
latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
Grant
GSL, 1st Disley
Neil Williams
<grj...@msn.com> wrote:
>Geoff - is this slightly lax wording, or is it a change to remove the
>"unsupervised access" clause to amend it to any access? If the
>latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
>few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
The ISA rules will certainly prevent this in their current form -
indeed they explicitly prohibit it (other than one visit, I guess).
Unless they change, I guess the SA is just getting ready for it.
Geoff Briggs
Grant,
I'm afraid this is not lax wording, at least as far as my District
understands it.
The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
(http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
4.1 Personal Enquiry
a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
We have checked regarding visiting speakers and experts, and have been told:
Regarding checks for people doing specialist activity badges either in
HQ or at their place of work: as long as this was a single event, even
if over a few weeks, and as long as the young people were accompanied by
a Leader / someone with a CRB this would be OK and be classed as a
supervised activity.
Again, as we have been told to interpret this, you can have non-CRB'ed
people visiting a Scouting meeting, but all they can not be left
unsupervised. Prospective leaders can visit once or twice to see how
things run, but no more than that. While they are visiting the section,
they are doing just that - visiting. They should not have any
involvement with the children themselves.
Geoff
An Old Codger
Yes quite.
Whilst I am totally against the checking of 16+ youth members, in whatever
capacity, this does seem to indicate that if they are undertaking young
leader responsibilities at any age under 18 they 'can' be checked. I have no
doubt that some will se this as a 'must' be cheked.
An Old Codger
GAGS
> "GAGS" <gags...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>
> > So how do you join the CSN?
>
And if you're not told by someone!!?
>
> If you appear on the census the CNC will contact you eventually.
Eventually!!?
> If you come
> from outside I guess that if you join a Network it will be sorted from there
> otherwise it will be when your name appears on a census return.
But how do you join a Network?
When 5.7c was in place you didn't have to join, you were
auitomatically enrolled.
Now there's nowhere that say how you join.
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gags...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >It would be simpler if there was a sharp demarcation at 18, e.g. no
> >one over 18 can be an ES.
>
> Would it?
Yes.
I should also add to the above - just to make it clear - though I'm
sure it didn't need to be spelled out....
...and no one u18 can be a Networker.
A sharp demarcation as I said.
>
> It would just expand the similar situation in Network, in that what is
> primarily an adult section can contain a small number of children.
>
> You could, I suppose, have an absolute cut-off - but people will want
> to move up together. So the +/- 6 month flexibility is a fairly
> pragmatic way to allow this.
Of course.
All I am saying is that things in some areas (such as checking) would
likely be easier if there was a sharp demarcation.
But opposing this would be a desire among many to move on as a
friendship group rather than by a process based soley on age.
I suspect that in time the need for checking as soon as someone is 18
will likely gain the upper hand and largely define policy.
Of course you're someone who believes that this debate/issue won't
happen at 18.
It'll happen at 16!
:-)
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:06:48 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gags...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >No you didn't think it had changed! :-)
>
> >You knew it had changed, I suspect. And no, it hasn't been widely
> >communicated.
>
> Fair point :)
>
> >So how do you join the CSN?
>
> Register with the CSNC - basically just have your name on a list.
Er...it doesn't say register (in POR) does it? IIRC it says get
permission from the SNC, yes?
>
> One reason it changed was that many CSNCs (including me when I was
> one) felt that because every 18-25 was a member, you'd have to
> communicate with all of them about opportunities. As a good chunk of
> them weren't interested, this was a waste of time and effort.
>
Seriously!!!?
I don't think this was a major reason. 'You'd have to communicate'?
What if someone doesn't want to listen?
I always felt that scouting was opt-in. Opportunities were presented
and you said yes if you wanted to do them. If you said, no not this
time, you didn't lose membership, etc.
Let me have a guess.
As it was, at 18 someone automatically became a Networker.
Let's say someone is an undesirable. It is a possibility. How would
you know? CRB check. Er...there's no CRB check until they're 18 and
you're not forced to complete one before you're 18. (It's a
'suggestion' that you start the process in good time coming up to 18).
As soon as they're 18 they're a Networker and potentially have
unsupervised access to yp. How do you know they've been cleared?
I think 5.7c has been removed because it potentially clashes with the
'we check everyone over 18 policy'.
What no one in scouting wants is to admit (automatically) someone who
could be an undesirable. So now if you want to be a Network you don't
beome one automatically but have to seek permission to do so and an
obligation of granting that permission will be satifactory completion
of PI no doubt.
> Thus, making Network an "opt-in" section reduces the amount of
> paper-pushing needed.
Er....no. Paper-work increases!!
You may have a point regarding communications, etc, but I think it's a
CP issue more likely.
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:12:51 -0700 (PDT), Grant Mitchell
>
> >Geoff - is this slightly lax wording, or is it a change to remove the
> >"unsupervised access" clause to amend it to any access? If the
> >latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
> >few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
>
> The ISA rules will certainly prevent this in their current form -
> indeed they explicitly prohibit it (other than one visit, I guess).
> Unless they change, I guess the SA is just getting ready for it.
>
You do love to give the ISA the all-powerful, all-conquering status,
don't you? :-)
As I argued (without success) you do need to be careful and interpret
because, if not, a litteral application will cause untold angst,
confusion, and absence of common sense.
You are getting dangerously close to supporting a view that any adult
contact of a protracted nature (and twice can be sufficiently
'protracted' for you!) needs checking.
At the moment I have nothing to stand against your (and others)
litteral application of the ISA - which will incorporate 16-18 year
olds according to your understanding.
Because I could not see what I believe to be common sense come through
the legalese, I resigned. The 16-18 year old checking issue was a step
too far. You and others, imo, are compliant with the issue, even if
you don't support it. It's not a big deal I assume for you.
GAGS
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Because I could not see what I believe to be common sense come through
>the legalese, I resigned. The 16-18 year old checking issue was a step
>too far. You and others, imo, are compliant with the issue, even if
>you don't support it. It's not a big deal I assume for you.
It's not insignificant, but I also don't believe it's a resigning
matter, particularly as the Association does seem to be working
against the bits with the potential to cause most hassle. But each to
their own.
Egroeg the Niffirg
But YLs are explorers so there shouldn't be an issue on sharing
accommodation.
>It may be a misunderstanding somewhere but it has been said.
>
>If that is the case then it could be argued that 17.5 Network should not
>share with Network and 18+ Explorers should not share with under 18s.
>
Yes, that one's easier, under 18;s shouldn't share accommodation with
over 18s. (unless there is a good reason for it).
>Am I mistaken (luckily it has never been a problem for us).
>
>DaveB
>West Yorks
>
--
George
Alas poor sig, I knew it well.
MatSav
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:28:50 +0100, "Dave"
> <dave.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > and Explorers go away and it is only 14+ (or Explorers and
> > adults)
> > then they YLs and Explorers can share.
> >
> > But if the YLs are going as YLs with the Scout Section then
> > any
> > Explorers there should not be with the YLs.
> >
> But YLs are explorers so there shouldn't be an issue on sharing
> accommodation.
>
> > It may be a misunderstanding somewhere but it has been said.
> >
> > If that is the case then it could be argued that 17.5 Network
> > should not share with Network and 18+ Explorers should not
> > share
> > with under 18s.
> >
> Yes, that one's easier, under 18;s shouldn't share
> accommodation with
> over 18s. (unless there is a good reason for it).
>
Such as being husband and wife, for instance? Rare, maybe - but
it's possible.
--
MatSav
Grant Mitchell
"Geoff Briggs" <geoff....@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:h1oc8n$ptj$1...@oyez.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk...
> Grant Mitchell wrote:
>> On 22 June, 09:55, Geoff Briggs <geoff.bri...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Further to a discussion from a few days ago, I have now heard back from
>>> HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
>>>
>>> I asked:
>>>
>>> "We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
>>> discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
>>> instruction that no adult should have access to young people until they
>>> have had CRB clearance.
>>>
>>
>> Geoff - is this slightly lax wording, or is it a change to remove the
>> "unsupervised access" clause to amend it to any access? If the
>> latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
>> few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
>>
>> Grant
>> GSL, 1st Disley
>>
>
> Grant,
>
> I'm afraid this is not lax wording, at least as far as my District
> understands it.
>
> The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
> (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>
>
> 4.1 Personal Enquiry
> a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
> responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
> enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
>
No responsibilities - that's fine. That just means they can't hold an
official
appointment. No problem with that. Involvement? Well I don't really know
what that means, and in the absence of any guidance I had assumed that the
rule was similar to the previous one (unsupervised access) - it seems others
have a stronger interpretation.
>
>
> We have checked regarding visiting speakers and experts, and have been
> told:
>
> Regarding checks for people doing specialist activity badges either in HQ
> or at their place of work: as long as this was a single event, even if
> over a few weeks, and as long as the young people were accompanied by a
> Leader / someone with a CRB this would be OK and be classed as a
> supervised activity.
OK, I'd agree with that.
>
> Again, as we have been told to interpret this, you can have non-CRB'ed
> people visiting a Scouting meeting, but all they can not be left
> unsupervised.
And that.
>
Prospective leaders can visit once or twice to see how
> things run, but no more than that.
That sounds totally impractical. I can't imagine many propsective
leaders being ready to fill in the forms until they've been to 2 or 3
sessions at least. And then you need to get the person with the forms
to the right place at the right time to talk them through what needs to
be filled in, check ID etc.
And then there's a gap until the disclosure actually comes back. Are
we really suggesting the prospective leader has to go away during that
time? And do we actually expect any of them to still be interested when
the disclosure comes back? Indeed, round here no-one even bothers
to tell the Group when disclosures come back, so we'd be waiting for ever.
While they are visiting the section,
> they are doing just that - visiting.
I'm not clear why a visitor can't visit on several occasions
They should not have any
> involvement with the children themselves.
>
There's that word "involvement" again - I still don't know what it's
supposed
to mean.
I'll carry on following a system that I can actually make work.
Grant
GSL, 1st Disley
Egroeg the Niffirg
true but I was thinking more along the lines of changes forced on to
planned sleeping arrangements.
GAGS
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gags...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Because I could not see what I believe to be common sense come through
> >the legalese, I resigned. The 16-18 year old checking issue was a step
> >too far. You and others, imo, are compliant with the issue, even if
> >you don't support it. It's not a big deal I assume for you.
>
> It's not insignificant,
I think it's hugely significant and may cause a change in the whole
set-up of Explorer scouting.
Once any Explorer of 16-18 years gets checked (excepting those in
certain rare situations or near to the 18 years boundary) then I
believe the whole nature of Explorers will need to change because
there will be a huge demarcation introduced at 16 which I can't
believe can be simply overlooked. Explorers in its present set up will
in many ways be unworkable.
(I don't know how the Guides have got away with it.)
> but I also don't believe it's a resigning
> matter,
It's a matter of principle for me.
I have yet to see a well-reasoned argument for why 16-18 year olds
should be checked. 'Because they would be if they were employed'. is a
quite ludicrous statement. It is simply a waste of public taxpayers
money and it would lower us deeply into the big brother gloom of
potentially barring some young people from the joys and benefits of
scouting. Yes it would only serve to entrance the stereotypical views
of scouting. But most of all it would not increase the level of child
protection in scouting one iota. Yes, I believe GGUK does it for their
YLs. How they have gotten away with wasting money on checks for 16-18
year olds is beyond me. And if they honestly believe that is has
increased their level of CP then I think they're deluded.
And as for ISA: I have very little desire to be labelled as someone
who is 'subject to monitoring'. I have had numerous checks and not one
of them has shown anything other than 'nothing known'. I work hard to
make sure that people see me for who I am. I don't cover up. I'm open
and honest in things that I do and say. Any RA of me and what I did in
scouting would have placed me in the lowest risk category. A fact
clearly obvious to all my former parents. And yet there is still a
stigma. Still a requirement to satisfy big brother. Still a need to
place myself in a system which seemingly views me with an evil eye and
suspicion. 'Subject to monitoring'? How ridiculous. I now seemingly
always have to work to prove myself innocent. Whatever happened to the
presumption of innocence? Flushed down the bog.
I don't know how many times I've heard people here scoff at risk
assessments - useless bits of paperwork. Well I happen to believe that
real risk assessments are things that we need to do and to be proud of
doing them well. A good risk assessment and the necessary controls, if
any, that flow from it can be a bastion for CP. Why oh why are we now
ignoring the common sense of RAs and basing all our CP on a few rules,
systems and processes - the CRB and ISA alone will stop undesirables!
- that take away CP from our eyes and ears and place it in a piece of
paper?
Why do we seemingly ignore the fact that internally the greatest risk
to young people comes from those who are able to exercise control and
adult responsibility? I had no problem with me being checked because I
did have adult responsibilty that I could have exercised to gain
control over young people in an undesirable manner. But those without,
such as 16-18 year old YLs? Those who are closely supervised?
> particularly as the Association does seem to be working
> against the bits with the potential to cause most hassle.
Is it?
I haven't seen much so far. In fact I've seen nothing so far!
What I have seen is people reading far too much into the law and
seemingly supporting its application almost anywhere.
> But each to
> their own.
It was my decision to resign. The fact that the Group I was with is
now progressing quickly through to closure as a result of my action is
my fault. I am to blame 100%.
Do I blame anyone else? No. Do I blame the law? No. I know what it's
trying to do. I just wish that some people would stop trying to wish
it into applying in areas it was never intended to go.
GAGS
GAGS
> "Geoff Briggs" <geoff.bri...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > Grant Mitchell wrote:
> >> On 22 June, 09:55, Geoff Briggs <geoff.bri...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Further to a discussion from a few days ago, I have now heard back from
> >>> HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
>
> >>> I asked:
>
> >>> "We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
> >>> discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
> >>> instruction that no adult should have access to young people until they
> >>> have had CRB clearance.
Problem with a simple statement such as that Geoff is that a myth-
mongerer could apply it almost anywhere to almost anyone!
Quote: 'no adult should have access to young people until they have
had CRB clearance'. So a grand-parent coming to pick up a grand-
daughter from Cubs? A grand-parent is an adult.....they will likely
have access to your yp as they wait for their grand-daughter....they
need a crb check?
It's so liberal you could apply it to almost anyone, anywhere,
anytime. Want to try the milkman delivering to your next camp?
:-)
>
> >> Geoff - is this slightly lax wording,
It is lax wording.
> or is it a change to remove the
> >> "unsupervised access"
It has removed 'substantial unsupervised access'.
>clause to amend it to any access?
It hasn't been amended to 'any access', but simply 'access'. What is
defined by access is not clear. (or has to be read elsewhere.)
> If the
> >> latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
> >> few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
A very litteral interpretation could suck all realms of people!
>
> > I'm afraid this is not lax wording, at least as far as my District
> > understands it.
>
> > The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
> > (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>
> > 4.1 Personal Enquiry
> > a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
> > responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
> > enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
Responsibilities? Well i think most people can understand what that
means. What do you understand by 'involvement'?
>
> No responsibilities - that's fine. That just means they can't hold an
> official
> appointment. No problem with that. Involvement? Well I don't really know
> what that means,
That makes two of us!
> and in the absence of any guidance I had assumed that the
> rule was similar to the previous one (unsupervised access) - it seems others
> have a stronger interpretation.
'Involvement' it seems is now based on a measure gained from the ISA
regulations.
"Regulated activity’ is when the activity is frequent (once a month or
more or ‘intensive’ (takes place on three or more days in a 30-day
period)".
Many people will have you believe that 'regulated activity' is a wide-
ranging catch-all description that applies to leaders, YLs, and even
parents coming to look over a scouting operation/activity. I think
that it's also the way the SA believes it to apply.
>
> > We have checked regarding visiting speakers and experts, and have been
> > told:
>
> > Regarding checks for people doing specialist activity badges either in HQ
> > or at their place of work: as long as this was a single event, even if
> > over a few weeks, and as long as the young people were accompanied by a
> > Leader / someone with a CRB this would be OK and be classed as a
> > supervised activity.
>
> OK, I'd agree with that.
But some will say it's frequent and/or intensive!
>
> > Again, as we have been told to interpret this, you can have non-CRB'ed
> > people visiting a Scouting meeting, but all they can not be left
> > unsupervised.
> > And that Prospective leaders can visit once or twice to see how things run, but > > no more than that.
And a third time?
Let's say prospective leader visits evening 1 for 1.5 hours, fully
supervised. One visit? CRB check for this? They visit again the
following week, but after 10 minutes they get cut short and have to
leave to attend to a family emergency. Two visits? CRB check for this?
They visit again the following week - they really need 2 'good' visits
to check the role over (no definition of what is meant by 'good').
Three visits? CRB check for this?
>
> That sounds totally impractical. I can't imagine many propsective
> leaders being ready to fill in the forms until they've been to 2 or 3
> sessions at least.
Some people need longer, some shorter. There needs to be a balance and
that probably cannot be effected where there is an imposed time
schedule/deadline.
One may have to accept that those who need longer may leave before
getting to make a decision.
> And then you need to get the person with the forms
> to the right place at the right time to talk them through what needs to
> be filled in, check ID etc.
IME, I've had propspective leaders who have made a decision to join
after one hour observing. I've ones who have said 'No thanks' after 10
minutes. And I've had one who have taken 5 or 6 visits.
No one has been left unsupervised at any time. They all got a good
look at the role or as much as they needed to make a decision. No kid
came to any harm. I never felt that I was putting my kids at increased
risk at any time.
> And then there's a gap until the disclosure actually comes back. Are
> we really suggesting the prospective leader has to go away during that
> time?
Yes.
> And do we actually expect any of them to still be interested when
> the disclosure comes back?
That is a risk we seemingly have to take.
> Indeed, round here no-one even bothers
> to tell the Group when disclosures come back, so we'd be waiting for ever.
Get used to waiting!
Aw, but you've got to agree it's a much more welcoming process these
days!!!!
:-)
>
> While they are visiting the section,
>
> > they are doing just that - visiting.
>
> I'm not clear why a visitor can't visit on several occasions
Some people have already seemingly defined 'visiting' as a 'regulated
activity'.
Some have put the barriers up. Can't take a chance on visitors. Need
to lock ourselves away behind 6' steel barriers.
:-)
>
> They should not have any
>
> > involvement with the children themselves.
>
> There's that word "involvement" again - I still don't know what it's
> supposed
> to mean.
Some will have you believe that 'involvement' is a regulated activity
and that 'involvement' is simply being there (a few times or for a
long time)!
(Please don't ask me to define 'few' or 'long'!)
>
> I'll carry on following a system that I can actually make work.
What's that? A system based on a risk assessment? Oh no dear boy we
can't have you doing that.
Do what the rules say. Take no risks or chances. Check anything that
breathes or moves. Get the paper collection.
(Actually someone told me that you can get an extra 10 TESCO Clubcard
points for every check done. Or it may have been something else owing
to my poor hearing. Or it could have been a myth. The way things are
moving in CP these days you can't discount the first being true, can
you?)
GAGS
Grant Mitchell
"GAGS" <gag...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:e641a9d1-d235-4e1f...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Quote: 'no adult should have access to young people until they have
> had CRB clearance'. So a grand-parent coming to pick up a grand-
> daughter from Cubs? A grand-parent is an adult.....they will likely
> have access to your yp as they wait for their grand-daughter....they
> need a crb check?
>
> It's so liberal you could apply it to almost anyone, anywhere,
> anytime. Want to try the milkman delivering to your next camp?
>
> :-)
And the warden of the local park, the lifeguard at the swimming pool
(and any other adults who happen to be at either of these places at the
same time as us) - many might have disclosures, but not through the
SA. So a literal interpretation of "access" is just absurd.
>
>> > The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
>> > (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>>
>> > 4.1 Personal Enquiry
>> > a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
>> > responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
>> > enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
>
> Responsibilities? Well i think most people can understand what that
> means. What do you understand by 'involvement'?
>
>>
>> No responsibilities - that's fine. That just means they can't hold an
>> official
>> appointment. No problem with that. Involvement? Well I don't really know
>> what that means,
>
> That makes two of us!
Involvement is even more open-ended than "access to young people". A
literal interpretation would mean that a parent can't help at a fundraiser
or vote at the Group AGM. So if a literal interpretation is plainly absurd,
and there is no guidance on what it does mean, I'm left to make up my
own interpretation.
> IME, I've had propspective leaders who have made a decision to join
> after one hour observing. I've ones who have said 'No thanks' after 10
> minutes. And I've had one who have taken 5 or 6 visits.
>
> No one has been left unsupervised at any time. They all got a good
> look at the role or as much as they needed to make a decision. No kid
> came to any harm. I never felt that I was putting my kids at increased
> risk at any time.
My experience is similar. We allow prospective leaders to visit a few times
before completing the paperwork, and whilst waiting for the paperwork
to be returned. During this period, they are never left unsupervised. We
don't allow them to go on residential activities during this time.
>
>> And then there's a gap until the disclosure actually comes back. Are
>> we really suggesting the prospective leader has to go away during that
>> time?
>
> Yes.
>
>> And do we actually expect any of them to still be interested when
>> the disclosure comes back?
>
> That is a risk we seemingly have to take.
>
But Bear says his number one priority is to find us new leaders, so that's
all right ;-)
>
>>
>> I'll carry on following a system that I can actually make work.
>
> What's that? A system based on a risk assessment? Oh no dear boy we
> can't have you doing that.
>
> Do what the rules say. Take no risks or chances. Check anything that
> breathes or moves. Get the paper collection.
>
I'm beginning to see why you had a problem with this...
Grant
GSL, 1st Disley
Dave
"Egroeg the Niffirg" <Firg_...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:drlv35tcg5vmggc7d...@4ax.com...
I agree - but as I said it has been said.
>>It may be a misunderstanding somewhere but it has been said.
>>
>>If that is the case then it could be argued that 17.5 Network should not
>>share with Network and 18+ Explorers should not share with under 18s.
>>
> Yes, that one's easier, under 18;s shouldn't share accommodation with
> over 18s. (unless there is a good reason for it).
>
Like they are all Explorers or they are all Network - as you said above if
YLs are Explorers no problem so if 18+ Explorer they are still Explorer??
>>Am I mistaken (luckily it has never been a problem for us).
>>
>>DaveB
>>West Yorks
>>
> --
> George
> Alas poor sig, I knew it well.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
"MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote
Such as a 16 yo Explorer married to a 19 yo Networker??
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
I agree - which is what I was getting at.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
Yes.
Of course.
:-)
GAGS
I know 40 odd years ago we didn't have CRBs etc but prior to 1968 Rover
Scouts started at 17 and continued to 25 ish - I wonder what has changed in
the world now.
No need to answer that as it doesn't really need an answer.
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
Is it?
GAGS
Where do you draw the line?
If 16+ Explorers need to be CRB checked (possibly just YLs?), then
presumably the ruling will be that they cannot do so until they are CRB
cleared so then in order to be ready for that they will need to start the
paprerwork at 15.5 or 15.75?
DaveB
West Yorks
Dave
> On 22 June, 16:33, "Dave" <dave.barwic...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> "GAGS" <gags...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > So how do you join the CSN?
>>
>> Round here you need to be told by someone about it.
>
> And if you're not told by someone!!?
>
Then you MAY become an adult in some other capacity.
It would be difficult for me to tell a new Leader or other about Network as
I know little about it. I could if I remember give them the CSNC details so
they could contact them or vice versa.
>>
>> If you appear on the census the CNC will contact you eventually.
>
> Eventually!!?
>
Well census was in Jan and I understand that recently someone (with a
different role) was contacted regarding Network - so about 4 to 5 months
after census. It doesn't matter in this case as they knew and are not
interested.
>> If you come
>> from outside I guess that if you join a Network it will be sorted from
>> there
>> otherwise it will be when your name appears on a census return.
>
> But how do you join a Network?
>
> When 5.7c was in place you didn't have to join, you were
> auitomatically enrolled.
>
> Now there's nowhere that say how you join.
>
Round here if there isn't a Network locally and you want to join you would
have to chase and then fill a form in.
I'm not saying Network are doing nothing - it is just that it is difficult
telling people about it when you don't know.
In the County newsleteer there are things advertised but on a week to week
or month to month basis most people would not have a clue unless they are
involved. I'm 20 ood years too old anyway.
DaveB
West Yorks.
Dave
SNIP
>>> "We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
>>> discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
>>> instruction that no adult should have access to young people until they
>>> have had CRB clearance.
>>>
>>
>> Geoff - is this slightly lax wording, or is it a change to remove the
>> "unsupervised access" clause to amend it to any access? If the
>> latter, it prevents adults coming along in a supervised capacity for a
>> few weeks before they complete the paperwork.
>>
>> Grant
>> GSL, 1st Disley
>>
>
> Grant,
>
> I'm afraid this is not lax wording, at least as far as my District
> understands it.
>
> The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
> (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>
>
> 4.1 Personal Enquiry
> a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
> responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
> enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
>
>
There is a big difference between what 4.1 says about responsibillities or
involvement in Scouting and what you said "that no adult should have access
to young people until they
have had CRB clearance."
Which means the local PC or Fireman or Lock Keeper etc cannot come near you
until you have them cleared.
DaveB
West Yorks
Ewan Scott
>> understands it.
>>
>> The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
>> (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>>
>>
>> 4.1 Personal Enquiry
>> a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
>> responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
>> enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
>>
>>
>>SNIP
>
> There is a big difference between what 4.1 says about responsibillities or
> involvement in Scouting and what you said "that no adult should have
> access to young people until they
> have had CRB clearance."
>
> Which means the local PC or Fireman or Lock Keeper etc cannot come near
> you until you have them cleared.
>
protection.
If we introduce someone to our young charges, we are effectively saying to
them that this person is to be trusted. Watch how quickly kids build
relationships with adults in Scouting.
If we introduce someone who has not been checked, they could be anything,
the bond of trust is created and the next time the kid sees them out of
Scouting the damage has been done.
Now I'm not saying that every stamp collector or railway modeller is a perv,
but IF we live in a society where perceived danger lurks around every
corner, then we must do our best to minimise that perceived risk.
As for the Fireman etc.., I think here a level of pragmatism must be
applied, and it might be reasonable to presume that an occasional visit by
the Police/ Fire Brigade./ Ambulance Service etc., where all staff are CRB
checked, is about as safe as we can reasonably be. As for inviting non-CRB
cleared guests? Do you need them?
Ewan Scott
Dave
"Ewan Scott" <ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HtmdndEvAt_OEN3X...@bt.com...
SNIP
> As for the Fireman etc.., I think here a level of pragmatism must be
> applied, and it might be reasonable to presume that an occasional visit by
> the Police/ Fire Brigade./ Ambulance Service etc., where all staff are CRB
> checked, is about as safe as we can reasonably be. As for inviting
> non-CRB cleared guests? Do you need them?
>
Depends on the programme you are running.
The local radio amateurs, a chap who breeds snakes, has owls etc.
DaveB
West Yorks
Ewan Scott
"Dave" <dave.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3vOdndwZ_bYwDt3X...@eclipse.net.uk...
Okay, so you want to have them visit. Do they do school visits? If yes, then
they will be CRB checked, at least in Kirklees they will.
If they are not CRB checked then the question becomes, do you need them?
In general, most people/ services that we would use to introduce outside
elements, are covered by CRB checking:-
Fire Brigade, Police, Ambulance Service, St. John, Red Cross, any sports
club with a youth section will require its coaches to be CRB checked, and
sports club sending our ambassadors from its team to youth groups will
surely have CRB checked people, how bad would it look if their star player
visiting a youth group turned out to be a sexual predator on young people?!
Wildlife conservation groups who give talks to youth groups and who do
school visits should be CRB checked already.
The West Yorkshire Architectural Service has CRB checked staff. As do the
local conservation projects, BTCC, etc..
So, whilst the CRB is not transportable, you would be reasonable in asking
to see their form.
An individual who is not a parent, who wants to come and talk to your group,
I'm afraid to say becomes suspect. Caught out this way once, it won't happen
again. If a parent, than the answer is CRB and OH form as a minimum. I can't
see the issue.
When bringing in outsiders to address the youth members, the question is
always, Do I need them? Is this of value?
Ewan Scott
GAGS
> >> I'm afraid this is not lax wording, at least as far as my District
> >> understands it.
>
> >> The rule according to the new 'appointments chapter' in POR is
> >> (http://www.scouts.org.uk/appointment)
>
> >> 4.1 Personal Enquiry
> >> a) No person aged 18 or over may be permitted to undertake any
> >> responsibilities or involvement within Scouting until the appropriate
> >> enquiries have been made. See POR Rules 3.26, 4.28 and 5.19.
>
> >>SNIP
>
> > There is a big difference between what 4.1 says about responsibillities or
> > involvement in Scouting and what you said "that no adult should have
> > access to young people until they
> > have had CRB clearance."
Correct Dave. There is a massive difference.
".....that no adult should have access to young people until they have
had CRB clearance....." could refer to lamost anyone. What is meant by
'access'!!?
>
> > Which means the local PC or Fireman or Lock Keeper etc cannot come near
> > you until you have them cleared.
That's one interpretation, there will be others. It's not clear is
it!!?
>
> Gilwell is in some ways wrong in its belief that its advice provides child
> protection.
It's advice is there to support CP.
>
> If we introduce someone to our young charges, we are effectively saying to
> them that this person is to be trusted.
Nothing of the sort, or at least not necessarily.
Trust is built up over time. Those in positions of responsibility for
care of children can affect the way trust is built up as well as its
level.
> Watch how quickly kids build
> relationships with adults in Scouting.
An adult with a position and responsibility in scouting is in quite a
different position to someone who is just a pop-in supervised guest.
>
> If we introduce someone who has not been checked, they could be anything,
Tarquin is someone! :-)
If we want to guarantee that no one who has not been checked will have
access to kids in scouting then you do one of two things, your choice:
1. shut down scouting - remove the opportunity; 2. remove the person
who has not been checked - kill 'em off or lock 'em up! :-)
Extremes wil lget us nowhere.
> the bond of trust is created and the next time the kid sees them out of
> Scouting the damage has been done.
>
No, not necessarily.
> Now I'm not saying that every stamp collector or railway modeller is a perv,
But you're not far off it! :-)
Luckily I'm not a stamp collector or a railway modeller!
> but IF we live in a society where perceived danger lurks around every
> corner, then we must do our best to minimise that perceived risk.
Yes, it's called educating people.
>
> As for the Fireman etc.., I think here a level of pragmatism must be
> applied, and it might be reasonable to presume that an occasional visit by
> the Police/ Fire Brigade./ Ambulance Service etc., where all staff are CRB
> checked, is about as safe as we can reasonably be.
But hold on, the SA does not recognise the transferability of
disclosures.
> As for inviting non-CRB
> cleared guests? Do you need them?
Most of the population are non-crb checked!!!!!!
IIRC some 3 or 4 million have so far been checked. When the ISA comes
in this will leap to about 11 million. (A very large part of that
increase will be bringing NHS people within the system.)
So that'll mean that about 4 in 5 people wil not be checked.
Do you need them? Would they want to come if you're so free in giving
two-fingers to them? :-)
GAGS
>
> Ewan Scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Williams
<ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>An individual who is not a parent, who wants to come and talk to your group,
>I'm afraid to say becomes suspect. Caught out this way once, it won't happen
>again. If a parent, than the answer is CRB and OH form as a minimum. I can't
>see the issue.
>
>When bringing in outsiders to address the youth members, the question is
>always, Do I need them? Is this of value?
This makes *extremely* alarming reading. And so far as I know this is
not what HQ mean. But do you mean you have been involved in an
incident involving a visitor?
Drivers of public buses, for instance, are not CRB-checked, nor are
shopkeepers. Do you imply that our YP should never travel by bus or
enter a shop when on a Scouting activity? These people are in
positions where trust tends to be (relatively) implicit.
The implications of what you suggest are massive - far greater than
anything the ISA seems to imply so far.
Ewan Scott
policies applied almost universally serve to create a false sense of
security. They make it more difficult for the perv to access kids but they
do not and can never be foolproof.
It happens that we had an incident where a non checked guest turned out to
be not quite what he seemed at all. When he asked to return I offered him an
as then CE form and he vanished. I made enquiries and discovered that he was
not who he said he was at all. In fact, I could find no trace of him where
he claimed to live.
The point that I am making is that if we prescribe to the idea that there is
a need for Child Protection, then by leaving great big loopholes in the
defences we create a false sense of security, and one which the determined
perv can walk straight through.
I do not imply that Scouts do not travel by bus etc., but those are very
different situations from inviting someone into your HQ to chat to kids
where they have a chance to develop a relationship and a bond of trust. The
sort of trust that one has in a shop-keeper, or a bus driver is very
different from someone who is invited into your "place of safety" and
endorsed by your leaders as someone to be trusted.
My argument is that if you leave the gate open, the fox WILL get into the
chicken coop.
Yes, it is a difficult concept. It is alarming, but that is a reality. If
you remove all other avenues of access, the one that you leave open will be
the one that will be used.
If you lock all your windows but leave the door open and a thief sneaks in,
the Insurance company will say that you were negligent and refuse to pay out
in full. Just watch and see what happens if someone walks through the open
gate and as a consequence access a kid. Who do you think will carry the can?
BTW, we did on another occasion find a chap hiding in the bushes making
notes about the kids. It took the Police over an hour to get to us and by
then he was long gone. Nothing to do with CRB checking, but a second
incident that suggests we need to be vigilant.
So, my question when inviting outsiders with no CRB into the Group is; Do I
need them? Invariably the answer is, No.
I can't say since our visit by the mystery man I have not had occasion to
invite anyone without a CRB into the Group to talk to the members, nor have
any of my Leaders. We seem to manage to fill our programmes adequately with
Scoutcraft and such. I did at one point go through the Yellow Pages and the
Community Links and tried inviting a range of people in, from the local
Beekeeper through to a medieval armourer but none seemed interested, so
since then we have managed fine without them.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
>Trust is built up over time. Those in positions of responsibility for
>care of children can affect the way trust is built up as well as its
>level.
Nope. Trust in young children can be almost instant. They wish to please and
they trust those we introduce to them. That is where the danger lies.
I can walk into a Beaver Colony and talk to Beavers. take them on a game or
an activity and by the end of 15 minutes one or more will be clinging on to
me. When I later see them on the street they are full of smiles and all too
willing to chat, and even walk with me. That happens because I am
introduced to them by someone that they already trust.
Ewan Scott
GAGS
> snip
> My argument is that if you leave the gate open, the fox WILL get into the
> chicken coop.
I'll bet in my old group the gate was left open a few times.
Did the fox get in?
Didn't hear him.
Why would you have heard him; he might have been very quiet?
Because the big nasty hound was always waiting in expectation behind
the gate to tear him to shreds! :-)
>
> Yes, it is a difficult concept. It is alarming, but that is a reality. If
> you remove all other avenues of access, the one that you leave open will be
> the one that will be used.
And if we shut that one as well then nobody can get in!
Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
in once a term for a section.
It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
to fear it.
You sure you're not seeing too many bogey men? :-)
Layers of protection. Anyone tried to get really close to our kids,
the hound would bite his/her fingers off.
Do you not have a hound up there in far-off, misty, edge of the
universe, Yorkshire?
Yi ex-S,
Mr Baskervylle
:-)
Ewan Scott
>> My argument is that if you leave the gate open, the fox WILL get into the
>> chicken coop.
>
> I'll bet in my old group the gate was left open a few times.
>
> Did the fox get in?
>
> Didn't hear him.
>
> Why would you have heard him; he might have been very quiet?
>
> Because the big nasty hound was always waiting in expectation behind
> the gate to tear him to shreds! :-)
>
That, is an uncharacteristicaly arrogant comment. Your hound wouldn't
necessarily have sniffed out someone clever enough to play the game.
>>
>> Yes, it is a difficult concept. It is alarming, but that is a reality. If
>> you remove all other avenues of access, the one that you leave open will
>> be
>> the one that will be used.
>
> And if we shut that one as well then nobody can get in!
No, they can access by the appropriate channels. There are ample routes to
become a leader, skills helper sectional helper occasional helper. Visitors
from most organisations we are likely to use are generally already CRB
checked, we can ask to see their disclosure as reasonable practice.
> Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
> taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
> etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
> in once a term for a section.
>
> It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
> We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
> to fear it.
That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places. You
teach them to be suspicious yet I who do not teach them that danger lurks
around the corner am by inferrence putting up barriers. For once you have
not read what I have said. There is no barrier. There is no need. I bar
no-one, I simply ask if there is a need.
>
> Layers of protection. Anyone tried to get really close to our kids,
> the hound would bite his/her fingers off.
>
> Do you not have a hound up there in far-off, misty, edge of the
> universe, Yorkshire?
>
I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they smell
different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
"normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
I'm probably going to set a few folks squirming but not so long ago or far
away there was a County Team loaded with serving and retired police
officers. A DC in the County was given a warning for a sex offence - and
continued to work with Scouts. he was well known in the County as one of the
good guys. Good old "X" they would say. His CRB check came around and
having avoided them for some time he had to fill one out. He was caught out
and dismissed immediately. It came as a massive surprise to everyone. Within
a few weeks he had been arrested for a very similar offence and is now on
the Sex Offenders Register. No local hounds sniffed him out, not even the
serving police officers who surely must have got wind that a DC had been
arrested? Either that or he was clever enough to conceal his position from
the police.
A guard dog can always be duped. So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:15:00 -0700 (PDT), GAGS <gag...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Because I could not see what I believe to be common sense come through
>>the legalese, I resigned. The 16-18 year old checking issue was a step
>>too far. You and others, imo, are compliant with the issue, even if
>>you don't support it. It's not a big deal I assume for you.
>
> It's not insignificant, but I also don't believe it's a resigning
> matter, particularly as the Association does seem to be working
> against the bits with the potential to cause most hassle. But each to
> their own.
>
2011 and will be implemented over five years. That's two governments
away....
Ewan Scott
Grant Mitchell
> > As for the Fireman etc.., I think here a level of pragmatism must be
> > applied, and it might be reasonable to presume that an occasional visit by
> > the Police/ Fire Brigade./ Ambulance Service etc., where all staff are CRB
> > checked, is about as safe as we can reasonably be.
>
> But hold on, the SA does not recognise the transferability of
> disclosures.
And until we are given some clear guidance, Ewan's view of pragmatism
is
against someone else's view of the rules, and my view of pragmatism
might
go further than Ewan. Who is right?
>
> > As for inviting non-CRB
> > cleared guests? Do you need them?
>
> Most of the population are non-crb checked!!!!!!
>
> IIRC some 3 or 4 million have so far been checked. When the ISA comes
> in this will leap to about 11 million. (A very large part of that
> increase will be bringing NHS people within the system.)
>
> So that'll mean that about 4 in 5 people wil not be checked.
>
Bear in mind also that CRB is a UK scheme. What happens if the
Group goes abroad? Do we have to wrap them all in cotton wool
and never introduce them to anyone?
Grant
GSL, 1st Disley
GAGS
> >> My argument is that if you leave the gate open, the fox WILL get into the
> >> chicken coop.
>
> > I'll bet in my old group the gate was left open a few times.
>
> > Did the fox get in?
>
> > Didn't hear him.
>
> > Why would you have heard him; he might have been very quiet?
>
> > Because the big nasty hound was always waiting in expectation behind
> > the gate to tear him to shreds! :-)
>
> That, is an uncharacteristicaly arrogant comment.
Why?
> Your hound wouldn't
> necessarily have sniffed out someone clever enough to play the game.
You've never met the hound!
In fact there was a pack of hounds.
:-)
>
>
>
> >> Yes, it is a difficult concept. It is alarming, but that is a reality. If
> >> you remove all other avenues of access, the one that you leave open will
> >> be
> >> the one that will be used.
>
> > And if we shut that one as well then nobody can get in!
>
> No, they can access by the appropriate channels. There are ample routes to
> become a leader, skills helper sectional helper occasional helper. Visitors
> from most organisations we are likely to use are generally already CRB
> checked, we can ask to see their disclosure as reasonable practice.
Most of the community do not have a disclosure. A scout group is part
of the community. If it starts to build barriers......
Leaders need to keep watch. We dont need to throw up barriers that
might keep undesirables out but may also keep lots of other people out
too.
>
> > Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
> > taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
> > etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
> > in once a term for a section.
>
> > It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
> > We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
> > to fear it.
>
> That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places.
Can be.
> You
> teach them to be suspicious
No I didn't!
They were taught to be aware.
> yet I who do not teach them that danger lurks
> around the corner am by inferrence putting up barriers. For once you have
> not read what I have said. There is no barrier. There is no need. I bar
> no-one, I simply ask if there is a need.
>
I quite understand that!
> > Layers of protection. Anyone tried to get really close to our kids,
> > the hound would bite his/her fingers off.
>
> > Do you not have a hound up there in far-off, misty, edge of the
> > universe, Yorkshire?
>
> I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they smell
> different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
> "normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
CP isn't just about spotting and catching undesirables!
There's a house down the road that's got a sign near to the gate, it
says: 'Big ******* bad dog who has no friends.' Alongside are little
icons of half-eaten postmen.
Everyone who visits is very nervous when they open the gate.
I'm not. The kid who lives there was one of my scouts......
>
> I'm probably going to set a few folks squirming but not so long ago or far
> away there was a County Team loaded with serving and retired police
> officers. A DC in the County was given a warning for a sex offence - and
> continued to work with Scouts. he was well known in the County as one of the
> good guys. Good old "X" they would say. His CRB check came around and
> having avoided them for some time he had to fill one out. He was caught out
> and dismissed immediately. It came as a massive surprise to everyone. Within
> a few weeks he had been arrested for a very similar offence and is now on
> the Sex Offenders Register. No local hounds sniffed him out, not even the
> serving police officers who surely must have got wind that a DC had been
> arrested? Either that or he was clever enough to conceal his position from
> the police.
So how many offences did he commit against yp in scouting?
>
> A guard dog can always be duped.
Of course.
People have to always be on their guard.
> So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
> cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
That's your choice.
GAGS
Ewan Scott
">
> That, is an uncharacteristicaly arrogant comment.
>Why?
Because you have to be vigilant all the time, the perv only needs to get
lucky once. Thinking that you can sniff them out is a tad preposterous. If
it were that easy we wouldn't need all this CRB nonsense at all.
> Your hound wouldn't
> necessarily have sniffed out someone clever enough to play the game.
snip
> > And if we shut that one as well then nobody can get in!
>
> No, they can access by the appropriate channels. There are ample routes to
> become a leader, skills helper sectional helper occasional helper.
> Visitors
> from most organisations we are likely to use are generally already CRB
> checked, we can ask to see their disclosure as reasonable practice.
>Most of the community do not have a disclosure. A scout group is part
>of the community. If it starts to build barriers......
Most of the community will never bne invited in to give a talk - that is the
point. By inviting in, you endorse them with a higher level of trust by the
young people.
>Leaders need to keep watch. We dont need to throw up barriers that
>might keep undesirables out but may also keep lots of other people out
>too.
What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
man?
>
> > Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
> > taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
> > etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
> > in once a term for a section.
>
> > It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
> > We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
> > to fear it.
>
> That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places.
>Can be.
> You
> teach them to be suspicious
>No I didn't!
>They were taught to be aware.
You say tomato...
> yet I who do not teach them that danger lurks
> around the corner am by inferrence putting up barriers. For once you have
> not read what I have said. There is no barrier. There is no need. I bar
> no-one, I simply ask if there is a need.
>
I quite understand that!
> > Layers of protection. Anyone tried to get really close to our kids,
> > the hound would bite his/her fingers off.
>
> > Do you not have a hound up there in far-off, misty, edge of the
> > universe, Yorkshire?
>
> I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they smell
> different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
> "normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
>CP isn't just about spotting and catching undesirables!
No, it is about protecting our young people. I am aware of that. Vut here we
are talking about the issue of CRB checking and the gate that I perceive
being left wide open, and that creating a sense of false security.
>There's a house down the road that's got a sign near to the gate, it
>says: 'Big ******* bad dog who has no friends.' Alongside are little
>icons of half-eaten postmen.
>Everyone who visits is very nervous when they open the gate.
>I'm not. The kid who lives there was one of my scouts......
I'm not sure that I follow the metaphor, nor I guess would the perv intent
on walking up the path.
>
> I'm probably going to set a few folks squirming but not so long ago or far
> away there was a County Team loaded with serving and retired police
> officers. A DC in the County was given a warning for a sex offence - and
> continued to work with Scouts. he was well known in the County as one of
> the
> good guys. Good old "X" they would say. His CRB check came around and
> having avoided them for some time he had to fill one out. He was caught
> out
> and dismissed immediately. It came as a massive surprise to everyone.
> Within
> a few weeks he had been arrested for a very similar offence and is now on
> the Sex Offenders Register. No local hounds sniffed him out, not even the
> serving police officers who surely must have got wind that a DC had been
> arrested? Either that or he was clever enough to conceal his position from
> the police.
>So how many offences did he commit against yp in scouting?
Irrelevant, and unless kids came forward we would not know.
>
> A guard dog can always be duped.
>Of course.
>People have to always be on their guard.
> So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
> cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
>That's your choice.
It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk again?
If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they be
more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
Having considered that, what would they do to mitigate future risk?
Ewan Scott
MatSav
> ...
> Drivers of public buses, for instance, are not CRB-checked, ...
In some cases they are - because the companies also provide
school buses.
--
MatSav
Neil Williams
at | dsl | dot | pipex | dot | com> wrote:
>In some cases they are - because the companies also provide
>school buses.
But not all of them. And you can't know if a particular bus will be
driven by one with or one without, and nor would, I suspect, the bus
company entertain any enquiry about the matter.
Neil Williams
<ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
>man?
The barrier of a 3-month wait for a CRB check for a one-off talk?
The (emotionally) greater barrier that in a couple of years such a
check will leave them "under monitoring"?
>It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
>themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
>discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk again?
I'd be more careful, certainly. But I also wouldn't rely on a CRB
check for that. What if the "probable perv" hadn't been caught yet?
>If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they be
>more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
While the previous two seem relevant, these two seem irrelevant to one
another. Though I would certainly want the police involved in this
case.
Leaders, after all, are unlikely to invite someone to give a talk that
they'd never met before, and certainly not someone they knew had been
hiding in the bushes outside their HQ...
GAGS
> ">
>
> > That, is an uncharacteristicaly arrogant comment.
> >Why?
>
> Because you have to be vigilant all the time, the perv only needs to get
> lucky once. Thinking that you can sniff them out is a tad preposterous. If
> it were that easy we wouldn't need all this CRB nonsense at all.
??
You intimated that the door looks wide open because I don't believe
you need to crb check everyone. The hounds are always vigilant. It
looks quite simple just to walk through the door, but it isn't.
I never said that I aim to catch the pervs. Deterrent was the name of
my game.
>
> > Your hound wouldn't
> > necessarily have sniffed out someone clever enough to play the game.
>
> snip
>
> > > And if we shut that one as well then nobody can get in!
>
> > No, they can access by the appropriate channels. There are ample routes to
> > become a leader, skills helper sectional helper occasional helper.
> > Visitors
> > from most organisations we are likely to use are generally already CRB
> > checked, we can ask to see their disclosure as reasonable practice.
> >Most of the community do not have a disclosure. A scout group is part
> >of the community. If it starts to build barriers......
>
> Most of the community will never bne invited in to give a talk - that is the
> point. By inviting in, you endorse them with a higher level of trust by the
> young people.
No I don't.
And before you ask how I know that....
It's because we've had people round to give talks to the kids and we
listen to what the kids say.
We are in the community! Whether we like it or not. They are arounds
us. They are in touch with us.
Take church parade last week. We had 32 on parade. Afterwards they
were all in church hall and grounds and many parishioners were talking
to them asking about their recent scouting experiences. Any one could
have made an approach to them. And if someone had I know what would
have been said.
>
> >Leaders need to keep watch. We dont need to throw up barriers that
> >might keep undesirables out but may also keep lots of other people out
> >too.
>
> What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
> man?
Wholesale crb checking.
> > > Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
> > > taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
> > > etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
> > > in once a term for a section.
>
> > > It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
> > > We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
> > > to fear it.
>
> > That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places.
> >Can be.
> > You
> > teach them to be suspicious
> >No I didn't!
> >They were taught to be aware.
>
> You say tomato...
I say....I don't know where you're going....!!
>
> > yet I who do not teach them that danger lurks
> > around the corner am by inferrence putting up barriers. For once you have
> > not read what I have said. There is no barrier. There is no need. I bar
> > no-one, I simply ask if there is a need.
>
> I quite understand that!
>
> > > Layers of protection. Anyone tried to get really close to our kids,
> > > the hound would bite his/her fingers off.
>
> > > Do you not have a hound up there in far-off, misty, edge of the
> > > universe, Yorkshire?
>
> > I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they smell
> > different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
> > "normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
> >CP isn't just about spotting and catching undesirables!
>
> No, it is about protecting our young people. I am aware of that. Vut here we
> are talking about the issue of CRB checking and the gate that I perceive
> being left wide open, and that creating a sense of false security.
False security......!!! :-)
Okay why not sort this out once and for all. Let's crb check everyone.
Let's identify the pervs. Let's put them away....
What do you suggest?
>
> >There's a house down the road that's got a sign near to the gate, it
> >says: 'Big ******* bad dog who has no friends.' Alongside are little
> >icons of half-eaten postmen.
> >Everyone who visits is very nervous when they open the gate.
> >I'm not. The kid who lives there was one of my scouts......
>
> I'm not sure that I follow the metaphor, nor I guess would the perv intent
> on walking up the path.
>
It's a deterrent.
> > I'm probably going to set a few folks squirming but not so long ago or far
> > away there was a County Team loaded with serving and retired police
> > officers. A DC in the County was given a warning for a sex offence - and
> > continued to work with Scouts. he was well known in the County as one of
> > the
> > good guys. Good old "X" they would say. His CRB check came around and
> > having avoided them for some time he had to fill one out. He was caught
> > out
> > and dismissed immediately. It came as a massive surprise to everyone.
> > Within
> > a few weeks he had been arrested for a very similar offence and is now on
> > the Sex Offenders Register. No local hounds sniffed him out, not even the
> > serving police officers who surely must have got wind that a DC had been
> > arrested? Either that or he was clever enough to conceal his position from
> > the police.
> >So how many offences did he commit against yp in scouting?
>
> Irrelevant, and unless kids came forward we would not know.
If I have a leader who is a perv but has not committed any offences or
come to anyone's attention:
1. Is he a perv?
2. How would I know?
3. What would the crb check show?
> > A guard dog can always be duped.
> >Of course.
> >People have to always be on their guard.
> > So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
> > cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
> >That's your choice.
>
> It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
> themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
> discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk again?
What's a probable perv?
I could be a perv? I could be a probable perv? What do you reckon?
Would you like to label me as one just to make sure because you
haven't seen if I have a disclosure, etc....? So, am I a perv or
probable perv?
:-)
> If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they be
> more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
This is not a question of do we have crb checks or not. It is a
question about the range and scope that these checks need to be.
If you can't identify the range and scope you'd best get everyone
checked just to make sure....
>
> Having considered that, what would they do to mitigate future risk?
>
Keep ears and eyes open.....
.....crb check or not.
GAGS
Daniel Smith
> Further to a discussion from a few days ago, I have now heard back from
> HQ about the situation with Explorers when they turn 18.
>
> I asked:
>
> "We spent rather a long time at our district ADC meeting last night
> discussing the new rules regarding adult appointments and the
> have had CRB clearance.
>
> As a DESC, I raised the situation of 18 year old Explorer Scouts, who,
> by the strict wording of the new rules, should not take part in any
> Scouting activity until they have been CRB cleared. Our ADC
> (appointments) has already been on to you this morning regarding the
> requirement (or not) for 18 year old Explorer Scouts to have submitted
> an OH or AA form. She was told that they do not have to submit an OH or
> AA form, but this still left us with a problem regarding CRB forms.
>
> Can you please give a definitive reply to whether there is a strict
> requirement to get CRB checks for 18 year old Explorers, and for these
> checks to be in place (with a CRB return) before their 18th birthday,
> else they will not be allowed to attend Unit Meetings.
>
> Also, can you tell me whether this changes for 18 year old Explorers who
> are also acting as Young Leaders, and is there a specific requirement
> for these Young Leaders to submit a CRB and an AA or OH form before they
> can continue working with the junior sections."
>
>
>
> Their reply was pretty clear:
>
> "The Association requires all members over the age of 18 to have a CRB
> check, this includes Explorers and young leaders. In these instances,
> we advise that an application be submitted as soon as possible so as to
> avoid any overlap between them turning 18 and receiving their clearance
> - 6 months into their 17th birthday would be a good starting point but,
> whenever a form is submitted, please remember that we advise at least 3
> months should be allowed for the disclosure to be issued. Sometimes
> they will come back within a couple of weeks, but sometimes they do take
> longer.
>
> If the applicant is to be undertaking young leader duties, or
> responsibilities before their 18th birthday, we are able to submit
> checks for younger members - if this is the case, please feel free to
> contact us at Headquarters for more advice.
>
> With regards to their participation in activities with the rest of the
> groups sections (Cubs, Beavers or Scouts), I have spoken to the
> appointments section and they have agreed that this should be considered
> on a case by case basis. If they are to be volunteering regularly, with
> a view to becoming a "warranted" leader, it is advised that a full AA
> form be submitted. If they are to be only attending once a month, for
> example, whether by choice or limited through commitments elsewhere,
> then an OH form would probably be more appropriate."
>
>
>
> So, Explorers (and YLs) need a CRB check to be in place before they turn
> 18 if they want to continue as active members of their Unit after their
> 18th birthday.
>
> Geoff Briggs
> DESC
> Rushcliffe, Notts.
I think that regarding the +- 6 months involved in the normal transfer
from ES to network there has to be some flexibility in CRB checking...
too many people here are so worried about abiding by the absolute letter
of the rules without stopping and thinking about why those rules are there.
in my oppinion the most commen sense approch would be this
should we check a ES as soon as they turn 18? not uless they plan on
going on to network or an adult position
should we check one of those before they are 18? yes, 6 months or so
before they plan to moove to network or an adult possition to make the
handover smoother
in the case wehere and ES turns 18 but is planning to drop out at the
end of ES i would not check, but if they were in contact with young
members (excluding the 14+year olds in their ESU) i would treat them the
same way as i would treat any other non checked parent who was helping
with an evening with the view to joining, or who had joined filled out
the check and was waiting for it back.... that is not to let them be out
of sight at any time with a YP.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
replace invalid.invalid with the domain of a well
known webmail service that begins with g if you
want to email me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ewan Scott
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:48:15 +0100, "Ewan Scott"
> <ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
>>man?
>
> The barrier of a 3-month wait for a CRB check for a one-off talk?
Again, I ask, do I need that one-off talk? What are we missing if we don't
have that visit?
> The (emotionally) greater barrier that in a couple of years such a
> check will leave them "under monitoring"?
That is an issue that we all face. Frankly, having been monitored and having
been told that I am/ was listed as a "subversive" I suspect that a hell of a
lot more people than realise it are already monitored anyway. But that's
another discussion.
>
>>It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
>>themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
>>discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk
>>again?
>
> I'd be more careful, certainly. But I also wouldn't rely on a CRB
> check for that. What if the "probable perv" hadn't been caught yet?
That is always a weak poiont, but if that perv has not been caught yet, then
leaving the gate open gives him a greater opportunity.
>>If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they
>>be
>>more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
>
> While the previous two seem relevant, these two seem irrelevant to one
> another. Though I would certainly want the police involved in this
> case.
They are of course not related, however, they serve to illustrate that there
are indeed such types about. The police could do nothing as the former just
turned out to "not exist" and the latter was long gone by the time they
arrived.
> Leaders, after all, are unlikely to invite someone to give a talk that
> they'd never met before, and certainly not someone they knew had been
> hiding in the bushes outside their HQ...
>
Indeed, but again, even if you know someone, you never know.
Ewan Scott
Neil Williams
This is to some extent true, but I find the idea of trusting
absolutely nobody to be far more harmful than the very small risk that
a supervised one-off visitor might pose to the YP.
Indeed, it is a breakdown of trust in society that has caused a lot of
its ills of late, IMO.
Now, I'm not saying don't CRB check people where this is sensible and
practical, but I am saying that while I think we should be on our
guard, I don't think we need to be paranoid.
Ewan Scott
>> Most of the community will never bne invited in to give a talk - that is
>> the
>> point. By inviting in, you endorse them with a higher level of trust by
>> the
>> young people.
>
> No I don't.
>
> And before you ask how I know that....
>
> It's because we've had people round to give talks to the kids and we
> listen to what the kids say.
>
> We are in the community! Whether we like it or not. They are arounds
> us. They are in touch with us.
>
> Take church parade last week. We had 32 on parade. Afterwards they
> were all in church hall and grounds and many parishioners were talking
> to them asking about their recent scouting experiences. Any one could
> have made an approach to them. And if someone had I know what would
> have been said.
You miss the point. It isn't that sort of situation I am talking about.
Scouting provides a place of safety for young people to develop, learn,
play, whatever. The key is, place of safety". They feel safe when in our
care (or should do). Their parents have endorsed us as being trustworthy and
caring ( or else they would not send their kids to us). So, when in our
enclosed environment of the HQ, we invite in a speaker from "outside" be he
a Policeman, a Fireman, or an undertaker, we endorse that individual with a
higher element of trustworthiness than would be the case if they met the
same person outside in the street. Now, hopefully the Fireman or the
Policeman will already hold some level of trust, but the undertaker? The
sole reason a child would trust an undertaker coming in to give a fun talk
about his profession would be because we have introduced him (or her) in our
very own place of safety.
(BTW, should anyone be interested in having an undertaker visit to give a
talk I can put you in touch with some very nice people in the profession who
would be more than happy to oblige. - No, I am not an undertaker - that is
one skill set that I have no intention of developing.)
>>
>> >Leaders need to keep watch. We dont need to throw up barriers that
>> >might keep undesirables out but may also keep lots of other people out
>> >too.
>>
>> What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
>> man?
>
> Wholesale crb checking.
Why would that be a barrier to an honest man?
>> > > Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
>> > > taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
>> > > etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
>> > > in once a term for a section.
>>
>> > > It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
>> > > We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
>> > > to fear it.
>>
>> > That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places.
>> >Can be.
>> > You
>> > teach them to be suspicious
>> >No I didn't!
>> >They were taught to be aware.
>>
>> You say tomato...
>
> I say....I don't know where you're going....!!
>
See. I CAN be as convolyted as you :-)
>>
>> > I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they
>> > smell
>> > different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
>> > "normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
>> >CP isn't just about spotting and catching undesirables!
>>
>> No, it is about protecting our young people. I am aware of that. Vut here
>> we
>> are talking about the issue of CRB checking and the gate that I perceive
>> being left wide open, and that creating a sense of false security.
>
> False security......!!! :-)
Yes..... !!! :-)
> Okay why not sort this out once and for all. Let's crb check everyone.
> Let's identify the pervs. Let's put them away....
>
> What do you suggest?
Reduction to absurdity?
Acceptance that we live in or are entering a Police State where we are
monitored and followed our every waking moment, so it seems. Our Debit and
Credit cards leave a trail of our movements and our lifestyles. Our mobile
phones track our whereabouts. Our use of Telecommunications is monitored
constantly, our IT will be monitored (is monitored I guess). We will have ID
cards at some point down the line and they will hold all sorts of data about
us. CCTV can follow our almost every move. (There's one outside our Scout
Hut already - monitoring a Speed Camera - so there is someone watching the
camera watching the camera watching us!).
Short of a revolution how do we uninvent all this monitoring? We can't, so
we live with it. Stomping our feet and telling everyone how ridiculous the
concept is will not change a thing.
My argument is quite simply that it is a flawed system - you and I just see
different flaws.
>>
>> >There's a house down the road that's got a sign near to the gate, it
>> >says: 'Big ******* bad dog who has no friends.' Alongside are little
>> >icons of half-eaten postmen.
>> >Everyone who visits is very nervous when they open the gate.
>> >I'm not. The kid who lives there was one of my scouts......
>>
>> I'm not sure that I follow the metaphor, nor I guess would the perv
>> intent
>> on walking up the path.
>>
>
> It's a deterrent.
Not if you are clever enough to understand how it works. And I think that
the records show that those likely to walk up that path are often very
clever indeed.
Does a tree make a noise when it falls if there is no-one around to hear it?
> 2. How would I know?
How would you know? My point about your hounds.
> 3. What would the crb check show?
But you would have done your best. You would have created the first hurdle.
You still monitor each other regardless of the CRB. But if you had not done
the CRB check and later something went awry, regardless of a previous clean
record you would be torn to shreds by the press, the parents, etc..
>> > A guard dog can always be duped.
>> >Of course.
>> >People have to always be on their guard.
>> > So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
>> > cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
>> >That's your choice.
>>
>> It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
>> themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
>> discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk
>> again?
>
> What's a probable perv?
>
> I could be a perv? I could be a probable perv? What do you reckon?
> Would you like to label me as one just to make sure because you
> haven't seen if I have a disclosure, etc....? So, am I a perv or
> probable perv?
>
> :-)
Frankly, I have never met you. We have discussed many Scouting subjects over
the years and others here could vouch for you. However, if you were to come
to me to give a talk I would ask to see your disclosure. If you did not have
one, then I would have to ask the question, do I need this speaker? Answer,
probably not. Ultimately you or I could be pervs, anyone could be a probable
perv. (That is not saying that everyone is, but it becomes a little like
driving a car - everyone else should be treated as an idiot - we expect them
to conform to traffic conventions but anyone may make a sudden maneouvre
without reason or indication.).
>> If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they
>> be
>> more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
>
> This is not a question of do we have crb checks or not. It is a
> question about the range and scope that these checks need to be.
>
> If you can't identify the range and scope you'd best get everyone
> checked just to make sure....
That is the dilemma we face. Whatever we do, somewhere along the line
another higher hurdle will be required.
>>
>> Having considered that, what would they do to mitigate future risk?
>>
>
> Keep ears and eyes open.....
>
> .....crb check or not.
>
Well on that we can agree.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:38:01 +0100, "Ewan Scott"
> <ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>> Leaders, after all, are unlikely to invite someone to give a talk that
>>> they'd never met before, and certainly not someone they knew had been
>>> hiding in the bushes outside their HQ...
>>
>>Indeed, but again, even if you know someone, you never know.
>
> This is to some extent true, but I find the idea of trusting
> absolutely nobody to be far more harmful than the very small risk that
> a supervised one-off visitor might pose to the YP.
Again, the risk is not at the meeting, it is the fact that we make an
introduction, and that creates an opportunity to be exploited elsewhere.
As for not trusting anyone. We all monitor each other all the time.We make
judgements on whether there is appropriate behaviour or langage or subject
of discussion. Our interpretations vary and that is a good thing. It helps
us maintain a balance. The fact that we keep an eye on each other and
hopefully perhaps have a word in a shell-like from time to time is not a
lack of trust, it is being aware and being supportive.
> Indeed, it is a breakdown of trust in society that has caused a lot of
> its ills of late, IMO.
The breakdown in trust, the development of fear and of perceived threats
yes.
> Now, I'm not saying don't CRB check people where this is sensible and
> practical, but I am saying that while I think we should be on our
> guard, I don't think we need to be paranoid.
Is it paranoid? Two incidents tell me that they are indeed out there and
that we have been lucky not to get caught out.
I'm not saying don't ever bring in visitors. I am saying ask, do I need
this? In our case I can't think of anyone whom we would invite in who does
not have a CRB disclosure we could ask to see as a reasonable measure.
The two times each year when we have unchecked visitors are public events
and there we just have to be vigilant as to what is going on around us.
Anyone not known to us soon is.
Ewan Scott
Grant Mitchell
"Daniel Smith" <das...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:h1rl23$7lm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Geoff Briggs wrote:
> I think that regarding the +- 6 months involved in the normal transfer
> from ES to network there has to be some flexibility in CRB checking...
>
> too many people here are so worried about abiding by the absolute letter
> of the rules without stopping and thinking about why those rules are
> there.
>
That may be true. OTOH, I think others here are simply pointing out the
ambiguity of the rules as written. Rules that require interpretation are,
IMO,
poor rules. My interpretation may be different from yours, which may be
different from the SA's, which may be different from the Courts. If
something went wrong when I had followed my interpretation of the rules,
could I trust that the SA would support me?
> in my oppinion the most commen sense approch would be this
>
> should we check a ES as soon as they turn 18? not uless they plan on
> going on to network or an adult position
>
> should we check one of those before they are 18? yes, 6 months or so
> before they plan to moove to network or an adult possition to make the
> handover smoother
>
> in the case wehere and ES turns 18 but is planning to drop out at the
> end of ES i would not check, but if they were in contact with young
> members (excluding the 14+year olds in their ESU) i would treat them the
> same way as i would treat any other non checked parent who was helping
> with an evening with the view to joining, or who had joined filled out
> the check and was waiting for it back.... that is not to let them be out
> of sight at any time with a YP.
>
That sounds a reasonable approach to me. I might choose to do something
similar myself. But in doing so, you have to be aware that it is contrary
to a literal interpretation of POR.
Grant
GSL, 1st Disley
Paul Harris
<grj...@msn.com> writes
>
>That may be true. OTOH, I think others here are simply pointing out the
>ambiguity of the rules as written. Rules that require interpretation
>are, IMO,
>poor rules. My interpretation may be different from yours, which may be
>different from the SA's, which may be different from the Courts. If
>something went wrong when I had followed my interpretation of the rules,
>could I trust that the SA would support me?
>
they are tested. Our rules shouldn't be like that, we aren't paid to
interpret them, they need to be clear and unambiguous so that they are
applied consistently across the whole movement.
>> in the case wehere and ES turns 18 but is planning to drop out at the
>> end of ES i would not check, but if they were in contact with young
>> members (excluding the 14+year olds in their ESU) i would treat them the
>> same way as i would treat any other non checked parent who was helping
>> with an evening with the view to joining, or who had joined filled out
>> the check and was waiting for it back.... that is not to let them be out
>> of sight at any time with a YP.
>
>That sounds a reasonable approach to me. I might choose to do something
>similar myself. But in doing so, you have to be aware that it is contrary
>to a literal interpretation of POR.
>
That is the problem, whilst it might seem sensible it doesn't comply
with what POR appears to say and it might not be a problem until
something goes wrong.
--
Paul Harris
Peter Sheppard
> member.
Yes you do, and no you're not!
Since the Programme review for Network which resulted in changes in 2007
(the same review that introduced the option for formal District Networks),
Network membership is optional, and nolonger automatic.
We now hold full membership records the same as any other section (Mostly on
Backpack, cos it's a heck of a lot easier when most of them hold leadership
appointments on there anyway)
GAGS
Oopps sorry. I apologise for saying you automically become a Networker
on your 18th.
Er...hold on....I've already apologised for getting that wrong.
Can you show me where to download the official registration form
please?
TIA
GAGS.
GAGS
> >> Most of the community will never bne invited in to give a talk - that is
> >> the
> >> point. By inviting in, you endorse them with a higher level of trust by
> >> the
> >> young people.
>
> > No I don't.
>
> > And before you ask how I know that....
>
> > It's because we've had people round to give talks to the kids and we
> > listen to what the kids say.
>
> > We are in the community! Whether we like it or not. They are arounds
> > us. They are in touch with us.
>
> > Take church parade last week. We had 32 on parade. Afterwards they
> > were all in church hall and grounds and many parishioners were talking
> > to them asking about their recent scouting experiences. Any one could
> > have made an approach to them. And if someone had I know what would
> > have been said.
>
> You miss the point. It isn't that sort of situation I am talking about.
Oh go on then tell me where I'm seeing things differently....
>
> Scouting provides a place of safety for young people to develop, learn,
> play, whatever.
2 points. Last one first.
1. Don't use 'whatever'! :-)
2. You missed out: '...aims to provide...'
> The key is, place of safety". They feel safe when in our
> care (or should do). Their parents have endorsed us as being trustworthy and
> caring ( or else they would not send their kids to us).
And I did say thanks and also I did say I can never guarantee safety.
> So, when in our
> enclosed environment of the HQ, we invite in a speaker from "outside" be he
> a Policeman, a Fireman, or an undertaker, we endorse that individual with a
> higher element of trustworthiness than would be the case if they met the
> same person outside in the street.
Correction: '...we (you) can seemingly endorse...'
> Now, hopefully the Fireman or the
> Policeman will already hold some level of trust, but the undertaker?
But the fireman? But the policeman?
> The
> sole reason a child would trust an undertaker coming in to give a fun talk
> about his profession would be because we have introduced him (or her) in our
> very own place of safety.
...might trust...
>
> (BTW, should anyone be interested in having an undertaker visit to give a
> talk I can put you in touch with some very nice people in the profession who
> would be more than happy to oblige. - No, I am not an undertaker - that is
> one skill set that I have no intention of developing.)
Did that.
> >> >Leaders need to keep watch. We dont need to throw up barriers that
> >> >might keep undesirables out but may also keep lots of other people out
> >> >too.
>
> >> What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an honest
> >> man?
>
> > Wholesale crb checking.
>
> Why would that be a barrier to an honest man?
Wow, I've misread you!
If you've got nothing to hide you won't be afraid of checking, cctv,
i,d, cards, etc.
I don't subscribe to that sort of thinking.
Wholesale crb checking would imo be very dangerous.
Does a convicted perv fail to get through a crb check and is stopped
from getting into scouting?
Does only a convicted perv fail to get through a crb check and is
stopped from getting into scouting?
> >> > > Danger lurks in many unexpected places. When I was in scouting I
> >> > > taught that to the kids. In Beavers and Cubs we had Stranger Danger,
> >> > > etc, with more mature programmes for the older kids. Police would be
> >> > > in once a term for a section.
>
> >> > > It can be a dangerous world out there, but we'd teach the kids that.
> >> > > We didn't put a barrier up between it and them. We didn't teach them
> >> > > to fear it.
>
> >> > That's rich. You taught kids that danger lurks in unexpected places.
> >> >Can be.
> >> > You
> >> > teach them to be suspicious
> >> >No I didn't!
> >> >They were taught to be aware.
>
> >> You say tomato...
>
> > I say....I don't know where you're going....!!
>
> See. I CAN be as convolyted as you :-)
Very much so! :-)
> >> > I am not so sure that I'd manage to spot a determined perv. Do they
> >> > smell
> >> > different? Do they look different? Do they behave differently amongst
> >> > "normal" adults? I can answer those questions for you. No, they don't.
> >> >CP isn't just about spotting and catching undesirables!
>
> >> No, it is about protecting our young people. I am aware of that. Vut here
> >> we
> >> are talking about the issue of CRB checking and the gate that I perceive
> >> being left wide open, and that creating a sense of false security.
>
> > False security......!!! :-)
>
> Yes..... !!! :-)
>
> > Okay why not sort this out once and for all. Let's crb check everyone.
> > Let's identify the pervs. Let's put them away....
>
> > What do you suggest?
>
> Reduction to absurdity?
You're seemingly going that way! :-)
>
> Acceptance that we live in or are entering a Police State where we are
> monitored and followed our every waking moment, so it seems.
So it seems.
I do not have an acceptance of such a state.
> Our Debit and
> Credit cards leave a trail of our movements and our lifestyles. Our mobile
> phones track our whereabouts. Our use of Telecommunications is monitored
> constantly, our IT will be monitored (is monitored I guess). We will have ID
> cards at some point down the line and they will hold all sorts of data about
> us. CCTV can follow our almost every move. (There's one outside our Scout
> Hut already - monitoring a Speed Camera - so there is someone watching the
> camera watching the camera watching us!).
:-(
>
> Short of a revolution how do we uninvent all this monitoring? We can't, so
> we live with it.
I don't accept it. It's dangerous.
> Stomping our feet and telling everyone how ridiculous the
> concept is will not change a thing.
At least I'm stomping my feet. On a cold January morning at least
it'll help me keep warm! :-)
>
> My argument is quite simply that it is a flawed system - you and I just see
> different flaws.
Okay.
> > >> >There's a house down the road that's got a sign near to the gate, it
> >> >says: 'Big ******* bad dog who has no friends.' Alongside are little
> >> >icons of half-eaten postmen.
> >> >Everyone who visits is very nervous when they open the gate.
> >> >I'm not. The kid who lives there was one of my scouts......
>
> >> I'm not sure that I follow the metaphor, nor I guess would the perv
> >> intent
> >> on walking up the path.
>
> > It's a deterrent.
>
> Not if you are clever enough to understand how it works.
As Clint once said: 'Do ya feel lucky, punk!?'
:-)
> And I think that
> the records show that those likely to walk up that path are often very
> clever indeed.
The 'records' show no such thing.
There is largely only anecdotal evidence that all this checking (and
the threat of checking) is keeping pervs away.
Many people have been stumped by an idiot.
Precisely.
>
> > 2. How would I know?
>
> How would you know? My point about your hounds.
The hounds are always keeping watch. Do something untoward and they'll
pounce.
>
> > 3. What would the crb check show?
>
> But you would have done your best. You would have created the first hurdle.
> You still monitor each other regardless of the CRB. But if you had not done
> the CRB check and later something went awry, regardless of a previous clean
> record you would be torn to shreds by the press, the parents, etc..
A crb check isn't a guarantee.
I'm sure you don't presume that every undesirable has/would get an
adverse disclosure to show them up?
All one can do is one's best.
Most of the country do not have a disclosure.
You can only join scouting if your parents/household all have a
'clean' crb?
What is a 'clean' crb?
>
> >> > A guard dog can always be duped.
> >> >Of course.
> >> >People have to always be on their guard.
> >> > So, my question is, do I need this non CRB
> >> > cleared guest speaker? In all probability the answer is, no.
> >> >That's your choice.
>
> >> It is. However, I'd ask Leaders to consider this. If they had found
> >> themselves with a probable perv giving a one off talk, the reality being
> >> discovered after the fact, would they expose themselves to that risk
> >> again?
>
> > What's a probable perv?
>
> > I could be a perv? I could be a probable perv? What do you reckon?
> > Would you like to label me as one just to make sure because you
> > haven't seen if I have a disclosure, etc....? So, am I a perv or
> > probable perv?
>
> > :-)
>
> Frankly, I have never met you. We have discussed many Scouting subjects over
> the years and others here could vouch for you. However, if you were to come
> to me to give a talk I would ask to see your disclosure.
And what if I met you in the street/out on the hill/on the river with
your scouts and I started talking to you?
Sorry GAGS I'm not talking to you until you've shown me your latest
disclosure?
> If you did not have
> one, then I would have to ask the question, do I need this speaker? Answer,
> probably not. Ultimately you or I could be pervs, anyone could be a probable
> perv. (That is not saying that everyone is, but it becomes a little like
> driving a car - everyone else should be treated as an idiot - we expect them
> to conform to traffic conventions but anyone may make a sudden maneouvre
> without reason or indication.).
>
> >> If they had uncovered a perv in the bushes outside their hall, would they
> >> be
> >> more or less inclined to bring in someone without a CRB disclosure?
>
> > This is not a question of do we have crb checks or not. It is a
> > question about the range and scope that these checks need to be.
>
> > If you can't identify the range and scope you'd best get everyone
> > checked just to make sure....
>
> That is the dilemma we face. Whatever we do, somewhere along the line
> another higher hurdle will be required.
What about just using common sense?
>
> >> Having considered that, what would they do to mitigate future risk?
>
> > Keep ears and eyes open.....
>
> > .....crb check or not.
>
> Well on that we can agree.
Now what about Explorers.........
:-)
GAGS
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Can you show me where to download the official registration form
>please?
There isn't one (unless any Counties use the AA form for that purpose
- ours doesn't). Counties do their own.
Ewan Scott
>Oh go on then tell me where I'm seeing things differently....
Clever. Your editing removes my example which clearly shows the difference
between a public meeting and an event that takes place in the "safe" Scout
HQ.
>
> Scouting provides a place of safety for young people to develop, learn,
> play, whatever.
>2 points. Last one first.
>1. Don't use 'whatever'! :-)
Why? Whatever activity we undertake. You read something else into that?
>2. You missed out: '...aims to provide...'
There you go being pedantic again :-)
> So, when in our
> enclosed environment of the HQ, we invite in a speaker from "outside" be
> he
> a Policeman, a Fireman, or an undertaker, we endorse that individual with
> a
> higher element of trustworthiness than would be the case if they met the
> same person outside in the street.
>Correction: '...we (you) can seemingly endorse...'
No, If we introduce someone to the kids, we DO endorse them as having a
higher level of trustworthiness than a complete stranger.
> Now, hopefully the Fireman or the
> Policeman will already hold some level of trust, but the undertaker?
>But the fireman? But the policeman?
Come now. What are you saying? That we cannot trust people in positions of
trust in the community who have been CRB checked and are suitable to work
with Children?
> The
> sole reason a child would trust an undertaker coming in to give a fun talk
> about his profession would be because we have introduced him (or her) in
> our
> very own place of safety.
>...might trust...
Is endorsed with a higher level of trust than a complete stranger.
> >> What barrier put up to keep out undesirables would also kep out an
> >> honest
> >> man?
>
> > Wholesale crb checking.
>
> Why would that be a barrier to an honest man?
>Wow, I've misread you!
>If you've got nothing to hide you won't be afraid of checking, cctv,
>i,d, cards, etc.
>I don't subscribe to that sort of thinking.
I'm afraid that it is less a case of subscribing to but rather an acceptance
of the reality. It is here, it will get worse. I do not believe for one
minute that this country's secret services have destroyed all the
information that they have on individuals. The Government and the civil
service are in my opinion inherrently duplicitous and I cannot believe that
they would destroy information which they previously though vital.
The population of the UK is so apathetic that we continue to accept the
insiduous advance of the police and government into our private lives and I
have come to realise that what will be will be and since I cannot change it,
or make any impact upon it, then I shall have to let that be and fight the
small battles where I have a chance of winning.
In Scouting I'm coming around to thinking that the only battle that I can
win is at my Group, and whatever happens at District will be down to the
Gods, not the District Team. Do I waste my time trying to help people who
don't want to be helped, or who refuse the help offered, or do I take my
time, effort and skills and use them where they have some impact?
> > Okay why not sort this out once and for all. Let's crb check everyone.
> > Let's identify the pervs. Let's put them away....
>
> > What do you suggest?
>
> Reduction to absurdity?
>You're seemingly going that way! :-)
After you my dear chap! :-)
>
> Acceptance that we live in or are entering a Police State where we are
> monitored and followed our every waking moment, so it seems.
>So it seems.
>I do not have an acceptance of such a state.
I can do nothing about it and very few people seem to care - the youth
(careful there is a generalism coming here) of today tend to pay lip service
to the environment and to social responsibility whilst focussing on the next
binge drinking session. Where are today's students protesting about life's
inequalities? About the arms race ( they think its all over - but they would
be deluded)? About our military intervention in Iraq?
>
> Short of a revolution how do we uninvent all this monitoring? We can't, so
> we live with it.
>I don't accept it. It's dangerous.
So what are you going to do about it? How will your foot stomping excercise
change things?
I also think it is dangerous but I believe that we have passed beyond the
edge of the abyss and our descent is just beginning - I will be accused of
being a conspiracy theorist, but it is more a case of chaos resulting from
greed and a lack of political will to challenge commercial processes.
> Stomping our feet and telling everyone how ridiculous the
> concept is will not change a thing.
>At least I'm stomping my feet. On a cold January morning at least
>it'll help me keep warm! :-)
Only temporarily :-(
>
> My argument is quite simply that it is a flawed system - you and I just
> see
> different flaws.
Okay.
> And I think that
> the records show that those likely to walk up that path are often very
> clever indeed.
>The 'records' show no such thing.
>There is largely only anecdotal evidence that all this checking (and
>the threat of checking) is keeping pervs away.
That is not what I said. Every CP officer that I have spoken to. Every
social worker, every policeman ( and I have a CP specialist in my District
and another in my Group) and the government guidance cautions that the perv
who infiltrates tends to be of higher than average intelligence and is very
clever at subterfuge.
CRB is a fence that we put around our operations. Like any fence it can be
got through, under or over by those who have the wit. My argument is that if
you leave the gate open, they won't need to climb over the fence.
>
> > If I have a leader who is a perv but has not committed any offences or
> > come to anyone's attention:
>
> > 1. Is he a perv?
>
> Does a tree make a noise when it falls if there is no-one around to hear
> it?
>Precisely.
>
> > 2. How would I know?
>
> How would you know? My point about your hounds.
>The hounds are always keeping watch. Do something untoward and they'll
>pounce.
You don't get what I'm saying at all.
You invite the local lizard keeper in to give a chat. You've known Bert as a
neighbour for years and he is a little eccentric but he's harmless with his
lizards. No-one has complained about him. So, as a one off you invite him
round to give a talk on lizards.
The kids are captivated. He is very good with them.
he is very knowledgeable about his subject. Your Leaders think he is
fantastic. Great talk, and an easy night for them. Wonderful.
The kids are asking him questions, they are handling the Geckos and the
Iguanas he has brought around. he knows a few names.
Bert goes home.
Bert can talk about Lizards on auto-pilot, whilst he does so he identifies
the kids who might be susceptible. he has had a fantastic night.
Some time later Bert happens to meet " Jimmy" in the street, and in passing
he says, "Hello, still enjoying Scouts?" This reminds Jimmy about that
fantastic evening. If Jimmy takes the bait and starts chatting about the
Lizards bert then has the opportunity to say, "I've got a friend who has a
Monitor lizard, now that is something to see. If you ever want to see it let
me know." Bert and Jimmy move on, better acquainted...
Bert calls his mate that evening, "Listen, I've got a nibble....."
How would your hounds spot that?
And yes, the likelihood is low, but then again, I thought the likelihood of
finding someone hiding in the bushes outside the Scout hut was low :-(
>
> > 3. What would the crb check show?
>
> But you would have done your best. You would have created the first
> hurdle.
> You still monitor each other regardless of the CRB. But if you had not
> done
> the CRB check and later something went awry, regardless of a previous
> clean
> record you would be torn to shreds by the press, the parents, etc..
>A crb check isn't a guarantee.
Never said it was.
>I'm sure you don't presume that every undesirable has/would get an
>adverse disclosure to show them up?
Never said it would.
>All one can do is one's best.
I have said that.
>Most of the country do not have a disclosure.
Most of the country are not going to be invited in to give a presentation.
>You can only join scouting if your parents/household all have a
>'clean' crb?
Never said that. In fact I've said the opposite many times. I've made it
quite clear that the membership of Scouting is not dependent upon a parent
completing a CRB and getting a "clear"
>What is a 'clean' crb?
Stop being obtuse. You know damned fine what is meant.
> Frankly, I have never met you. We have discussed many Scouting subjects
> over
> the years and others here could vouch for you. However, if you were to
> come
> to me to give a talk I would ask to see your disclosure.
>And what if I met you in the street/out on the hill/on the river with
>your scouts and I started talking to you?
>Sorry GAGS I'm not talking to you until you've shown me your latest
>disclosure?
Again, a very different scenario to an invite into the inner sanctuary of
the Scout HQ and a section meeting - but you already know that.
>
> That is the dilemma we face. Whatever we do, somewhere along the line
> another higher hurdle will be required.
>What about just using common sense?
You argument is apparently flawed. The last resort of the debater is "common
sense". Whose common sense? The common sense of the leader who doesn't think
that he needs to tell us that he has four parents supporting on a regular
basis because they must be okay because they have kids in the Group? The
common sense of the leader who takes his section out of District on an
adventurous activity without telling the DC because it's always been okay?
He has never had any incidents whilst climbing in the past so why should
today be different? The common sense of the leader who links his ESU so
closely to the Group that they are indistinct as a District section? The
DESC whose common sense is to try and break such relationships and when he
fails to get support resigns? Whose common sense do we use to draw the line
in the sand?
Or, by the application of common sense do we have a variable line in the
sand which gets drawn wherever the individual GSL/ DC/ whoever decides -
isn't that a bit like having a local rule? In which case, you do it your
way, presuming a return to Scouting, and I'll do it mine. The status que is
retained and in time we will be unfortunate enough to find out which of the
10,000 variations around the country will be found wanting.
>
> >> Having considered that, what would they do to mitigate future risk?
>
> > Keep ears and eyes open.....
>
> > .....crb check or not.
>
> Well on that we can agree.
>Now what about Explorers.........
Let's not start that all over again :-)
Ewan Scott
Paul Harris
<ewan...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>Come now. What are you saying? That we cannot trust people in positions
>of trust in the community who have been CRB checked and are suitable to
>work with Children?
>
caught yet or may not have even committed their first offence yet.
People who have been CRB checked are not necessarily safe, it is just
that at the time of the check nothing was known but who knows what might
happen next week, next month, next year.
>
>That is not what I said. Every CP officer that I have spoken to. Every
>social worker, every policeman ( and I have a CP specialist in my
>District and another in my Group) and the government guidance cautions
>that the perv who infiltrates tends to be of higher than average
>intelligence and is very clever at subterfuge.
>
So we need to also be aware of anyone who show any form of intelligence,
they should easy to spot I'll keep an eye out :-)
>CRB is a fence that we put around our operations. Like any fence it can
>be got through, under or over by those who have the wit.
Not sure about that, I can see how those who have never been caught can
clear the fence easy enough but those who have been in trouble surely
won't be able to by pass proper checks or are you suggesting that if
they are bright enough they will find a way round it.
>My argument is that if you leave the gate open, they won't need to
>climb over the fence.
>
True, but without getting too paranoid we should be watching whoever
comes in no matter which way they entered.
--
Paul Harris
Ewan Scott
> in no matter which way they entered.
Let's have a competition. Let's call it Britain's Got Perverts and put it to
the popular vote.
We'll line up a policeman, a vet, a female nurse, a doctor, a fireman, a
Scout leader, a football supporter, a man of the Clapham Omnibus, a soldier,
a sailor a tinker a tailor, and we'll see who can identify the perv.
I have a suspicion who the great British Public will guess is the perv.
The fact is that you do not know who these people are, you cannot know. And
they would need to be rather stupid to act out their intent actually at
Scouts. The best you can do is to keep out the known ones, and for that the
CRB is the best tool we have, however imperfect it might be. I have never
argued anything else. My argument is quite simply that by having an
exception where we don't carry out a CRB check we create an opportunity for
the determined to gain first contact.
I'm happy to close that avenue off because I do not see any diminishment of
programme by so doing. In fact, recently I have had people come to us as
helpers who have volunteered that they will not start till all the paperwork
is cleared. One even elected to wait until after the Appointments Interview
before starting. So, I have seen no downturn in adult recruitment. If
anything I'm seeing more people wanting to help.
Ewan Scott
Paul Harris
<ewan...@btinternet.com> writes
>The fact is that you do not know who these people are, you cannot know.
I agree, there is no reliable way of telling unless they already have a
record.
>And they would need to be rather stupid to act out their intent
>actually at Scouts.
Especially if they really are of above average intelligence although I
still don't see why they should be any different to anyone else.
>The best you can do is to keep out the known ones, and for that the CRB
>is the best tool we have, however imperfect it might be. I have never
>argued anything else.
Local enquiries may also help, but the CRB certainly helps.
>My argument is quite simply that by having an exception where we don't
>carry out a CRB check we create an opportunity for the determined to
>gain first contact.
>
Always a difficult call, as was mentioned earlier if the folks all chat
after Church do we need to CRB the whole congregation, just the Vicar or
just those who come to meetings. We have worked with supervised access
for many years without problems but if anything ever happened there
would be someone saying told you so.
>I'm happy to close that avenue off because I do not see any
>diminishment of programme by so doing. In fact, recently I have had
>people come to us as helpers who have volunteered that they will not
>start till all the paperwork is cleared. One even elected to wait until
>after the Appointments Interview before starting. So, I have seen no
>downturn in adult recruitment. If anything I'm seeing more people
>wanting to help.
>
Many do however want to try it before they buy it and it does slow
things down if you have to wait - I guess some will say better safe than
sorry
--
Paul Harris
GAGS
> In message <28ydnf9mQJ8Tqd7XnZ2dnUVZ8kCdn...@bt.com>, Ewan Scott
> <ewansc...@btinternet.com> writes
>
> >Come now. What are you saying? That we cannot trust people in positions
> >of trust in the community who have been CRB checked and are suitable to
> >work with Children?
And does the SA 'trust' them too? So let's say you have a teacher in
the local school. They've had 2 crb checks done - nothing known - and
been there 5 years. The SA is not going to ask them for a further
check are they if they want to come in and support scouting?
>
> I think what he is saying is that it may just be that they haven't been
> caught yet or may not have even committed their first offence yet.
> People who have been CRB checked are not necessarily safe, it is just
> that at the time of the check nothing was known but who knows what might
> happen next week, next month, next year.
Who knows?
Maybe that's why you need to keep your eyes and ears open.
>
>
> >That is not what I said. Every CP officer that I have spoken to. Every
> >social worker, every policeman ( and I have a CP specialist in my
> >District and another in my Group) and the government guidance cautions
> >that the perv who infiltrates tends to be of higher than average
> >intelligence and is very clever at subterfuge.
>
> So we need to also be aware of anyone who show any form of intelligence,
> they should easy to spot I'll keep an eye out :-)
So you need to be just as clever. But you don't need to get paranoid
about it.
>
> >CRB is a fence that we put around our operations. Like any fence it can
> >be got through, under or over by those who have the wit.
Yes, but the times the fence has been breached is when the watchers
manning it have let their guard down.
>
> Not sure about that, I can see how those who have never been caught can
> clear the fence easy enough but those who have been in trouble surely
> won't be able to by pass proper checks or are you suggesting that if
> they are bright enough they will find a way round it.
Proper checks?
>
> >My argument is that if you leave the gate open, they won't need to
> >climb over the fence.
>
> True, but without getting too paranoid we should be watching whoever
> comes in no matter which way they entered.
Correct.
GAGS
GAGS
> > True, but without getting too paranoid we should be watching whoever comes
> > in no matter which way they entered.
>
> Let's have a competition. Let's call it Britain's Got Perverts and put it to
> the popular vote.
Phone vote? :-)
Okay show me the candidates.
>
> We'll line up a policeman, a vet, a female nurse, a doctor, a fireman, a
> Scout leader, a football supporter, a man of the Clapham Omnibus, a soldier,
> a sailor a tinker a tailor, and we'll see who can identify the perv.
>
> I have a suspicion who the great British Public will guess is the perv.
Hold on...guess or identify? How many goes do I get?
You assume I stereotype.
>
> The fact is that you do not know who these people are, you cannot know.
Yes I do!
They're a policeman, a vet, a female nurse, a doctor, a fireman.....
:-)
> And
> they would need to be rather stupid to act out their intent actually at
> Scouts.
Depends if the opportunity arises.
> The best you can do is to keep out the known ones, and for that the
> CRB is the best tool we have, however imperfect it might be.
No it isn't!
That's almost like saying that the compass is the most important
navigation tool.
The best tools you have are your own senses, your own suspicions, your
own abilities to see when something is different, and the balls to
speak up when your senses smell a rat.
> I have never
> argued anything else. My argument is quite simply that by having an
> exception where we don't carry out a CRB check we create an opportunity for
> the determined to gain first contact.
I know exactly what you're saying!
My view - just a different view that's all - is that you risk assess
and based on that risk assessment you make a judgement whether to crb
check.
I contend that you would not have a sufficiently critical response to
an RA about kids coming into contact with someone in the street - the
butcher, the baker, the mobile phone agent, etc - on some occasions to
necessitate a crb check. And the same goes with some occasions when
'outsiders' come into the HQ.
>
> I'm happy to close that avenue off because I do not see any diminishment of
> programme by so doing.
I have no problem with that because i don't see what you're seeing.
> In fact, recently I have had people come to us as
> helpers who have volunteered that they will not start till all the paperwork
> is cleared. One even elected to wait until after the Appointments Interview
> before starting. So, I have seen no downturn in adult recruitment. If
> anything I'm seeing more people wanting to help.
And others see a quite different picture! :-)
>
You think we differ. We don't. We just see some things from different
angles. I'll bet that you keep asking yourself the same questions that
I used to ask myself - still do! Is there nothing - no object at all -
that would affect the safety and welfare of a child in your care?
Toughie.
GAGS
Paul Harris
<4eca1666-2dd1-404c...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
GAGS <gag...@lineone.net> writes
>On 25 June, 11:43, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>And does the SA 'trust' them too? So let's say you have a teacher in
>the local school. They've had 2 crb checks done - nothing known - and
>been there 5 years. The SA is not going to ask them for a further
>check are they if they want to come in and support scouting?
>
Or let's say they are known Leaders who have been in Scouting many years
and have gone through local enquiry and had two recent CRB checks and
they want to attend a camp such as a Jamboree. Even though they have
already had two checks through Scouting in the last couple of years they
still need another one just in case. You can't be too safe and if we
don't trust our own CRB checks we are hardly going to accept those done
by other organisations.
>>
>> I think what he is saying is that it may just be that they haven't been
>> caught yet or may not have even committed their first offence yet.
>> People who have been CRB checked are not necessarily safe, it is just
>> that at the time of the check nothing was known but who knows what might
>> happen next week, next month, next year.
>
>Who knows?
>
>Maybe that's why you need to keep your eyes and ears open.
>>
That is what we have always done and most of the time it works really
well then every so often something happens and no matter what we do I
doubt we will ever stop everything.
>>
>> >That is not what I said. Every CP officer that I have spoken to. Every
>> >social worker, every policeman ( and I have a CP specialist in my
>> >District and another in my Group) and the government guidance cautions
>> >that the perv who infiltrates tends to be of higher than average
>> >intelligence and is very clever at subterfuge.
>>
>> So we need to also be aware of anyone who show any form of intelligence,
>> they should easy to spot I'll keep an eye out �:-)
>
>So you need to be just as clever. But you don't need to get paranoid
>about it.
>
Me paranoid, never :-)
>>
>> >CRB is a fence that we put around our operations. Like any fence it can
>> >be got through, under or over by those who have the wit.
>
>Yes, but the times the fence has been breached is when the watchers
>manning it have let their guard down.
>
Always expect the unexpected.
>>
>> Not sure about that, I can see how those who have never been caught can
>> clear the fence easy enough but those who have been in trouble surely
>> won't be able to by pass proper checks or are you suggesting that if
>> they are bright enough they will find a way round it.
>
>Proper checks?
>
Local enquiry & CRB and the new intelligence test to check the IQ. Mensa
must have awful problems if this is to be believed.
>>
>> >My argument is that if you leave the gate open, they won't need to
>> >climb over the fence.
>>
>> True, but without getting too paranoid we should be watching whoever
>> comes in no matter which way they entered.
>
>Correct.
>
Oh good I got one right!
--
Paul Harris
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Or let's say they are known Leaders who have been in Scouting many years
>and have gone through local enquiry and had two recent CRB checks and
>they want to attend a camp such as a Jamboree. Even though they have
>already had two checks through Scouting in the last couple of years they
>still need another one just in case.
Not necessarily. I didn't do another one for the Jamboree, and the
one I had at the time (the number of which I gave to HQ) was about 4
years old.
Ewan Scott
>> CRB is the best tool we have, however imperfect it might be.
>
> No it isn't!
>
> That's almost like saying that the compass is the most important
> navigation tool.
>
> The best tools you have are your own senses, your own suspicions, your
> own abilities to see when something is different, and the balls to
> speak up when your senses smell a rat.
>
You are being rather presumptuous is saying that your judgement is a better
tool than a CRB check.
How I'd love to have your insight into other peoples' lives and psyche.
I am not and never have said that you don't watch, that you don't keep an
eye open for anything untoward. But I would never rely on it because you
cannot always spot things. Yes, you'll see the relationship developing
between a 22 year old and a 16 year old.
I do not believe that a speaker brought in to talk to kids is going to grab
one of them and have their wicked way on the section night when no-one is
looking. I have never, ever intimated that. In fact, I am cautioning the
opposite, that any incident would NOT take place at the section night. The
risk is the introduction. But we've been over all that before.
A Leader is walking down the road, two of his Explorers come up and join
him. One on each side. They link arms with him and chat and laugh as they
walk down the road. What do you think?
A Beaver is upset. The Leader sits down beside the Beaver and puts a
comforting arm around the kid.
What do you think?
A Leader keeps a certain distance from the kids, balks at any physical
contact and is very careful about using appropriate language in front of the
kids.
What do you think?
A Leader is physically able but a little slow. He never lays a finger on the
kids but acts like a big Scout himself.
What do you think?
A Leader is excellent with teenagers, has the wherewithal to access all
sorts of activities and equipment at the drop of a hat. he drinks a bit and
lives with his sister.
What do you think?
A Leader is a bit laddish and needs reminding from time to time about his
language and his jokes with the boys.
What do you think?
A 23 year old Leader is seen to be getting rather close to a 17 year old
Explorer (or vice versa as the case may be). Another six months and there
will be no problem with the relationship.
What do you think?
A Leader is approached by a child with a graze on his knee. The Leader tells
him to wash it out and then hands him a plaster to put on himself.
What do you think?
Can you identify the perv? It happens that a CRB check showed nothing ( But
it will next time around). But let's see if your hound sense could work it
out.
Bit of a naff test, but you'd get no more information if you actually met
the individuals. All of the above are real situations that I either know
about or have had to deal with.
You've got a 1:8 chance - Feel lucky, punk? :-)
(Mr. Barwick don't say a word if you know who I'm talking about - I'm not
going to name people.)
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
"GAGS" <gag...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:4eca1666-2dd1-404c...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Who knows?
Proper checks?
Correct.
I don't think that you'll find that I have ever said otherwise.
Ewan Scott
GAGS
> GAGS <gags...@lineone.net> writes
Smart Arse! :-)
GAGS
Paul Harris
<wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> writes
>On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:19:30 +0100, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1>
>wrote:
>
>>Or let's say they are known Leaders who have been in Scouting many years
>>and have gone through local enquiry and had two recent CRB checks and
>>they want to attend a camp such as a Jamboree. Even though they have
>>already had two checks through Scouting in the last couple of years they
>>still need another one just in case.
>
>Not necessarily. I didn't do another one for the Jamboree, and the
>one I had at the time (the number of which I gave to HQ) was about 4
>years old.
>
World Jamboree and one for a National Fellowship.
--
Paul Harris
Paul Harris
<4c1c0be5-325b-4134...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
GAGS <gag...@lineone.net> writes
>On 25 June, 17:19, Paul Harris <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> In message
>> <4eca1666-2dd1-404c-9935-8b43e9e76...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>> GAGS <gags...@lineone.net> writes
>>
>> >Correct.
>>
>> Oh good I got one right!
>> --
>
>Smart Arse! :-)
>
You know me so well :-)
--
Paul Harris
GAGS
> >> The best you can do is to keep out the known ones, and for that the
> >> CRB is the best tool we have, however imperfect it might be.
>
> > No it isn't!
>
> > That's almost like saying that the compass is the most important
> > navigation tool.
>
> > The best tools you have are your own senses, your own suspicions, your
> > own abilities to see when something is different, and the balls to
> > speak up when your senses smell a rat.
>
> You are being rather presumptuous is saying that your judgement is a better
> tool than a CRB check.
I'm not saying or suggesting that at all!
If I had someone coming regularly to a scouting activity and in doing
so assessed that they may have an opportunity of having a certain
degree of unsupervised access then I would've put them through
inquiry.Those who only come as a one-off or irregularly and who are
supervised and the assessemtn says that they are unlikely to have
unsupervised access then I would not likely put them thgrough inquiry.
If you want to use the disclosure freely then by all means do so, but
not for free, eh?
> How I'd love to have your insight into other peoples' lives and psyche.
Where are we going now!!? :-)
>
> I am not and never have said that you don't watch, that you don't keep an
> eye open for anything untoward. But I would never rely on it because you
> cannot always spot things. Yes, you'll see the relationship developing
> between a 22 year old and a 16 year old.
Did I ever say that I would rely on it soley?
>
> I do not believe that a speaker brought in to talk to kids is going to grab
> one of them and have their wicked way on the section night when no-one is
> looking. I have never, ever intimated that. In fact, I am cautioning the
> opposite, that any incident would NOT take place at the section night. The
> risk is the introduction. But we've been over all that before.
>
We have done so enough, haven't we?
> A Leader is walking down the road, two of his Explorers come up and join
> him. One on each side. They link arms with him and chat and laugh as they
> walk down the road. What do you think?
What do I think what? I think the Kingda Ka is a really fast roller
coaster. Is there something there I need to comment on?
>
> A Beaver is upset. The Leader sits down beside the Beaver and puts a
> comforting arm around the kid.
> What do you think?
>
I wonder what the Beaver is upset about? No doubt the group scouters
will find out about it later. Was there something else? Had the Beaver
missed out on a ride on Nemesis?
> A Leader keeps a certain distance from the kids, balks at any physical
> contact and is very careful about using appropriate language in front of the
> kids.
> What do you think?
I would think that leader isn't doing their job! You can't do scouting
at a distance. Neither though can you do scouting too closely.
Balance. Any physical contact? Not even a LHS? Barmy. I thought one
should beware of using inappropriate language?
>
> A Leader is physically able but a little slow. He never lays a finger on the
> kids but acts like a big Scout himself.
> What do you think?
Needs to find a balance. May need a little mentoring.
>
> A Leader is excellent with teenagers, has the wherewithal to access all
> sorts of activities and equipment at the drop of a hat. he drinks a bit and
> lives with his sister.
> What do you think?
Drinks a bit? Alcohol and scouting don't mix. Why does he drink?
Actually I preferred my leaders to share planning, leading, running
activities.
>
> A Leader is a bit laddish and needs reminding from time to time about his
> language and his jokes with the boys.
> What do you think?
He needs reminding. May need a little mentoring too.
>
> A 23 year old Leader is seen to be getting rather close to a 17 year old
> Explorer (or vice versa as the case may be). Another six months and there
> will be no problem with the relationship.
> What do you think?
Sit down carefully and sensitively with the leader and ask them to
consider responsibilities, duty of care, etc. But rather close isn't
necessarily jumping into bed!
>
> A Leader is approached by a child with a graze on his knee. The Leader tells
> him to wash it out and then hands him a plaster to put on himself.
> What do you think?
How old was the kid? 16 and s/he can do it themselves. 7 and I'd
wonder why the leader didn't check,wash and dress the wound.
>
> Can you identify the perv?
That's unfair and you know it. There's nothing here that would have me
needing to necessarily take a closer look. The close relationship
might need a quiet word - but that's got nothing to with undesirable
people. The drinker is one I would have a word with.
You will probably say it was the drinking leader.
There may well be someone with perverted tendencies in a group who
keeps them quiet and private and has never been caught and will not
dare risk being caught messing with someone in the group.
A crb check and a nose for something funny may well useless.
> It happens that a CRB check showed nothing ( But
> it will next time around). But let's see if your hound sense could work it
> out.
Erm....technology isn't that far advanced to transmit smells across
the internet! :-)
So no way could I sniff out the perv.
>
> Bit of a naff test, but you'd get no more information if you actually met
> the individuals. All of the above are real situations that I either know
> about or have had to deal with.
>
It was a naff test! :-)
> You've got a 1:8 chance - Feel lucky, punk? :-)
I don't do punk! :-)
>
> (Mr. Barwick don't say a word if you know who I'm talking about - I'm not
> going to name people.)
>
He hasn't said anything!
None of your potential miscreants (if that's what you're suggesting
they are) stands out or shouts out at being a perv.
Got a minority report? :-)
GAGS
Ewan Scott
>None of your potential miscreants (if that's what you're suggesting
>they are) stands out or shouts out at being a perv.
Which is EXACTLY my point. That was the information that you would have
gleaned had you met or known these people, no more no less. Two the above
were dismissed. Of the others one was retrained. Another actually runs CP
courses.
Hound sense is not as reliable as you seem to believe it is.
We need to make use of the tools in the box whatever they are - and be aware
that none are foolproof.
Ewan Scott
Neil Williams
<ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Another actually runs CP
>courses.
Which doesn't mean that...
:)
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Grumpyrallyswife
first impression is that it mainly concentrates on identifying those
convicted of paedophillia and related crimes. However, children can
be put at risk by lots of other things, including violence and drink/
drug use. None of these things are the province exclusively of the
older sectors of society.
As a young person in Explorers reaches the age of 18 they become in
the eyes of the law an adult. They are an adult member of the
movement with the trust and friendship of youth members. Why should
they not complete a CRB check?
It is worth remembering that it is only those who have something to
hide that have something to lose from this. You can take the view
that it is casting suspicion on the innocent, however if we treat
everyone the same that is surely the fairest way.
Look at it from a parent's view; if your child's group did not carry
out these checks, would you not have grounds for worry and complaint?
What happens if something goes wrong and you are found to be negligent
having not done CRB Checks on the right people?
If I think back to my days as a Venture Scout; one of our leaders (who
was also a schoolteacher) was imprisoned for offences against
children, I also knew someone who was imprisoned for drug dealing.
The point is, it can be someone you know.
To be honest, a few minutes to fill in a form once every 5 years isn't
much to ask I don't think. Stick to the Yellow (or Orange) card
procedures as well and we can say we are doing our best to safeguard
our members.
--
Louise Harrison
GAGS
> >None of your potential miscreants (if that's what you're suggesting
> >they are) stands out or shouts out at being a perv.
>
> Which is EXACTLY my point. That was the information that you would have
> gleaned had you met or known these people, no more no less. Two the above
> were dismissed. Of the others one was retrained. Another actually runs CP
> courses.
So two of the above were dismissed for doing exaqctly just what you
related?
>
> Hound sense is not as reliable as you seem to believe it is.
Hound 'sense' isn't what I was talking about!
Look I totally agree with everything you're saying. Let's check
everyone that comes near us with a crb process.
Now hold on before you say that's not what you're advocating.....!
We have to decide on what is meant by 'comes near'. Now we become a
tadge subjective don't we? How near is 'near'?
You're now probably going to say everyone who visits/joins in on an
activity/event/meeting, e.g. the parent who helps out every other
week, the vicar who leads the my faith badge, the local herpetologist
who visits with his herpes stuff... :-)
Fine.
Now what about the people I used to share my meeting venue with?
(Hold on GAGS, WTF are you talking about now!!?)
Upstairs in the church hall on the same night as Beavers was the choir
group. Public areas of the building were open to all.
Should I check these people out?
What about parents coming to pick up kids? Should I check out all
parents?
If 'near' really means close to your activity/meeting/event then that
could involve quite a lot of people.
Do I endorse all these people as being okay? Do I endorse just those
allowed into my meeting/event? Yes I endorese all of these provided
I'm there to supervise.If I'm not there to supervise then I will only
endorse those who have been checked and even then I will still want to
keep an eye on them as they keep an eye on me.
I trust everyone and I trust no one.
To me the crb stuff is prinicpally about deterrent. (If people think
it's about catching pervs then they need to think again.) And I
applied that deterrent where I thought there was opportunity or rather
at least a certain degree of opportunity for harm to fall on my kids.
So, risk of unsupervised access = check; access is supervised = not
necessarily checked.
>
> We need to make use of the tools in the box whatever they are - and be aware
> that none are foolproof.
That rather presumes that there are tools in the box that you can use
and there isn't any issue in using them.
I would suggest there is an issue - a very big issue - with using crb
checks to effect either 'continuous' monitoring or monitoring where
the risk is low.
The crb checks are not there to stop pervs, they are there to deter
pervs. So too is the hound.
Please do not be the first one to suggest that if you crb check people
none of those you check will ever cause harm to your kids.
Balance and proportion.
GAGS
GAGS
wrote:
> Having read some of this thread (but not all, it's very long!) my
> first impression is that it mainly concentrates on identifying those
> convicted of paedophillia and related crimes.
Not quite. The main thrust (currently) is largely a debate about who
should be checked and the scope of checking.
> However, children can
> be put at risk by lots of other things, including violence and drink/
> drug use. None of these things are the province exclusively of the
> older sectors of society.
Quite true.
>
> As a young person in Explorers reaches the age of 18 they become in
> the eyes of the law an adult. They are an adult member of the
> movement with the trust and friendship of youth members. Why should
> they not complete a CRB check?
They should if they are to continue to have unsupervised contact with
younger people in scouting or if they are to take up responsibilities,
etc.
> It is worth remembering that it is only those who have something to
> hide that have something to lose from this.
Be careful. You don't know what that 'something' is!
> You can take the view
> that it is casting suspicion on the innocent, however if we treat
> everyone the same that is surely the fairest way.
Fair to whom?
Let's step aside for a mo.
The national criminal DNA database is building up to quite a number of
records nowadays. You do know it's not just convicted criminals
included on it? It's very successful, but it's not 100% successful.
What would you say to putting everyone on the database? We might then
hope to get very near to 100%. Think of the crimes that could be
solved or helped to solve? Surely putting everyone on it is 'treating
everyone the same'? And as you infer 'casting suspicion on the
innocent' isn't an issue if everyone is treated the same. Yes?
>
> Look at it from a parent's view; if your child's group did not carry
> out these checks, would you not have grounds for worry and complaint?
Of course. As a parent what would you expect? Would you expect a
guarantee of health, safety and welfare, for your kids from the
leaders? Or would expect them to do everything they could so far as is
reasonably practicable?
> What happens if something goes wrong and you are found to be negligent
> having not done CRB Checks on the right people?
If you are found to be negligent then the courts will impose a
penalty.
BTW, who are the 'right people'?
>
> If I think back to my days as a Venture Scout; one of our leaders (who
> was also a schoolteacher) was imprisoned for offences against
> children, I also knew someone who was imprisoned for drug dealing.
> The point is, it can be someone you know.
I suppose it could. So do we check everyone you know? Do we check
everyone I know? Do we check every friend of Billy-No-Mates?
So let's say 'it' is someone we know. Do we use the crb check to
disclover that 'it' is undesirable? Do we suppose that 'it' with a
criminal record will submit to a crb check? Do we use the 'threat' of
'it' being discovered by a possible crb check as a deterrent?
Tell me: How many people have been caught by doing crb checks, i.e.
investigated, arrested, convicted, etc? How many people have been
deterred by doing crb checks?
>
> To be honest, a few minutes to fill in a form once every 5 years isn't
> much to ask I don't think. Stick to the Yellow (or Orange) card
> procedures as well and we can say we are doing our best to safeguard
> our members.
And no one is disputing these processes.
What is up for debate is the scope of crb checks. Does the innocent
person have anything to fear from crb checks? (And if you want to
widen the debate you could ask similar questions such as: 'Does the
innocent person have anything to fear from having their DNA taken and
put on record? Or. 'Does the innocent person have anything to fear
from CCTV cameras put up on every street corner? Etc)
Do you believe that you have to establish a reason or need to do a crb
check on someone, or do you believe that the reason or need already
exists because there are undesirables out there?
GAGS