Child Protection Legislation
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Keith Patrick - 30 Oct 2009 07:55 GMT One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section? I know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules.
brushhead - 30 Oct 2009 09:18 GMT > One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently about > the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have contact with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a pity.We are just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and > would welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules. Hi, Slightly off topic but i'm in Amateur Dramatics, and my outfit started talking about setting upa youth arm, in order to get teenager off the streets and give them something useful to do.
When we started to investigate what this would entail, we found that we would have to basically build a complete new dressing room for the kids to be staffed by CRB checked people. We quickly abandoned the idea on cost ground befroe anything else. Guess who lost out in the end. The very tennagers that society is demonising because they are out of control.
We did once have a young girl in a play but she was chapperoned by her grandad, but how many parents could be arsed these days to actually spend time with their kids?
The UK is going to the dogs.
Rob.
Paul Boyd - 30 Oct 2009 18:47 GMT > Slightly off topic but i'm in Amateur Dramatics, and my outfit started > talking about setting upa youth arm, in order to get teenager off the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would have to basically build a complete new dressing room for the kids > to be staffed by CRB checked people. In my previous job, an ex-employee approached us to see if we could give her 15 year old son a job as he'd just left school. As it happened, we could offer him a job. Except when we looked into "child labour" laws it just wasn't practical, and one of the reasons was that every employee would have had to have a CRB check, paid for by the company. We just waited a few weeks until he was 16, when miraculously he's deemed to be safe from predators...
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
Nigel Cliffe - 30 Oct 2009 09:35 GMT > One for model railway club members really. Much has been made > recently about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would > welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules. Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are free. I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in practise, but the comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that those who are volunteering their time and not earning can have their check for free. The discussion is usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure activities for children where the adults are not paid.
I can't see a fundamental difference between a hobby athletics club with a junior section and a hobby model club with a junior section. Both have a structure and someone to look after the club's money, some premises (either rented or bought), some equipment bought for the activity, subscriptions paid by members to cover costs of running club, members who have their own equipment and bring it along to the club, have events where the public can pay to come and see what's happening (sports competition vs. model exhibition), do things which occupy the members, encourage juniors to participate, learn skills, become more capable, etc.. In those terms, I cannot see a difference; if the athletics club volunteers can have free CRB checks, then so can the model club.
Otherwise, I think your choice of actions are down to either; a) no under 18's and no vulnerable adults (typically learning difficulties) or b) under 18's / vulnerable adults ONLY if accompanied by their parent/guardian/career.
The current rules, whilst perhaps for well meaning intent, are destroying a lot of club activities and voluntary work. I think the baby has gone out with the bathwater, bath, and most of the bathroom fittings.
- Nigel
 Signature Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
simon - 30 Oct 2009 13:03 GMT >> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made >> recently about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Nigel Bit of a farce as usual - not as if children would be staying overnight ! Hear hit entertainment had to drop their insistence that all volunteers at Thomas events go through CRB check as their making such a requirement wasnt legal.
cheers, Simon
Graham Harrison - 30 Oct 2009 16:38 GMT > Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are > free. As I understand it the check is free for volunteers, yes.
However......
You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself. You have to go through someone else and that body is allowed to charge a handling fee. I gather that provided the body handling your check agrees to do so they don't have to be working in the same area as you so you could work through an athletics club or a youth club or your local authority or through a non local (to you) authority. Listen to R4 at noon - there was an item about this there.
Daft really.
Phil O. Sopher - 30 Oct 2009 16:42 GMT > However...... > > You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself. This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending yourself.
Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice
beamends - 30 Oct 2009 17:14 GMT >> However...... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice But far more dangerously, if you were turned down for some minor issue the you could easily end up with a mob outside the front door - as happened on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth during the last media feeding frenzy when the mob attacked a pediatrician's house.....
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
Paul Boyd - 30 Oct 2009 18:49 GMT > Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice That went out long ago. Just look at what happens when someone is charged of any sex crime (or any other crime for that matter) - the media vilify the accused without bothering to wait to find out if the accused is actually guilty. Specifically in sex crimes, that can have an absolutely devastating effect on the accused's life if they turn out to be innocent.
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
simon - 30 Oct 2009 22:48 GMT >> However...... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you get a copy of the report. Realise its a big mistake but have agreed* to go on cub camp next year as the general dogsbody and car driver if anyone has to go to A&E - transport by minibus not allowed for some reason.
* Or at least tot did.
Cheers, Simon
Phil O. Sopher - 31 Oct 2009 10:13 GMT >>> However...... >>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you > get a copy of the report. Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under the previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to let you see the information that he received.
Jeff - 31 Oct 2009 11:50 GMT >>>> However...... >>>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to > let you see the information that he received. That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of the report under the old system.
Jeff
Phil O. Sopher - 31 Oct 2009 11:56 GMT >>>>> However...... >>>>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of > the report under the old system. AIUI, if an extended CRB check was called for, and that check reported back unsubstantiated allegations (possibly resulting from malicious complaints) then the person being checked could not be told of that "intelligence"
Jeff - 31 Oct 2009 12:32 GMT >>> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under >>> the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > complaints) then the person being checked could not be told of > that "intelligence" The person involved gets exactly the same report as the employer, if is up to the police as to what information they wish to disclose or feel is relevant, or legal to disclose.
Jeff
simon - 31 Oct 2009 19:51 GMT >>>> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under >>>> the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jeff Dont think received anything from social services 10 years ago when they did an enhanced check, but there was so much paperwork flying around could have missed it.
Cheers, Simon
Nigel Cliffe - 30 Oct 2009 18:01 GMT >> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those >> are free. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > local authority or through a non local (to you) authority. Listen > to R4 at noon - there was an item about this there. Yes, I heard some of that piece when out and about, and was going to post an amendment to my posting. Thanks for passing the latest gem along....
"The free check isn't really free as an approved body has to request the check for you, and they might charge an admin fee......".
If I recall correctly, the minister said something about still open to consultations, so bombard the muppet with questions about why "free for volunteers" means in practice "pay fee to be allowed to continue volunteering".
(My guess is that some charities, trade unions and similar bodies might eventually work out free handling schemes for their members who are volunteers. Whether its practical for some umbrella "Society of Model Clubs", or similar body to form and do this is an open question. )
> Daft really. Totally bonkers.
- Nigel
 Signature Nigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
David Cantrell - 02 Nov 2009 11:28 GMT > Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are > free. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure activities for > children where the adults are not paid. I'm not a trained and qualified cricket umpire because to become one I'd have to get a CRB check, which I refuse to do because it's bloody stupid, and because it's an affront to decency to make me, effectively, prove my innocence. And I'm not aware that there's been a spate of cricket umpires standing in the middle of a field where everyone can see them abusing children.
And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it, and doesn't play childrens' teams. In fact it consists mostly of large tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen ears.
 Signature David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"
You don't need to spam good porn
simon - 02 Nov 2009 13:50 GMT >> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are >> free. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and doesn't play childrens' teams. In fact it consists mostly of large > tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen ears. If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a piece of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath.
Cheers, Simon
David Cantrell - 03 Nov 2009 11:37 GMT > If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a piece > of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask > them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath. I prefer "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you wearing clothes?"
 Signature David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists
simon - 03 Nov 2009 11:46 GMT >> If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a >> piece >> of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask >> them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath. > > I prefer "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you wearing clothes?" OnTopic, I often think of his pilot building/dismantling the parrafin thing when I'm trying to get a chassis to run smoothly.
cheers, Simon
MartinS - 04 Nov 2009 00:50 GMT >> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those >> are free. I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > large tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen > ears. It sounds more like though you need protection from them! Do they have to have CRB checks too?
 Signature Martin S.
David Cantrell - 04 Nov 2009 13:07 GMT > > And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could > > umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it, > > and doesn't play childrens' teams. In fact it consists mostly of > > large tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen > > ears. > It sounds more like though you need protection from them! Hehe. They're lovely people, honestly :-)
 Signature David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing
It's my experience that neither users nor customers can articulate what it is they want, nor can they evaluate it when they see it -- Alan Cooper
John Turner - 30 Oct 2009 13:32 GMT > One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently > about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be > incorporated into the club rules. Isn't it a sad reflection of society when knee-jerk reactions become the norm & ordinary people are potentially demonised in this way.
It the namby-pamby brigade want to legislate to avoid child abuse, then it should be aimed at the area where most problems arise, and that's with the parents and close relatives of kids.
Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before they're allowed to have kids.
John.
beamends - 30 Oct 2009 14:37 GMT >> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently >> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > John. That's what happens now are governed by single issue pressure groups. Just a shame that those of us who have been trying to point out the folly of this for years were just laughed at until something came along that effected those doing the laughing ;-)
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
Phil O. Sopher - 30 Oct 2009 15:10 GMT >> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently >> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before > they're allowed to have kids. Ian Huntley (assuming that he is actually guilty and isn't to be freed by some subsequent court of appeal) was caught and punished by laws that existed at the time of his offence. therefore, no new laws were needed in response to his activities. It has been said elsewhere that the previous CRB (and now ISA) checks would not have in any case prevented him.
The whole ethos of the situation was presumed to be to prevent sexual deviants from having contact with children, and yet it seems to be those who stole sweets from the sweet shop when they themselves were children who are being excluded.
In terms of the OP, the only solution can be to exclude all children from activities and social clubs intended in the first instance for adults. That had always been the case for pubs and drinking dens, so it is only a small step to increase the scope to cover all forms of social club, especially those for railway modelling.
Perhaps that would not be a bad thing, for it would ensure that only those who had a genuine long-term interest would seek membership of our clubs.
It goes against the whole traditions of Brit justice where one is presumed innocent until shown to be otherwise for anybody to have to prove that he is not a paederast. (Stricly, all parents who love their children are paedophiles, just as we are railwayphiles)
The state of affairs is ridiculous when those of us who withdraw from areas where we might come under the new draconian laws leave the field open to the paederasts, who were illegal anyway, and to whom the new laws would be irrelevant
LDosser - 30 Oct 2009 23:55 GMT snip
> It goes against the whole traditions of Brit justice where one is presumed > innocent until shown to be otherwise for anybody to have to prove that > he is not a paederast. (Stricly, all parents who love their children are > paedophiles, > just as we are railwayphiles) Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
Wolf K - 31 Oct 2009 14:22 GMT > "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message [...]
>> just as we are railwayphiles) > > Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o) My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix Latin and Greek Bases...
So it should ierohippophile. ;-)
cheers, wolf k.
simon - 31 Oct 2009 19:49 GMT >> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message > [...] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cheers, > wolf k. like that, it should go down well as a starter when meet a lady :-) Guess the hippo bit refers to a horse but can you explain the rest ?
Thanks, Simon
Wolf K - 31 Oct 2009 21:38 GMT >>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Thanks, > Simon iero - Gk for iron, hippo- Gk for horse, phil- Gk for love/affection.
You're welcome. ;-)
wolf k.
MartinS - 01 Nov 2009 05:05 GMT >> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So it should ierohippophile. ;-) What about "television"?
 Signature Martin S.
Arthur Figgis - 01 Nov 2009 08:58 GMT >>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote... >>>> just as we are railwayphiles) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What about "television"? No good will come of it.
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Paul Boyd - 01 Nov 2009 10:06 GMT > What about "television"? It'll never catch on, y'know :-)
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
Wolf K - 01 Nov 2009 21:06 GMT >>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote... >>>> just as we are railwayphiles) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What about "television"? Should be "teleoptikon".
Heh heh!
wolf k.
John Turner - 03 Nov 2009 13:55 GMT > What about "television"? Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the development of television.
John.
beamends - 03 Nov 2009 14:51 GMT >> What about "television"? > > Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the > development of television. > > John. Fantastic, wasn't it. I'd never heard of the high res stereoscopic colour TV - just think where we'd be now if he hadn't died early.
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
MartinS - 04 Nov 2009 00:38 GMT >> What about "television"? > > Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the > development of television. I saw it on bit torrent. Maybe I'll download it.
Also, on thebox.bz, there are quite frequent posts of obscure railway videos and old BTF films. Some are very interesting.
 Signature Martin S.
Paul Boyd - 30 Oct 2009 18:42 GMT > Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before > they're allowed to have kids. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8331446.stm
Even the parents aren't deemed fit to supervise their children!
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
Arthur Figgis - 30 Oct 2009 20:11 GMT >> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before >> they're allowed to have kids. > > See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8331446.stm > > Even the parents aren't deemed fit to supervise their children! Without knowing any more than has been in the papers, this strikes me as one of those cases where there might just be slightly more to it than meets the eye, or would fit the usual IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD!!! line which sections of the media like to take.
Do children actually *want* their parents following their every move, monitoring everything they do, never letting them out of sight, even in an adventure playground?
Someone made a comparison with schools, where we don't generally allow parents to go in and sit and watch their kids all day, and parents who try to do so are generally considered a downright nuisance, if not a bit odd as well.
If some parents genuinely think the playground is run by axe murders and/or paediatricians, why are they taking their kids there in the first place?
================= http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/state ment-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground
Contrary to reports in the media, Watford Borough Council has not banned parents from public parks and playgrounds in the town!
The press have inaccurately reported what Harwoods and Harebreaks are; they are not open public facilites. They never have been. They are closed, fully supervised facilities.
They are no different to other fully supervised facilities, like schools, playgroups or nurseries - where adults are not allowed to stay.
Parents and carers are, of course, welcome to bring their children safely into the sites and settle them in.
If parents aren't happy leaving their children - there are lots of other options open to them. In the town, there are 4 community centres, 5 children’s centres, over 40 areas of park and playgrounds, as well as a museum, two libraries... These are also free to attend and open to everyone. ==================
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Paul Boyd - 30 Oct 2009 22:02 GMT > ================= > http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/state ment-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en > > Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground That does put a different light on it. Once, the BBC was a good, solid media organisation. It seems to have been getting more and more tabloid over the last decade or so.
I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of adventure playgrounds we had as kids! Demolished factory sites with structures made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling down to the ground. Anyone remember the Felix Road adventure playground in Bristol during the 1970s/80s??? It wasn't anything like it is now!!
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
simon - 30 Oct 2009 22:42 GMT >> ================= >> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/state ment-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the ground. Anyone remember the Felix Road adventure playground in > Bristol during the 1970s/80s??? It wasn't anything like it is now!! Nope, we had to make do with a few miles of fields next to the estate we lived on. There was an unfenced pond (rumoured to be 15 ft deep in the middle) and a couple of streams with trees deliberately left in place that had to be climbed as a matter of course. All unsupervised and unregulated by health and safety. Apart from one or two broken bones and an electrocution when someone flew a kite that hit power lines we all survived with only minor bruises. Never heard of anyone attacked by perverts though a few got bruises from parents and the particularly nasty kids.
How did we survive physically and mentally unscarred ?
cheers, Simon
Arthur Figgis - 30 Oct 2009 23:04 GMT >>> ================= >>> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/state ment-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the middle) and a couple of streams with trees deliberately left in > place that had to be climbed as a matter of course. We had to go and live in an unfenced pond.
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
simon - 30 Oct 2009 23:45 GMT >>>> ================= >>>> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/state ment-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > We had to go and live in an unfenced pond. We werent allowed in the pond, it was reserved for cows. However we did managed to sneak in and catch a newt occasionally - a rare treat for 5, all that meat. Was open season when frog spawn hatched.
Cheers, Simon
turbo - 31 Oct 2009 12:16 GMT >>>> I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of >>>> adventure >>>> playgrounds we had as kids! Demolished factory sites with structures >>>> made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling >>>> down to the ground. Not forgetting abandoned canal boats, nearly full of grimy water, which always seem to get 'stuck' in the middle of the canal when I was aboard!! The important thing was risk was learned to be managed- what was possible, what was not, once called 'common sense'
John Turner - 05 Nov 2009 16:24 GMT > Not forgetting abandoned canal boats, nearly full of grimy water, which > always seem to get 'stuck' in the middle of the canal when I was aboard!! > The important thing was risk was learned to be managed- what was possible, > what was not, once called 'common sense' Or not as the case may be.
One of my mates fell off the cliffs at Flamborough (or at least that's where I think it was) whilst 'climbing' and was killed.
It was announced at school assembly on the following Monday morning, and by dinner time it was all forgotten about. No suggestion of (or need for) counselling, and no threats to fence off the area.
John.
John Turner - 05 Nov 2009 16:21 GMT > We had to go and live in an unfenced pond. Remember some of us going skinny-dipping in a pond at the local brickworks.
We were interrupted by a rare (for those enlightened days) WPC who told us to get out. Needless to say we all refused.
LOL.
John.
Dragon Heart - 01 Nov 2009 22:50 GMT > "Keith Patrick" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before > they're allowed to have kids. I suspect no one on this group have had a child of their own or a relative abused but if we had then we may well have a very strong viewpoint on the matter ....... "protection at all costs". The problem is CRB checks are just that a CRIMINAL records check, anyone who has not been caught, in theory, would be allowed a pass.
My feelings on the matter is not extra legislation but a greater awareness by people in groups that these people do exist and to actively protect the youngsters in the temp care of the group.
Youngsters like their independence and these groups help give them that plus more.
As is the case be it football, concerts, a quiet drink down the local or a 'social' club a very small minority spoil it for us all.
Chris
Elliott Cowton - 31 Oct 2009 16:13 GMT > How is your club handling this if you have a junior section? I know of at least one club
> that is closing it's junior section in response to these proposals, which is a pity.We are
> just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice
> which could be incorporated into the club rules. Hi Keith, I think I can help here, I have walked this way before and although what I am about to present is under the "Previous regime" my understanding is that things have NOT CHANGED substantively with the latest version that has obviously sparked this debate.
We, Fareham & Dist MRC, had a vexatious member who, for reasons best known to himself, tried to stop us having the junior members in the club at all when the CRB system first came in. As a result we went through the "proper channels" and set everything up the way is should be. This is what you need to know:
1. The first thing you will need to do is to talk to your local Council for Voluntary Service. Your email address suggests that you live in Powys, if so then your nearest contact would be Powys Association of Voluntary Organisations. Their website is http://www.pavo.org.uk. If this isn't where you live then google "Council for voluntary Service <location>" to find out who to contact. Our organisation is Fareham Community Action at http://www.farehamaction.org.uk.
2. They will advise you to write a Protection Policy for the club and you need to get it approved by your membership. Depending on how your club is set up you might be able to make it a part of your constitution. You will find ours at http://www.fadmrc.hampshire.org.uk/fownload/vmppolicy.pdf.
3. The way we work it is that we insist that if a youngster wants to come along then it is the parent who joins the club and takes full responsibility for the youngster's safety and actions whilst on club premises. We are "flexible" as to who actually comes with the child, it could be the mother one week and the father the next, it doesn't really matter as long as there is always an adult to take charge of the child. And you'd be surprised just how keen the parents are to get involved, even if it is just making the tea (or cleaning our kitchen area up).
3a. We find this approach also gives us the ability to protect the club from the child, for instance we had one child who was a total nightmare and wouldn't accept that when we were using power tools and said to him, "don't stand there, its dangerous" we really meant it. In that case we said to the mother, if he won't take safety advice we can't have him in the club - and they left. Handling that situation without the parent available would be very difficult (as any teacher will tell you).
4. Don't forget, it isn't just children that need protecting in this way. The proper title of our policy is Vulnerable Members Protection Policy; we have a couple of late teen/early adulthood members/prospective members who have learning difficulties and they are very much in the sphere of needing "protection" as well.
Finally, if anyone tries to tell you that you need to make a clean CRB check a condition of membership ignore them, to do so would be an infringement of human rights (or so I was told). This was the approach our vexatious member insisted we went down until we were able to rein him in. Also, I see in some of the other responses in this thread that the question has surfaced of who can apply for the CRB disclosure and how much it costs. The answer is, for a voluntary organisation it has to be the CVS in who's jurisdiction the organisation resides, in our case Fareham Community Action; that's not to say that the someone might slip under the radar and manage to get a disclosure direct from the Bureau, but in theory they should only release info to the responsible CVS. The cost is very much down to the CVS, I think ours charge a fiver to cover the postage &c but they can and do waive the charge if they think that might be the most appropriate thing to do.
Hope this has helped, let me know how you get on.
Regards
Elliott
Phil O. Sopher - 01 Nov 2009 09:14 GMT > Hi Keith, I think I can help here, I have walked this way before and > although what I am about to present is under the "Previous regime" my [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > 1. The first thing ... etc etc The point is surely not how easy it is to achieve but that it should not be needed at all.
It is an example of several recent laws which are ineffective.
Ineffective because they target the innocent (who never did the disputed acts anyway), whilst the evil among us carry on as they did anyway (because they were illegal within the old laws and new laws don't change their attitudes!)
An examples is handgun control after the Dunblane massacre; there are now more handguns on the street than ever before when previously all hand guns were safe in the hands of law-abiders.
As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected by any new laws)
Paul Boyd - 01 Nov 2009 10:10 GMT > As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements > will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the > paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected by any new laws) There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal. All it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep tabs on it.
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
Arthur Figgis - 01 Nov 2009 12:31 GMT >> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements >> will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep tabs > on it. In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the politicians don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc etc.
Come the revolution...
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
beamends - 02 Nov 2009 10:17 GMT >>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new >>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Come the revolution... They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones with access to the media (or the media itself). Thinking things though would be a good idea too - creating a situation where a Police Officer cannot look after another Police Officer's child, never mind ordinary folk, just shows that very little, if any, thought went into the consequences of legislation.
Doing a Failure Mode Analysis used to be the job of Parliament/House of Lords at the various Committee stages, but since Smiling Tony and his chums started side-stepping Parliament and the Lords any old rubbish gets passed.
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
manatbandq@hotmail.com - 02 Nov 2009 11:40 GMT > >>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new > >>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > chums started side-stepping Parliament and the Lords any old rubbish gets > passed. And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when smiling David gets in with his chums.
MBQ
beamends - 02 Nov 2009 13:22 GMT > And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when > smiling David gets in with his chums. Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
Wolf K - 02 Nov 2009 14:08 GMT >> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when >> smiling David gets in with his chums. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Cheers > Richard Don't you guys vote?
wolf k.
manatbandq@hotmail.com - 02 Nov 2009 15:49 GMT > >> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when > >> smiling David gets in with his chums. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > wolf k. When all you have to choose from is red or blue slime, lib dems, UKIP, BNP or various fringe parties what would you advise?
MBQ
Wolf K - 03 Nov 2009 01:14 GMT >>>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when >>>> smiling David gets in with his chums. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > MBQ Join the constituency association, and shake 'em up.
cheers, wolf k.
Phil O. Sopher - 03 Nov 2009 09:28 GMT > When all you have to choose from is red or blue slime, lib dems, UKIP, > BNP or various fringe parties what would you advise? Will the reneging by David Cameron upon the issue of a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty mean that the next government will be a Labour one?
Not because anybody will want one, but merely because the protest vote will now be split amongst the Conservatives, UKIP, and the BNP.
You read it here first.
Perhap's David Cameron's epitaph will be "The man who catapulted the BNP into power"?
David Jackson - 02 Nov 2009 15:51 GMT The message <4aeee7eb$0$1589$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com> from Wolf K <wekirch@sympatico.ca> contains these words:
> Don't you guys vote? Yes, but the government always gets in...
 Signature Dave, Frodsham http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net
beamends - 02 Nov 2009 16:40 GMT >>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when >>> smiling David gets in with his chums. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > wolf k. I can't speak for others, but no - I don't even register (no junk mail). There's no one who represents me (and 'Er Indoors) in any way, shape or form at local or national level, because I'm not Mr. Wannabe-Middle- Class, I can't stand "the environment" being used as an excuse for tax raising, policies always being London-centric (no consideration is ever made for those living in rural/remote areas any more) and my health or otherwise is nothing to do with the government other than offering impartial advice (see the furore about Professor Nutt).
Until there is a "none of the above" box (or some radical new party that acknowledges that some people like a fag, a beer, enjoy off-road driving, don't want to fund other peoples kids so *they* can still afford their nice big house and flash car, wants to see the likes of the Bankers brought to book like us mere mortals would be, etc etc) the only sanction I have is not to vote - but even then we still get them on the TV wondering why voter turn out is so low! I won't even start down the road of MP's expenses, Parliament being side stepped when issuing new proclamations (sorry, carefully considered legislation) and Councillors who are more interested in their career than representing their constituents. And of course the current favourite - "the terrorist threat" - being used to drive rough shod over peoples freedoms (train spotters being threatened with arrest and such).... the list just goes on and on.....
In short, integrity seems to be a word completely alien to our current politics, and "the people" are only a bunch of quiche-eaters in Hampstead or such, who's idea of an exiting weekend is going to the garden centre.
I'm well aware (my family has a long Royal Navy tradition) that people fought and died for our freedoms, but I expect a lot of them, given the chance, would be demanding a refund - they didn't fight for us to have to prove ourselves innocent when accused as UK law is now becoming.
I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way, but from customers in the shop I'm not the only one.. Everyone is allowed their own point of view! (at least for the time being)
Well, you did ask ;-)
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
Paul Boyd - 02 Nov 2009 17:53 GMT > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full stop. :-)
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
simon - 02 Nov 2009 21:46 GMT >> I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... > > Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full > stop. :-) Ah, but everyone has their favourite exception :-)
Cheers, Simon
David Cantrell - 03 Nov 2009 11:42 GMT > > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... > Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full > stop. :-) I agree. If the purpose of banning them from pubs was to improve health, then that purpose is better served by banning them entirely. But that would screw the public finances even more, because tax from tobacco more than pays for the extra health costs of tobacco.
There are, of course, other reason to ban cigarettes. They smell bad, taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum. Ban cigarettes and track suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed!
 Signature David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information
Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing
simon - 03 Nov 2009 12:47 GMT >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum. Ban cigarettes and track > suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed! If that makes me a chav scum has anyone got Billie Pipers phone number ?
cheers, Simon
beamends - 03 Nov 2009 13:10 GMT >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > taste bad, and are enjoyed by chav scum. Ban cigarettes and track > suits! Encourage pipes, cigars, and tweed! That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant posts I've ever read. What should be banned is idiots who people who tell others how to live their lives. I'm not a chav by a million miles, but I'd far rather be one than have to live next door to some Immaculate Conception like you!
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
simon - 03 Nov 2009 14:02 GMT >>> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >>> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'd far rather be one than have to live next door to some Immaculate > Conception like you! Not sure can agree with you there. There was a whole set of em on uk.railway a while back. I rose to the challenge then but now would rather take the piss out of Holier than thou posts to show that dont care about such opinions.
So if anyone wants to give me more info on the evils of smoking they can email me directly.
Cheers, Simon
David Cantrell - 04 Nov 2009 13:10 GMT > >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... > >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That's probably one of the most pompous, sanctimonious and arrogant posts > I've ever read. Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your sense of humour.
 Signature David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"
You are so cynical. And by "cynical", of course, I mean "correct". -- Kurt Starsinic
MartinS - 04 Nov 2009 18:09 GMT >> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Well done, you win a prize for being the furthest divorced from your > sense of humour. The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line between genius and insanity.
 Signature Martin S.
Greg.Procter - 05 Nov 2009 02:44 GMT >>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The line between irony and sanctimoniousness is as fine as the line > between genius and insanity. Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much shorter than the route from insanity to genius?
Greg.P.
simon - 05 Nov 2009 11:51 GMT >>>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >>>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Greg.P. from experience ?
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 05 Nov 2009 19:35 GMT >>>>> >> > I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way... >>>>> >> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Cheers, > Simon I tend to get very nervous near cliff edges!
Greg.P.
simon - 05 Nov 2009 21:25 GMT >>> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is much >>> shorter than the route from insanity to genius? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Greg.P. Are you replying to Johns post in this one ?
Cheers, Simon
Greg.Procter - 06 Nov 2009 00:03 GMT >>>> Had you ever considered that the route from genius to insanity is >>>> much shorter than the route from insanity to genius? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Cheers, > Simon No, I was responding directly to you! =8^) (somewhat obliquely, admittedly)
Greg.P.
Paul Boyd - 02 Nov 2009 17:51 GMT > Don't you guys vote? I do, but there's not actually much choice! Realistically, there are only two parties with a chance of forming the next government, and apart from the colour of their ribbons, there's no difference between the two of them. I would really support a "None of the above" option, and I suspect that if that option was available, a lot more people would turn out. If enough people voted "None of the above", that is a pretty good clue that people have no confidence in any of the parties. I also have a problem with our system in that we can't actually vote for which party should run the country - we can only vote for who we want to run our local area, which isn't necessarily the same party.
I will vote though, and always have done, so that I have a right to complain if I don't agree with the winning party's policies :-)
Oh yeah - alt.politics is thataway, for the brave ====>>>>>>
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
simon - 02 Nov 2009 21:55 GMT >> Don't you guys vote? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Oh yeah - alt.politics is thataway, for the brave ====>>>>>> You may be right, but I suspect and hope not, and i'm pleased to say that was never fooled by blair although could not imagine the incompetence and waste that GB would cause.
cheers, Simon
Arthur Figgis - 02 Nov 2009 23:04 GMT >>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when >>> smiling David gets in with his chums. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Don't you guys vote? It only encourages them.
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Arthur Figgis - 02 Nov 2009 23:07 GMT >>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new >>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones > with access to the media (or the media itself). I'm not sure that listening to silent people would be the best use of time.
Thinking things though
> would be a good idea too - creating a situation where a Police Officer > cannot look after another Police Officer's child, never mind ordinary [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers > Richard
 Signature Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
beamends - 03 Nov 2009 10:06 GMT >>>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new >>>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thinking things though The silent people are shouting loud, but have no voice - exactly what the politicians are failing to comprehend, and why they are so out of touch.
Cheers Richard
 Signature I have become...............comfortably numb
Jane Sullivan - 05 Nov 2009 16:38 GMT >>>>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new >>>>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > politicians are failing to comprehend, and why they are so out of > touch. ... and which is probably why the BNP is getting so much support nowadays.
> Cheers > Richard
 Signature Jane
David Cantrell - 02 Nov 2009 11:39 GMT > There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that all > that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal. "Fraud is illegal, therefore we didn't fiddle our expenses"?
 Signature David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat
If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the entrails of the bastard denying me access to anything else.
Paul Boyd - 02 Nov 2009 17:43 GMT > "Fraud is illegal, therefore we didn't fiddle our expenses"? Except that almost without exception they bleated "But it's in the rules" or "Oops, silly me, it was just a mistake so I'll pay it back and everything will be alright again so I didn't really commit an illegal act."
 Signature Paul Boyd http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
Keith Patrick - 05 Nov 2009 14:11 GMT Just to say many thanks for the useful responses (and the somewhat OT diversions!) to my original query. Your varied suggestions, well not all of them!, are being considered for incorporation into our club rules
> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently > about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be > incorporated into the club rules. Phil O. Sopher - 06 Nov 2009 13:10 GMT > One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently > about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be > incorporated into the club rules. My local engineering has recently enquired upon this matter to the county council's protection officer, and the advice received, at least as far as public running and exhibitions goes, is that provided the child's parents are present, then there has only to be one official accredited under the CRB also present at all times.
I appreciate that this situation isn't quite the question posed, but may nonetheless be of interest
|
|
|