Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Railroads / November 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Child Protection Legislation

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.