management committee minutes

[graeme]

A wee note from the SOA...

The CRB and BOF policy are totally irrelevant to Scotland. We have our very own equally Byzantine set of regulations, so even you CRB-checked Englanders can't coach in Scotland

Graeme

PS It's Hašek

[Kitch]

pronounced Hashek ?

[Mrs H.]

so have all the non-Scottish coaches going to Lagganlia and Glenmore got the Scottish equivalent of the CRB test as well? Do they need it to coach non-Scottish children - but I understand there are quite a lot of Scottish kids going to Lagganlia anway - will they have to be coached by Scottish coaches?

[Gross]

Ha ha.... brilliant point Mrs H. Kind of f***s up the entire set of principles doesn't it

Long live the Thatcher years:)

[Blanka]

Speaking of this, what is the age at which children can be left legally on their own at home in England? I know we tried to find that out when we moved to England some years back, but never found it written down anywhere. (Various people said what they thought it is, but the ages given ranged quite a bit!)

PS.

pronounced Hashek ?

Yes!

[redkite]

There is no defined legal age that you can leave children under English and Welsh law.

Its a judgement issue.

[Mrs H.]

Right well here is an effort to do something constructive to stop this madness and give BOF something to wave under the noses of the government.
SeanC has posted a link to the latest Rugby Union rules which say CRB checks should be made on

any person who has regular supervisory contact with young people

We can all accept that that is right and proper.
Lots of you have links with other sports - what do they say? See if you can find out how far they take the CRB checks. If we can prove that checking officials who have no supervisory responsibility for children is not required in other sports then BOF will be able to wave two finger at the Sports Council over controllers and organisers at least.

As for Welfare Officers - well no-one's actually going to voluneteer for that one are they - so just lump it in with the Club Coaches job and forget about it (because the truth of the matter is that any coach worth their salt should be doing that job anyway)

[guessed]

As for Welfare Officers - well no-one's actually going to voluneteer for that one are they - so just lump it in with the Club Coaches job and forget about it (because the truth of the matter is that any coach worth their salt should be doing that job anyway)

It should be someone *different* and *independent* from any other person likely to have an interface with the child or vulnerable person needing help from the Welfare Officer. Club Coaches are probably the persons most likely to be the cause for any need for Welfare - be it paedophilia or other forms of abuse. I would have thought the role was small enough to be handled at regional level (at least in in England).

[roadrunner]

Lots of you have links with other sports - what do they say?

Well, I know my running club requires CRB checks on all coaches, but so far as I know that is all - which is entirely reasonable and in line with what SeanC said about Rugby Union.

I don't agree that the impact of having to CRB-check organisers and even committee members (as the BOF minutes implied eventually - "JM suggested that to make it the norm all committee members are checked") would be a small amount of paperwork, though - it's hard to get people to do these jobs as it is, and they are often filled at short notice. If people had to be checked first, even if they agreed to this, the procedure would almost certainly take too long (especially for committee posts, for which my club normally takes nominations at the AGM or we wouldn't get anyone).

I noticed another item in the minutes:

The Federation needs to sell the whole idea of Child Protection to the membership

Why? Surely if the membership doesn't see it as necessary, then BOF should reflect that view rather than trying to impose on the members something which (as it appears to recognise) will not be well-received.

[Tatty]

But who is going to have to pay for it? The clubs or BOF?

[seabird]

There is no defined legal age that you can leave children under English and Welsh law.

Its a judgement issue.

But amazingly the NSPCC recommend that children under 13 should always be supervised.

Following that guidance would certainly have messed up my childhood and that of my children.

Early on in this thread there was a comment about the perceived absurdity of Organiser's of informal events having to be CRB checked.

In reality this is possibly the area in which we are most vulnerable. C5 organiser's often work alone, in public parks, with events designed to attract newcomers.

Some years ago, pre CRB, a child sex offender, whose offending was known to his club, and who was recently released from prison was set up as an organiser of a C5 in a local park hereabouts, until the local council got wind and took appropriate steps to stop him performing this role. We orienteers were clearly not very good at self-regulation.

I agree CRB checks should not give us a false sense of security, but they can at least worm out known dangers.

[lincolnsteve]

Despite some of the negative comments posted here I feel that BOF are right to bring up the discussions of CRB checks to event officials and committee members but I would say that CRB checks alone are not enough to safeguard vulnerable members (I say "vulnerable" rather than "children" as we must remember disabled people can be at risk just as easily)

BOF as a governing body have a duty to protect all of its members and by failing to do so would be totally appalling, The government (rightly or wrongly) have set guidelines & good working practices for organisations to follow and as we are all part of BOF we must respect this.

Why should committee members & officials be checked you ask? Imagine the press headlines “Paedophile Runs Kids Sports Club� splashed all over the front pages of the Sun when an incident occurs and the press go digging into club affairs. It would be devastating to the sport as a whole as well as to the club. It would be much easier if the club can repel any suggestion by saying it has carried out a check on its members and assessed them before they take on their committee posts or official roles. Obviously this is not fool proof but its a lot better than saying to that friendly reporter that the club have done nothing to protect its vulnerable members.

I agree with comments that a CRB check will only bring up a persons past, it wont finger someone who has not been caught but it’s a tool to be used and I would hope that a club and the NGB would not just use a CRB check to vet its coaches & officials. Mrs H probably made the most relevant observation in that a parents judgement is one of the best tools a sport has and should use. Parents feelings, CRB checks, sensible coaching principles and the club in general keeping a close eye on its members should all be used to keep on the look out for suspect members.

Kitch made the comment about culture changes:
“we should move from a culture of open trust and friendly relationships that gets stuff done with the minimum of fuss and the maximum of satisfaction all round to a culture of regulation, management and beurocracy where everything is a headache and a pain in the arse - in triplicate.�

I totally agree with that but unfortunately we are now in an age where we have to be seen to be pro active. Answer this (look from an outsiders point of view): If you were a parent looking at bringing your family into orienteering for the first time and there were press headlines & articles saying that clubs and the NGB did not check its members or take child protection seriously would you want your kids to go into that environment? How can we show new comers we are a serious sport if we choose not to protect our vulnerable members.

I said at the start of this post that I feel BOF are right to look into this but that does not mean I agree with all or part of it, I merely understand why they have to do this and hope you guys can too. We have to be seen to take this matter seriously and if we need to change to adopt this then we will just have to accept it and all work together to make it as easy as possible (rather than just b!tch about it). At the end of the day no two cases are going to be the same but if we can show the rest of the world that we have in place a system that assess any risks that arise or prevents a risk in the first instance and show we can deal with them appropriately then surly that can only be a good thing for the sport.

[Kitch]

be it paedophilia or other forms of abuse.

what, like being encouraged to do hill reps until you puke ?
This happened to me as a junior under the supervision / encouragement of the one of the most respected people in orienteering. What if some clueless do-gooder were to decide this was abuse ?
Its not, its just damn hard training - for which read pain and suffering.

Who decides.

I accept that orienteering needs to take necessary steps - but the minutes imply an unquestioing blanket approach that will clearly piss off innumerable people.
That is the lazy approach the unimaginative and stupid approach. Orienteering has to strike the right balance - a very light balance.
My brother in-law's archery club refuses to take child members as a result of child protection issues - because they just see the whole thing as an utter pain, due to heavy handed imposition of regulations.

I brought up Svejk for a reason. Svejk is a soldier, he follows orders, he follows them to their ridiculous conclusion. He does this because he is treated as an idiot, his superiors believe he has to be instructed in everything he does, that he is not capable of thinking for himself. So treated as an idiot lives up to the expectations of his superiors -he follows orders and does so unquestioningly - he is a true subversive. He brings the army to its knees because when people are not allowed to use their own judgement and inteligence, when one person believes they have the answer to everything and that everyone else just needs to do as they are told then nothing works.
I see this at work - we have been through a few years of excessive process, beurocracy and "governance". everything slowed down. Fortunately we have good directors and the tide is now turning back to common sense, trust and empowerment.
While this was going on alot of smart people put up with it - because they get paid. Will volunteers and participants in a sport - their passtime, their free time - put up with it ?

[Harley]

I'm sorry to put it like this, but I think Lincolnsteve has lost the plot and gone as barmy as BOF.

There is absolutely no way that any activity can be made risk free. We all have to accept a certain amount of risk in our lives.
However, in terms of making a reasonable reduction of risks to vulnerable people, then CRB checking those who have privileged access to vulnerable people, i.e. checking coaches and tour helpers, seems sensible and reasonable and sufficient for those who would scrutinse what we do.
But it is absolutely unreasonable to expect anybody who is merely in the same public space as a vulnerable person to be checked just in case something untoward might happen. Where would that lead us? All competitors would have to be checked. We would only be allowed to compete in spaces hermetically sealed from the unchecked general public.

Let’s get real - there is a balance of risks here. The risk of not CRB checking all and sundry is that something might happen – well it might happen anyway, CRB check or not, and in reality the risk is very small, so in effect there is not much of an increased risk from this course of action.
On the other hand, the risks of demanding a CRB check on all officials, irrespective of their privileged access status is that the sport (and other sports) will die from lack of volunteers and children and adults alike will be deprived of those activities which will help them lead a healthy lifestyle. This risk is real and significant.

In short we are faced with a choice of either spending lots of money to reduce an already small risk by a very small amount and possibly losing our sport, or keeping things as they are and having the guts to stand up and argue that what we are doing is resonable.
I vote that we stick two fingers up to those petty bureaucrats who would spoil our fun just so they can have something to do.

[lincolnsteve]

There is a real risk of this causing a drop in volunteers, that I agree with and I’m not for one minute suggesting that BOF or anyone else CRB checks the whole federation, we can all agree that coaches do need to be checked very thoroughly (CRB and any other means possible) and that there are positions that do not need to be checked. We do however have an obligation to review the whole federation and discuss, as we are doing now, which roles need more scrutiny and which do not. This is where I think BOF are right to bring up the discussion about committee members and controllers etc. As it is stated in the minutes there will be a steering group set up, hopefully this will review all areas of the sport and make the appropriate decisions on which areas need to be better supervised and which areas do not. At the end of this we will be able to say yes we have reviewed all areas, we do feel it is necessary for coaches to be thoroughly checked “because� they have very direct contact with venerable people however we feel controllers do not need to be checked “because� they do not come into contact with vulnerable people (put very basically) this shows everyone that we have looked at the risked posed by all officials and make appropriate decisions on why to check certain individuals and why we are not checking others.

It would be totally inappropriate for us to say that a certain role does not need to be checked because it costs too much or there is too much time involved just to cover a small risk, because there is a risk we have a duty to review and account for the actions we chose to take or not take.

I hope we can continue to put constructive criticism into this debate as it is a very serious subject and as a group hopefully we can help BOF make the right decisions that are in the best interests of the federation, are the most practical while protecting the people within it.