management committee minutes

[Ed]

Are we happy to have a paedophile acting as the organiser of our event? Surely we should take steps to make sure we don't have that situation.

so long as they're competent to get the permissions, arrange car parking, portaloos, etc. I don't see how they're posing a risk, and therefore why not? you might as well ask whether we're happy to have an estate agent as the organiser of an event.

ok, if it was a schools or junior-focussed event you probably want to question their motives and look for someone else, but does an event organiser ever have direct unsupervised contact with the competitors?

Are we prepared to have a known paedophile in our sport? The government wants these people in the community.... but in our back yard?

maybe we need a rent-a-mob at the car park gate waving a "paedophiles go home" banner, just in case?

[Mrs H.]

Well said Ed - I think RJ is making a dangerous connection anyway between people who arn't checked and known peadophiles (It's not going to be the known ones who pose the threat anyway is it ) This is all getting a bit nazi-style for my liking - that is the whole problem - and as for drink driving convictions. If it's on your licence you probably couldn't hire a mini bus any way - and if it's so old as to be allowed to be removed - well it's no-one elses business is it. should we check club treasurers to make sure they've never been over drawn?

RJ - you say you want to double the number of people who orienteer and yet you would make it harder to put on the very events that would do that - I have more than trebled the number of orienteers round here without a CRB check in sight - something I would not have been able to do if this measure was adopted - perhaps it's time for you decide which side of the fence your on. The only really safe orienteering event is no event at all! Is that what you want?

You're going to say "how would you feel if a child at one of your events was molested by a volunteer" I would be very upset - probably just as |I would if they'd been struck by lightning, fallen over and broken their neck or died of a previous undetected heart defect - the likelyhood is probably about the same - perhaps I should instigate rough ground surveys on all courses and medicals for all competitors.

The points in Ifit's lengthy post only apply to those with direct contact to children - none of it is in dispute. It's just clouding the issue.

[RJ]

Are we happy to have a paedophile acting as the organiser of our event? Surely we should take steps to make sure we don't have that situation.

so long as they're competent to get the permissions, arrange car parking, portaloos, etc. I don't see how they're posing a risk, and therefore why not? you might as well ask whether we're happy to have an estate agent as the organiser of an event.

But CRBs were brought in precisely because 'the general public' are not happy about paedophiles being involved around children. Our sport is special because children are out in the forest on their own. If we can remove the risk.... we should.

If you screen people for one sort of event (ie. schools) then it surely applies for all other events?

If 'the general public' are assured that we DO take this seriously then they are MORE likely to give the sport a go, not less.

[Adventure Racer]

But CRBs were brought in precisely because 'the general public' are not happy about paedophiles being involved around children. Our sport is special because children are out in the forest on their own. If we can remove the risk.... we should.

Planners/organisers/controllers have no more unsupervised access to children than does any person taking part in the event (or any member of the general public who happens to be walking in the woods when the event is on). So on that basis should we be screening every member of our orienteering clubs and not letting paedophiles take part in our sport at all? Oh, and no EOD for non-club members without a CRB form.

Otherwise, what you're suggesting is simply "we must do something, this is something, let's do it", and I'd really rather that sort of attitude was left to politicians.

[PorkyFatBoy]

If we can remove the risk.... we should.

Life is full of risks. That is the fun of it. I don't think we can ever fully remove all the risks of paedophilia at an orienteering event. We have to take a view of what is reasonable care. As it says on the event flyers "competitors take part at their own risk"

[Ed]

But CRBs were brought in precisely because 'the general public' are not happy about paedophiles being involved around children. Our sport is special because children are out in the forest on their own. If we can remove the risk.... we should.

In which case I suggest that we should therefore *encourage* any paedophiles in the sport to be event organisers - the more time they're in the assembly area organising, the less time they're in the forest...

as previously asked, how is a normal event organiser 'involved around children'?

[Kitch]

Otherwise, what you're suggesting is simply "we must do something, this is something, let's do it", and I'd really rather that sort of attitude was left to politicians.

please tell me you were being ironic

[HOCOLITE]

RJ - you say you want to double the number of people who orienteer and yet you would make it harder to put on the very events that would do that - I have more than trebled the number of orienteers round here without a CRB check in sight - something I would not have been able to do if this measure was adopted - perhaps it's time for you decide which side of the fence your on. The only really safe orienteering event is no event at all! Is that what you want?

Just to put it straight the over 18 coaches at MADO are CRB checked, but the under 18's are not as that doesn't seem to be a requirement. However there is a senior coach about so they can practice their qualifications. However what about BOF tours, are the control hangers etc CRB checked, I don't know I've never thought to ask. I was a little concerned when I heard that one coaches CRB was not upto date, but that is another story and the problem is not to do with paedophilia in any way.

[Adventure Racer]

Otherwise, what you're suggesting is simply "we must do something, this is something, let's do it", and I'd really rather that sort of attitude was left to politicians.

please tell me you were being ironic

Whilst I'd rather politicians didn't do it either, they seem to be a lost cause (unless I've totally misunderstood your point!)

[ifititches]

sorry for the lengthy replies

the original question is based on a very brief mention in management minutes. I'm not aware that we know why the question came up there, but my guess would be that there's either been some potential cause for concern (hope not) or, possibly, the general public, schools etc, don't understand (and why should they?) how little contact we think organisers/controllers etc have with junior competitors. Don't think this question can just have dropped out of the clear blue heavens.

I could understand that a school, or youth group, highly aware of child protection, might get an invite from a local firendly orienteering club event organiser. It would not be unnatural for the school/youth group to ask if all child protection measures were in place. If a lengthy explanation ensues each time about how orienteering event organisers aren't really in contact with children, an opportunity may have been lost for children to participate. So, maybe avoid this by asking for CRB etc as routine. Stress this is highly hypothetical, and off top of my head!

Presume these are the sort of questions the steering group has got to address; my good wishes and thanks go to anyone who's volunteered to be on the group. It will be very sad if people are lost to the roles because they feel this is one step too far.

[Harley]

RJ Wrote:

Are we prepared to have a known paedophile in our sport? The government wants these people in the community.... but in our back yard? Are we happy to have a paedophile acting as the organiser of our event? Surely we should take steps to make sure we don't have that situation.

This extreme attitude to risk aversion has just two solutions - any other would appear to still pose an unacceptable element of risk in RJ's eyes. These are:
i) we keep all paedophiles locked up forever, just in case they come contact with children, be it in the forest or, more likely, in the street or shopping centre.
ii) make our sport an adult only sport - thus obviating the need for CRB checks and the need to get stressed about having paedophiles in our sport.

We need to get the risks in proportion. As Mrs H alluded earlier, the greatest risk in our sport is from physical injuries. If we apply RJ's stance on risk reduction to this factor then we will end up reducing the sport to 'armchair O' - would that make you happy RJ? In which case, just make sure you use a blunt pencil and don't spill your cocoa in your lap!

[johnloguk]

BOF is right to look at this area as it is clearly an emotive one, both in society at large and on this forum. But there are several elements to this that worry me a lot.

The use of words like "paedophile" and "sex offender" as though they are totally interchangeable is wrong. There are many different types of sex offender, from predatory paedophiles at one end, who are highly dangerous individuals and who almost certainly cannot be treated in any shape or form, to people with one offence who are highly unlikely to re-offend as their offence was very specific and most often within their own family.

Most sex offenders can be and are "treated", despite what the tabloid press would have us believe. Apart from the dangerous predatory paedophiles they also have a very very low re-offending rate.

We can CRB check all event officials and volunteers, without doubt making them harder to find in the process, but we can't CRB check all the people in the wood that day as many have pointed out. Not to mention everyone that walks down the road, shops etc where our children might bump into them.

Since CRB checks came in there have been about 2500 innocent people wrongly flagged up as dangerous. By definition there must be a similar number of sex offenders who are wrongly flagged up as safe, hence the system isn't watertight anyway.

The CRB check is only a snapshot in time, and unless you get caught you'll never show up on one anyway. Sadly the really dangerous paedophiles know how to avoid getting caught, mainly by only targetting kids they "know" won't say anything.

I agree with the people who simply say you cannot make anything in life risk free. It would be horrible if a child was abused while taking part in an orienteering event, but is there any evidence at all that this has ever happened? They are far more at risk travelling to events by car or tripping and getting injured in the forest, should we avoid those risks too?

But my worst fear when any organisation starts to go down this road is that at the end of the day they are only doing it to cover their own backs. Far be it from me to suggest that BOF are doing this, their intentions may well be honourable, but in this horrble climate of litigation that we have inherited from the US I suspect that it is a major factor. Just imagine that awful scenario of a child being abused in the forest at an orienteering event, but at least someone at BOF could say "we insisted that all our people were CRB checked so our conscience is clear (oh and don't bother trying to sue us)".

I think Gross said "its all crap", well I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think we should look at the evidence, balance likely risk and not knee jerk our way to tabloid madness like people are prone to do these days.

[Jon Brooke]

ifititches said

If a lengthy explanation ensues each time about how orienteering event organisers aren't really in contact with children, an opportunity may have been lost for children to participate. So, maybe avoid this by asking for CRB etc as routine.

To my mind this is not a million miles away from "Everyone should carry a card round their neck at all times with their current CRB status on it."

Which in a utopian land might not be such a bad idea (so long as you don't mind totally stigmatising those who fail and never allow them space to make amends / alter theri behaviour / regain acceptance into society etc.) However, as we all know our government/society is just crap at implementing these kinds of widescale information systems to monitor / track / modify behaviour (maybe with the exception of the TV license) so the number of miscarriages of justice would then far outweigh the good being done.

If CRBs are used sparingly then there is probably a better chance that they will be effective as the system won't be under such strain. So I'm afraid that covering ones arse is not the neutral measure suggested.

[Adventure Racer]

It would not be unnatural for the school/youth group to ask if all child protection measures were in place. If a lengthy explanation ensues each time about how orienteering event organisers aren't really in contact with children, an opportunity may have been lost for children to participate. So, maybe avoid this by asking for CRB etc as routine.

I think you maybe cut the most important sentence, Jon. Surely it should be possible to answer yes to the question in the first sentence, if you've considered the necessity of having organisors / planners CRB checked and decided that it is unimportant? Or am I assuming more allowance for common sense than is actually possible in today's society?

[Gross]

[quote="Jon Brooke"]ifi
ering ones arse is not the neutral measure suggested.[/quo
T
afraid that covte]

so... coz I don't have one does that mean I'm not really an IOF elite conyroller or a BOF conteoller opr an SOA controler,,, ???? or should I try & get a clearance from overseas to control as UK eent?? Tell me how????