management committee minutes

[Paul Frost]

Everyone seems to think that being CRB checked means you are safe to be around kids.
As far as I can see, all it means is that you haven't been caught yet!

[ratleikur]

CRB - cursed regulating bureaucrats???

[Adventure Racer]

There is now a requirement for Club Welfare officers

What exactly do they plan to do about that one? Will clubs be mandated to have a welfare officer, and be refused permission to organise events, or worse yet for people to run under their banner if they don't comply?

Or can we simply have a Welfare Officer position on the committee and not worry too much if it remains unfilled due to nobody being foolish enough to volunteer (assuming there is nobody in your club who would relish such a job )?

[Bill]

Let's be clear where this has come from - not a BOF plot but government regulation.

Media treatment of a few atypical incidents has driven a political response. The impact on volunteers who are organising sporting events is not of interest to politicians who want to be seen as acting in the public interest.

If you want to influence this, write a reasoned argument to your MP.

Bill

[Adventure Racer]

You mean the government don't read Nopesport?

[PorkyFatBoy]

not a BOF plot but government regulation.

Not sure that I agree. My understanding is that it is those who work/supervise children/vulnerable adults in a place of trust, and on there own that should be CRB checked.

How this could be interpreted as a requirement for organisers/controllers to be checked is a little baffling. Once again, poorly drafted legislation is being left to be interpreted in a plethora of ways. Surely no-one would disagree that CRB checks for those who work closely with children (and for O, that's probably only coaches and forest helpers at the Schools Champs), but it is a case of realistically drawing the line somewhere that is practical for the sport to continue. After all, most competitors could be alone in the forest at some point with children So should all competitors be checked, including the teenagers?

So whilst it is government legislation that we are adopting, since there are no clean guidelines, then the manner in which it is adopted is a BOF responsibility.

(I am CRB checked btw)

[Mrs H.]

There is definitely a precedent for surposing that BOF are being over-zealous with their interpretation of the governments strictures.

When I challenged BOF over their directive that I should not identify youngsters in the photos I used in the club magazine they said that was what the CPSU had said and it wasn't their fault.

so when I went direct to the CPSU and asked if it was true that I could not use names on pictures they said it was actually OK as the magazine was going to indentifiable recipients - ie members and subscribers. BOF were definitely over-egging the pudding on that one and i wondered whether they had ever actually bothered to ask that question point blank or just assumed the answer.

...and of course local newspapers will have none of it. They won't carry the story if you wont identify the youngsters in the picture - good for them. There is a world of difference between local and national newspapers. There is another picture of happy smiling identified MADO juniors in the Gazette today (including Lumpy's youngest daughter)

[Crispy]

Just my two penn'orth.

I think it is absolutely justified to CRB check those whose work brings then into direct and regular contact with youngsters - coaches, teachers, tour leaders etc, as Mrs H says, those in loco parentis. It's a nonsense, however, to suggest that those who organise or control events should be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

What's next, we'll be asking shopkeepers to be CRB checked, because we can't risk anyone dodgy being in contact with our children and selling them their cans of coke and crisps?

Barmy!!

[Kitch]

Bill[/quote]

Yes,
and I'd like to make it clear that my rantings are not directed at BOF or any of the comittee members -
I appreciate that they are having things foisted upon them.

It would probably help us out here if the minutes did provide some context / background.

I hope that BOF will not just blindly accept but will work hard with them to really examine the necessity and to minimise any compliance required.

But that won't be the easy route.


Mrs H
have you ever read The Good Soldier Svejk ?

[ratleikur]

As far as I can see virtually all risk to kids fits into 2 groups
1. from an opportunistic stranger - very rare (at least compared to the number of kids killed or injured in road accidents every year) and virtually unpreventable unless kids are placed under house arrest and only let out with body guards. Even if every official and competitor was CRB checked, most O areas are public areas anyway.
2. from people in a postion of trust or authority building up a relationship of trust with a child and then using that relationship in an abusive way. In this case there is an argument for CRB checks eg for junior coaches, but I hardly think it can apply to controllers or event marshalls.

What on earth is a welfare officer - is there a job description?

[Mrs H.]

Mrs H
have you ever read The Good Soldier Svejk ?

no - but I will if i can find a copy and you think I should.

The thing about CRB checks which really worries me is the point that Paul Frost made - they are sky hooks - they prove nothing and yet parents are being led to believe that the person checked is safe and even to a certain extent suitable.

A CRB checked person is as likely as anyone else to be entirely unsuitable for taking responsiblity for young people, They may also be a peadophile or a pervert who hasn't been caught or who is using a different name.

There is absolutely no substitute for parents using their judgement and instinct on who they give responsibility for their children to and they are by far and away the best qualified people to make that decision - and ultimately they must take the responsibility for that decision.

The government seems hell bent on telling us how to bring up our children and all that happens is that parents feel they need to take less and less responsibility themselves because someone else is doing it for them. The unfortunate results of that are all to obvious.

I wonder when we shall see the first case of someone suing the government ( or a sports NGB) when a CRB checked person abuses a youngster.

I continue to be concerned about

we now need to change the culture of orienteering.

who is "we"? We are repeatedly told that BOF is us - the members - are we the members clamouring to change the culture of oriteeering and if so - what do we want to change the culture to - perhaps it is time to decide so we can inform our officers what direction we would like this culture change to move in.

[Klebe]

Just started a thread on Mad Britain in Banter prompted by this discussion. (It didn't seem appropriate to put it on this thread)

[Kitch]

Oh, you would enjoy it
its by Jaroslav Hacek

[Blanka]

Jaroslav Hacek

I know this is totally off-topic, but it's actually Jaroslav HaSek...

[ifititches]

agree it's a good read (the good soldier....)

when postings on nopesport began to mention child protection a couple of years back I had a search through the history of it. (had also done level 3 training on same course as lot of outdoor centre instructors for whom this was a major topic)

The website
http://www.aala.org/lymebay01.html
actually gives a very good (but long)summary of what started to happen after Lyme Bay, and it's clear that the govt and HSE were not minded to go for legislation , but were pushed by a press and public campaign (and the judge's ruling) to do so. All of us would have sympathy with the parents of the children who died there, and understand their wish for nothing similar to happen again, but I don't think they could have anticipated the life this took on subsquently.

Although Lyme Bay was not about child sexual abuse, my recollection is that it then crossed paths with several revelations of child sexual abuse in sport (most notably swimming) other young peoples' organisations, and also by clergy. Again, no-one would wish this on any child or family if it could be prevented. Some people see legislation as the answer, and they campaigned for interventions and regulation; a lot more of us see open and trusting discussion with our children as being more valuable. But it's amazing how many families don't have those conversations, and prefer to try and legislate away the difficult issues, and their campaigns make the headlines

Trying to bring up young children in the tradition in which I had been brought up, my impression was that Lyme Bay and child sexual abuse in sport just rolled into a massive legislative snowball, fuelled by high profile court cases, and press coverage thereof. The press are not to blame for that, because these incidents make strong stories which will sell newspapers, but a lot of doors of opportunity enjoyed by previous generations appeared to close in my childrens' faces. Fortunately we're a family (as I'm sure you all are) who are very well able to self-generate adventurous activity.

Any legislation pushed through in circumstances of high public pressure seems to end up faulty, not necessarily because of bad drafting originally, but because of politicians jumping onto bandwagons that will give them maximum publicity and influence elections. It's a real shame for the people who were genuinely and terribly affected by the disregard for safety and the abuse of power that they now read that it's reduced childrens' sporting activity and adventure.

Final comment, for which I expect some will regard me as a pedant,but I don't think the term (? euphemism) "kiddy fiddling" actually helps in these discussions. It's the same as describing deliberately setting fire to something and endangering life (ie arson) as "torching " which sounds less serious and like a bit of medieval fun.

Rant over!