management committee minutes

[Jon Brooke]

Huh?

[seabird]

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?

No room for complacency here. Early on this thread I wrote of one of our number who in the late 1980s/early 1990s (can't remember which) was jailed for offences against children. At his trial evidence was presented that, as part of the grooming process, he took the children in question to orienteering events.

[Mrs H.]

Everyone here agrees that anyone who has charge of children should be CRB checked - it is simply not in dispute. but to suggest this goes further introduces a whole raft of implications which have not been thought through - the government all too often seems incapable of seeing - or possibly caring about - the long term effect of their knee jerk legislation.

As an example. Yesterday me and Mr H. were invited to a tea party at a garden which we have paid to enjoy for the past 18 years. We thought it was to mark an anniversary of their first opening.

It turned out it was the last time we shall have the privilege of seeing it as the owners cannot afford to meet new disable access rules.

now everyone agres that increased access for disabled people is essential wherever practicable, but because of the layout of this hill side garden it could not be accomplished without vast expense and - more importantly - changing the nature of the garden itself - so the upshot is that we are all of us to be denied the pleasure of visiting the garden (and the people involved are to be denied a certain amount of their livelyhood at they run a Chealsea Gold Medal winning nursery from the premises.

This is what I fear will happen in essence to orienteering - we have already been told we have to "change the culture of Orienteering" to meet the government's requirements and earn future funding - I don't think BOF Central have any choice in this.

OUR choice is whether we want our sport to go down that path at all and to change it's culture. Or whether we want to tell BOF Central to go back to the government and say - thanks but no thanks. We then of course have to think about ways to finance and administer our own destiny!

[seabird]

How much do we over-hype Government expectations and its likely impact on us?

Taking Mrs H's example, the following is taken from the relevant Government website.

"Under the DDA, it is unlawful for service providers to treat disabled people less favourably than other people for a reason related to their disability. Service providers now have to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them.

Examples of reasonable adjustments include:

installing an induction loop for people who are hearing impaired
giving the option to book tickets by email as well as by phone
providing disability awareness training for staff who have contact with the public
providing larger, well-defined signage for people with impaired vision
putting in a ramp at the entrance to a building instead of, or as well as, steps
What is considered a ‘reasonable adjustment’ for a large organisation like a bank may be different to a reasonable adjustment for a small local shop. It’s about what is practical in the service provider’s individual situation and what resources the business may have. They will not be required to make changes which are impractical or beyond their means.

Failure or refusal to provide a service that is offered to other people to a disabled person is discrimination unless it can be justified."


Although the final paragraph is forbidding, in reality the term "reasonable adjustment" is likely to be the most meaningful - along with "They (in this case the garden owners) will not be required to make changes which are impractical or beyond their means".

[Kitch]

"reasonable"

of course that seems very reasonable

but then some petty beurocrats wouldn't recognise reasonable if it slapped them in the face with a wet fish, which is where the whole world comes crashing down.
Jobsworths, beurocrats and bears of little brain.
Which is what makes it all so utterly, inconceivably, maddeningly, frustratingly, infuriatingly ironic.
The idiots are taking charge
The lunatics are taking over the asylum.

The world is insane.

Epiphany !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HOCOLITE]

We (that is our local council) had a big battle as their offices were upstairs in an oak beamed Market House, the officials presumably govt wanted a lift installed. The council had to go to the trouble and cost of getting plans etc drawn up, before the fact the building was listed and the lift would be totally out of character(it would have been external to the building due to the nature of the market house)was deemed to exclude the need. Councils have a little more expertise than individuals and small businesses who are intimidated by govt legislation.

[seabird]

[quote="Kitch"]"reasonable"

but then some petty beurocrats wouldn't recognise reasonable if it slapped them in the face with a wet fish, which is where the whole world comes crashing down.
Jobsworths, beurocrats and bears of little brain.
quote]

But look where we have got to with the laissez-faire approach. Scarcely anybody gives a thought about the needs of those less advantaged than themselves - unless of course there's an easy profit in it.

Government has a role in a providng a lead. Just as it does in encouraging us to face up to the risks involved re potential offenders against children. We didn't do much without the prompting of government - and there is an issue to be addressed.

Yes we need to find a reasonable (that word again) and workable balance - but it is hopelessly naive to believe that this is all the doing of interfering, cold-hearted bureaucrats, who would be better off leaving us to our own devices.

The word "reasonable" is in my experience used quite deliberately to allow debate and flexibility around a theme, rather than crushing everyone under the dead weight of totally prescriptive legislation.

[PKJ]

BBC 'Real Story' tonight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5164918.stm

Looks like CRB checks are generally seen as the answer - 'the authorities' have to be seen to be doing something.
And, I think 'bureaucrats' & officials (including BOF) are often in a very difficult position. Finding fault as a journalist is easy (bears with little brain), but making sensible decisions isn't.

[Harley]

All this OTT jobsworth interference in the sport I love got me thinking that I might find greater enjoyment in a more minority sport which did not attract bureaucratic interest, such as 'extreme ironing'.

- but then, in this insanely risk averse climate, which we have allowed to develop because we have compliantly just rolled over at every insidious blow to our liberty, I would probably find that my 'iron' requires an annual PAT certificate (personal appliance test, to those unfamiliar with local authority jargon!).

It is quite simply wrong to believe that just because there is a small risk that something could happen, then every effort should be made to reduce that risk. We must question every rule, regulation and guideline that attempts control what we do. Only those which are resonable, effective and largely beneficial should be tolerated. To do otherwise is to condemn each and every one of us to a life where we are always answerable to petty officals.

Lock up the bad guys and let the rest of us get on with life!
..... I don't believe I just said that - I thought I was a pinko liberal!

[King Penguin]

"Reasonable" ?

Another example - a canoe club who cannot have a first floor in their new clubhouse (the superstructure is designed to cater for one) without installing a lift capable of taking a wheelchair for the use of disabled people. Storage / changing / toilets / showers / kitchen will all be downstairs anyway but because they can't afford the lift the club cannot have an additional room upstairs.

[Harley]

Me again!
Just read the story that PKJ mentions. My take on this is that as we already know, CRB checks will not pick up all such offenders. Clearly to even get a record they have to have commited an offence.

What is 'key' in these circumstances is to act on the 'grooming', which is in itself an offence. So, rather than waste effort on masses of unnecessary CRB checks, we should put processes in place which will allow 'grooming' to be reported and acted upon. Much of this will require us to use our common sense, look at what is happening around us and ask the appropriate questions, rather than saying 'oh, he/she's CRB checked so all that close contact in the thicket must be OK then'.

[Harley]

King Penquin

canoe club who cannot have a first floor in their new clubhouse

Were they getting funding for this, or were they paying for it themselves? I suspect this would make a difference as that barriers are probably set higher where public funds are involved.

[Oldman]

What is 'key' in these circumstances is to act on the 'grooming', which is in itself an offence. So, rather than waste effort on masses of unnecessary CRB checks, we should put processes in place which will allow 'grooming' to be reported and acted upon.

I have followed the MC minutes thread with interest, although it seems to me to be mostly about CRB checks and their necessity in orienteering rather than minutes.

Does Harley not argue the case very well for Club Welfare Officers, whose job, from my position of minimal knowledge, seems to be a key role in the process he says is necessary.

PS I am not changing my NopeSport nickname by prefixing it with "dirty"

[Harley]

Actually Oldman, I rather think parents have a key role to play here, by making sure that they have an open and honest relationship with their children whereupon they know what the child is doing and the child feels comfortable in expressing their feelings to the parent, and then the parent can take it up with the club/police. This is how you tackle grooming.

After all, most child abusers (apart from usually being known to the family) target vulnerable children who may not come from stable backgrounds. You could argue that in these circumstances the club needs a welfare officer to look after the interests of these vulnerable children - but hey, hold on a minute! we're a sports club not social services. The next thing you know a club will have to have 'trained' welfare officers, and if it doesn't have one, then what? perhaps BOF would remove the club from its list of affiliated clubs?

[Oldman]

Actually Oldman, I rather think parents have a key role to play here, by making sure that they have an open and honest relationship with their children whereupon they know what the child is doing and the child feels comfortable in expressing their feelings to the parent, and then the parent can take it up with the club/police. This is how you tackle grooming.

After all, most child abusers (apart from usually being known to the family) target vulnerable children who may not come from stable backgrounds. You could argue that in these circumstances the club needs a welfare officer to look after the interests of these vulnerable children - but hey, hold on a minute! we're a sports club not social services. The next thing you know a club will have to have 'trained' welfare officers, and if it doesn't have one, then what? perhaps BOF would remove the club from its list of affiliated clubs?

And to who in the Club would the parent report the suspicion or issue? Welfare Officer. And how would that Club person know what to do? Training!