|
|
Post by Batchoy on Sept 11, 2009 17:03:14 GMT 1
I have been following all the stuff on the news today about the latest Vetting and Barring Scheme the government are bringing in and how parent how transpot other children or host exchange students would need vetting and I just wondered how this might affect the BKF. - Because we are a family friendly organisation does that mean all the adults have to be vetted because that are in close contact with other members children? (No more discos in Kev and Linda's awning unless they has chit from the government)
- Does that mean at events we can't go an help out children who are having problems with their kite unless we are ckecked or do we have to keep a record to show we are doing it less than three times a month?
- Does this mean the end of the childrens work shop at festivals unless we have enough checked members to staff it?
- Does this spell the end of family members, and the end of memberships for those under 16/18/21 or who are deemed vulnerable?
- What about the Kite Society will they have to pay for ISA checks for invited flyers since they pay appearance fees so thus employ the flyers?
Just some minor questions resulting from the lastest government wheeze. |
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 11, 2009 18:35:49 GMT 1
I have been following all the stuff on the news today I haven't but....... A while back I looked after all the CRB stuff for our local scout group. The bottom line was that serious checks weren't necessary unless people were going to have unsupervised one-to-one access to kiddies. For practical purposes, "unsupervised" means locked away in a room where you can't bee seen. What we do on kite fields, and kiddies workshops is fine. Or was when I was last formally advised of the state of play... |
|
|
|
Post by Batchoy on Sept 11, 2009 19:11:45 GMT 1
This new legislation seems to be more extreme, as I interpret this www.isa-gov.org.uk/PDF/283896_ISA_A4_FactSheetNo3.pdf any contact with children or vulnerable adults on more than 3 days in 30 when acting on behalf of an organisation means that you have to be ISA checked! So it could be interpreted that if attending serveral events during the summer as a BKF member that the BKF has designated as a club event for insurance purposes, and you regularly help children set up and fly their kites the BKF should require you to have been ISA checked or face a £5000 fine. Also the legislation does not seem to differentiate between joe publics kids and club members kids so when when Leng, RHW and other members look after each others kids, because they are club members at a club event they too could fall foul of this legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 11, 2009 20:20:11 GMT 1
This new legislation seems to be more extreme, as I interpret this www.isa-gov.org.uk/PDF/283896_ISA_A4_FactSheetNo3.pdf any contact with children or vulnerable adults on more than 3 days in 30 when acting on behalf of an organisation means that you have to be ISA checked! Not sure I agree with you on this one... I think the crux of the matter is the definitions of "regulated" and "controlled" activities. Also we're not employed by BKF - we are all volunteers.... (that complicates things) |
|
|
|
Post by captaingoldwing on Sept 11, 2009 20:48:59 GMT 1
thats ok im all ready CRB checked ,have to be for my job
|
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 11, 2009 21:43:23 GMT 1
thats ok im all ready CRB checked ,have to be for my job Beg to differ...... (sorry) A CRB check done for one purpose or employer isn't transferrable to another. Hundreds of teachers/social workers/already CRB checked people had to be done seperately as scout leaders. I know it's stupid - I don't make the rules..... |
|
|
|
Post by chairman on Sept 12, 2009 5:34:22 GMT 1
Thank you for your concerns Batchoy I am sorry not to have got back to you sooner. Because we are a family friendly organisation does that mean all the adults have to be vetted because that are in close contact with other members children? (No more discos in Kev and Linda's awning unless they has chit from the government) One thing that was asked on the radio last night was "If you get together with a group of friends and then take them to a football training session do you need cover for the said journeys?" which I think would cover Kevin and Linda's awning. The answer was no you do not need cover for that as it is not official. If however you then offer and it becomes part of your duties to transport the children from club house to match then the club would need to get an ISA. Does that mean at events we can't go an help out children who are having problems with their kite unless we are checked or do we have to keep a record to show we are doing it less than three times a month? This is one that will need to be clarified but I think that you would still be OK to carry on. as the 1st line of the policy states Any activity of a specified nature that
involves contact with children or vulnerable
adults frequently, intensively and/or
overnight. (Such activities include teaching,
training, care, supervision, advice, treatment
and transportation.) as this is normally a one off than we should not need to get ISA reports. Does this mean the end of the children's work shop at festivals unless we have enough checked members to staff it? Again I think we are covered in as much as we only run the odd workshop (at the festival for most of us which is well below the 3 day in 30 over the year. Does this spell the end of family members, and the end of memberships for those under 16/18/21 or who are deemed vulnerable? I don't think it would as I think unless we start taking these children away we are covered as there are cared for by their families while at the festivals not us as a club. What about the Kite Society will they have to pay for ISA checks for invited flyers since they pay appearance fees so thus employ the flyers? There is no direct contact between the flyers and the public and just putting on a display if it works the same as the CRB is not required. This was checked out when the CRB's 1st came about. All this is just my opinion and and as a club the committee will work with the official government and find out the line and how it effect us as an organisation. I believe this is something the BKFA has looked at and I will send them an e-mail to see if they have answers to some of your and in turn the clubs concerns. We will let the members know the official government replies when we have them but until then go out enjoy flying and promote what to all intense purposes is a fun and safe hobby. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by Batchoy on Sept 12, 2009 6:59:11 GMT 1
Thanks Simon, the devil is going to be in the detail, and even ministers and representatives of the ISA were being stumped by some of the unexpected consequences of this knee jerk legislation. The bit that annoys me over this is they keep citing Soham as the reason for this legislation, but Huntley was CRB checked, its just that the police had destryed the records because he had never been actually convicted of any offences, just suspected of carrying them out.
The problems as you say are with what they consider regular and intensive contact for example they cite shop workers as requiring checking for regulated activites.
My basic view is that anything that involves the club doing workshops for other organisations involving kids i.e. for the scouts or in schools individuals will be required to be checked, not necessarily because the law requires it but because the organisations will have a blanket policy just to cover their own arses. Bon-bons school already requires parents who go into school to be CRB checked and they are now getting twitchy over parents helping on one off events like school trips where they are looking after other peoples children not just their own.
One big grey area to my mind is the helping of kids at events where quite close phyisical contact can be involved, and by dint of wearing the club logo we are seen as representing the club. The question is then are our actions classed as being purely individual (no check required) or part of the club's activies (potentially a check required), and racking up 3 days in 30 is really easy during the summer, thats just one and a half weekend events or Portsmouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 12, 2009 7:26:43 GMT 1
not necessarily because the law requires it but because the organisations will have a blanket policy just to cover their own arses. You've hit the nail on the head there.... The last communication I had with the scout association was quite sensible about the matter. No formal check was needed on anyone unless the adult concerned would have unsupervised access to a child. For example - driving a carful of kids to and from somewhere didn't count as unsupervised because there was a carful of people. I'd suggest that if any organization is being silly about it, then that is their prerogative, and we as a club leave them to their silliness. |
|
|
|
Post by Batchoy on Sept 12, 2009 7:49:20 GMT 1
not necessarily because the law requires it but because the organisations will have a blanket policy just to cover their own arses. You've hit the nail on the head there.... The last communication I had with the scout association was quite sensible about the matter. No formal check was needed on anyone unless the adult concerned would have unsupervised access to a child. For example - driving a carful of kids to and from somewhere didn't count as unsupervised because there was a carful of people. I'd suggest that if any organization is being silly about it, then that is their prerogative, and we as a club leave them to their silliness. The problem is this new legislation does not appear to differentiate between supervised and unsupervised contact, which is that bit that has riled a number of authors who go into schools. Under the CRB scheme they didn't have to be checked because they supervised all the time they were there, under the new scheme the mere fact they are interacting with the children more than 3days in 30days means they need checking. Thus many have taken the the view that the Government has found all adults guilty of being peadophiles and is taxing them (£64 for employees and self employed, free for volunteers) to have themselves certified as innocent and are refusing to checked preferring to visit schools overseas where they are appreciated. The problem for Schools and other bodies is that they don't know how often individuals are interacting with children, an author may do one school visit a year or one a week, but the school has no way of proving this so they are likely to have blanket policies that anyone and everyone visiting the school must be ISA checked. I have a friend who works for a building maintence firm that has a contract with the the local education authority and they have been informed that because they are working on school premises during term time and thus come into contact with the children they will need to be ISA checked. Following this train of thought, if Charlotte were to attend John Browning's Bee workshop to make some of his Bees the club should be checking to see if John has been ISA checked. |
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 13, 2009 0:03:44 GMT 1
Thus many have taken the the view that the Government has found all adults guilty of being peadophiles and is taxing them (£64 for employees and self employed, free for volunteers) to have themselves certified as innocent and are refusing to checked preferring to visit schools overseas where they are appreciated. Personally I think this is the line to take. The paranoia surrounding being within a hundred yards of a child is getting out of hand, and we shouldn't encourage it..... |
|
|
|
Post by captaingoldwing on Sept 13, 2009 21:18:33 GMT 1
but being a coach driver i deal with many schools,colleges ,organisations, in many areas and countys where i have too be . plus being an Officer in the ACF i have to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by MankyBadger on Sept 13, 2009 22:26:26 GMT 1
but being a coach driver i deal with many schools,colleges ,organisations, in many areas and countys where i have too be . plus being an Officer in the ACF i have to be. Being a coach driver, you do. Or you don't get paid. Does you union have a stance on the matter? But anything voluntary is different. If there is legislation requiring us to be checked, then maybe. However if schools etc have their silly rules because they don't understand legislation then as far as the club goes, I really think that we shouldn't bother. And when schools, etc ask for workshops, we tell them we will do kites, but we aren't playing silly political games. |
|
