Think of the children!

In message , Arthur Figgis writes

Fareham and District MRC have developed a policy document - have a look at:

Of course you could always Google for "legislation vulnerable people" - there is plenty to work from as a result.

Regards.

When our club was worried about it we made it a rule that the child's parents must also come along.

If the club I joined as a teenager had had that rule then I almost certainly wouldn't be involved in the hobby today.

Mark

Exactly. While I suspect a fair number of members would see that as a bonus and suggest the age for unaccompanied children be put at, say, 50 just to make sure, I'm not sure it is either sustainable or desirable to drive out people who can't always arrange to meet their mums on the way home from the office or work site or college.

Then there is issue of what constitutes a parent these days :-)

The only time my parents took me anywhere I had to find my own way home! Since crossing the thresh-hold into adult-hood (circa 30) I've always been welcome at any model railway club I've discovered, and been on the organising committees of most of them.

Greg.P. NZ

I agree, I would never have been a junior member of the local model club, nor get involved.

But, the current legislation is framed in a manner which makes "accompanied by parent/guardian" as pretty much the only sane option for a club, short of CRB checking all the adult club members (and keeping all the documentation showing its being done "correctly" by the legislation and best practice guidelines).

One does wonder where this is taking society.

- Nigel

That depends whether you think paedophilia is a relatively small problem whose importance to society is vastly overblown, or a very serious problem, the surface of which is visible but, as with an iceberg, much more is hidden from view.

Much child abuse takes place within the family, in the home. So maybe having children accompanied by parents or guardians to club meetings is not a good idea. Surely one reason for joining a club is to get away from the people you are with most of your out-of-school time?

CRB checks don't discover hidden paedophiles, they just check whether someone has a criminal record or not.

This is just another layer of ridiculous bureaucracy imposed on a system that was working well up to now.

Correct. "The system" was, I believe, a knee-jerk reaction to a specific case, and can never weed out the first time offender. As I recall things, the specific case involved a first time offender.

If someone is already a convicted offender, then the chances are "everyone" already knows who they are, and the system won't add anything to or about them!

PhilD

Hear hear!

As I understand the rules, as long as there is someone present at the club who has had a CRB check, that is all that is required. Anyone who is, or may be, left ALONE with a child must have had a CRB check. This is not only for their protection, but yours as well.

Unless you are giving them a lift to or from a club, it is extremely unlikely that a child would be left with only one member at a club. If they arrived before more than two other members arrived, then ask their parent to stay until someone else arrives.

However, it will be interesting to see if the Government does anything about this in their new legislation aimed at cutting the bureaucracy regarding school trips and the like.

Thank you for making it clear which side of the fence you are on.

As a parent who, on the one hand, naturally wants to protect his offspring from harm, and on the other, wishes to be able to photograph school events without any suggestion of an ulterior motive, I honestly don't know which side of the fence I am on. That's why I presented two contrasting views of the "problem".

I wish I could be as sure as you appear to be as to which one of them more accurately represents the situation.

How many paedophiles do you think there are in the UK, and how many of them do you believe pose an active threat? Rough figures, obviously.

Yes. Other forms of child abuse are far more common (Baby P, etc.)

Simply checking someone's criminal record does nothing to help. Did Vanessa George have a record? Was she in a position of trust?

It's knee jerk reaction to convince tabloid readers that something is being done. Just like banning guns after Dunblane and countless other bad laws.

MBQ

Dunno, but not as bad as the media would have you believe.

Theer was a study a while ago that showed that the rate of offences against children was no worse than it was 40 or 50 years ago. What has changed is the national media's appetite for lurid reporting, and the mob mentality amongst certain sections of the population.

MBQ

I'm not disputing this, but how does it protect the person who has had the CRB check? Surely it can't be "he can't possibly have abused that child because he's been CRB checked" - or is that the way "the system" thinks? It's also been pretty much proven that having a CRB check doesn't necessarily protect the child either.

Sign of the times I'm afraid the adults are afraid they could be labeled.

Not sure what point I am making but I started Fareham & District MRC back in the 60s aged 14

Paul

It could be a serious problem for the victims, but there are very few of those victims. A bit like murder - pretty serious if it is you, but not generally a good reason to hide under the bed and never go outside.

It seems odd if The Law really does cover 17 year olds (especially given you can marry them!).

As for being left alone with the kiddies, the problem is being able to guarantee it will /never/ happen; what happens if there are three people in the room, and one nips out to the loo? I think the problem we have is not that a passing priest will join just for the chance to grope a 17 year old trainspotter, but that some random innocent bloke might be left open to false accusations which they will never be able to shake off.