[modeleng] Re: Giving rides to small children
- From: "Ron Head" <ron.head@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:54:36 +0100
Hi Mike
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that my club doesn’t take the Child
Protection Act seriously. In fact the reverse is true. We spent a large
proportion of our last committee meeting discussing the implications of the
act and our response to the Southern Federation’s guidelines.
Before going any further, let me say that we do appreciate the hard work
undertaken by the Southern Federation and its officials (your good self
included) to enable us to enjoy our hobby in safety. Preparing a document on
such a sensitive subject must have been a thankless task for all involved.
Now to the reasons for our stance. We decided not to contact the local
Social Services department, because this could open up a whole can of worms.
They would probably act defensively and ask for a CRB check on all of the
individuals involved in the running of the railway. It is not possible to
say definitively who will be in attendance on any particular running day, so
this could potentially result in the whole of our adult membership being
subject to CRB checks. There is no way that our club could afford to pay for
this, and it is most unlikely that any individuals would offer to pay for
their own checks.
Our club has suffered from a loss of membership following a general
tightening up of our rules over the last few years. Indeed, at the recent
Southern Federation rally, one of our ex-members was heard to be telling
everyone that he left our club because he has enough rules to follow in his
full-time employment, and at weekends he just wants to play trains and enjoy
himself without impediment. (The fact that he now belongs to another club
not far away from us, reflects rather badly on their standards!). Whilst we
can perhaps do without people like this, we have no desire to drive further
members away.
Let me explain what I meant by "carry on as normal". Young children are
invariably accompanied by their parents, and older children are quite
capable of getting on and off the trains unassisted. It is not usually
necessary for us to physically handle children, unless the parent
specifically requests it, or if a dangerous situation has to be prevented.
Our members are generally well aware of the risks and make a point of
avoiding contact if at all possible. For this reason we do not generally
carry guards on our trains, and make sure that small children have their
parents sitting directly behind them. The general feeling of our members is
that it’s US that need protecting from THEM, some of whom can be very unruly
at times!
I will be writing on this subject in our Winter club magazine, but I think
it’s unlikely that we will make any changes to our rules.
Regards
Ron Head
City of Oxford S.M.E.
UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Leahy" <heisler9-modeleng2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <modeleng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:43 PM
Subject: [modeleng] Re: Giving rides to small children
> Ron Head wrote on 10/10/05 9:30 pm:
>
>> We reviewed the information sheet at my club, decided it was nannyism
>> gone
>> mad, and that we would carry on as normal.
>>
>>
> Hi Ron
>
> I'm surprised that your most revered club has chosen to adopt the stance
> you state.
>
> The guidelines are just that 'guidelines' and are there to help clubs in
> respect of this touchy subject. All most clubs need to do is to carry on
> as
> normal. The model engineering fraternity consists of the most reasonable,
> rational, sane and well-adjusted members of society (now that's sticking
> my
> head above the parapet ;->) and we usually don't step outside what are to
> be
> considered the normal mores of life. (Except for grown men playing
> trains!)
>
> You will see in the Southern Federation News that went out at the same
> time
> as the guidelines that our insurers have recently added an exclusion
> clause
> to our insurance cover, regarding abuse, because of possible claims
> arising
> from this very subject. So if any club was to have a claim made against
> them
> for abuse (the meaning is also defined in the same note) then the club
> could
> find itself out on a limb, particularly if it was proven that it had
> chosen
> to ignore taking reasonable precautions. At the very least make your
> members
> aware of its content.
>
> Bye-the-way, the exclusion is not a cost reduction exercise by our
> insurers
> but a fact that abuse it is actually illegal and insurers do not normally
> cover illegalities.
>
>
>> We haven't had any paedophiles
>> in our 50-year history, and if we did they would soon be drummed out of
>> the
>> club.
>
> Are you sure???? I am aware of one club that did a CRB check and three
> members came with, shall we say, irregularities. A member of another club
> was traced as receiving nasty images over the internet.
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Mike Leahy
> South Ockendon UK
>
>
>
> MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
> modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject
> line.
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/129 - Release Date:
> 11/10/2005
>
MODEL ENGINEERING DISCUSSION LIST.
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, send a blank email to,
modeleng-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
Other related posts:
