Events / Shows - Risk Assessment and Child Protection

I've just had a long but very (very) interesting chat with a Police officer regarding certain 'things' that have happened over the last year or so (this comment made without wanting to resurrect any previous threads - please).

One of the areas which many police forces are becoming increasingly concerned about in terms of child protection is the 'annual gathering' of likeminded souls (such as Landie shows).

Police feel that there is often a false sense of security at such events born of the experience that 'nothing has happened in the past'.

This raises interesting and challenging questions as to how a balance may be achieved which maintains the informality and 'fun' of such events whilst best protecting children from harm.

I made my thoughts clear on this

formatting link
some time ago, and also once muted the idea of contacting show organisers directly. It is this last strategy which I'd like to explore a little further, however - I'm obviously somewhat 'close' to the issue so thought I'd bounce it around a bit here first.

I'd like to see all show organisers writing into their Risk Assessment and show informational literature clear yet concise, non-alarming warnings that it may not always be a good idea to let children roam unattended. I'd also like to see individual clubs making their members aware of the potential dangers - again, in a way that does not cause undue concern or panic.

Given that I am probably not the best person to 'start a campaign', would others care to help pass on the message, maybe ask your own club if they'd mind placing such a note in the club magazine?

I'd also guess that a few unconnected letters to show organisers asking them to take such issues on board in a sensitive manner would not go amiss - anyone care to write such a letter?

Reply to
Mother
Loading thread data ...

Is it really necessary to add warnings to literature? I'd have thought that most people with kids (and those without!) nowadays would be fully aware of the risks. Theres something on the TV/news about it seemingly every other day or so.

10-15 years ago when i used to 'go out to play' i was aware of the dont talk to/go anywhere with strangers stuff. I'd have thought it would be even more stressed now. Kids today seem to know a lot more than I did when i was young, so i recon most of them understand the risks pretty well themselves now. Its not hard to see how they could pick things up from TV and the media.

We'll be carrying CRB certificates round like passports soon.

Reply to
Tom Woods

I think that taking a quick look around any of the Landie shows will demonstrate that the message is hidden by the 'false security' parents feel at such events. I do think there needs to be a balance between the informal/social nature of shows and being paranoid. Enabling parents to be aware that events are open to abuse by those seeking free and easy access to children may not sound like much fun, but best not make it easier for abusers by being complacent.

Reply to
Mother

Its that 'holiday' atmosphere that they have that does it. There are loose children when you go on holiday (there was when i last went anyway). I suppose that a 'dont leave your children unnattended' notice in the same sort of context as the 'dont leave your car unlocked/valubles in your car' notices that you get on parking tickets, entrance notices and signs in car parks would only be a good thing.

I'm just worried the balance will too easily shift onto the paranoid side of it. As someone who does scouting stuff, and works in schools I've had to fill in and sign a very large number of forms and things. Yes it is necessary, but it does get a bit much.

Youre not even supposed to go to any scounting events (even those which are only going to be attended by people aged 18+) without a CRB form. We've never had them checked before (its just been there as a disclaimer), but i wouldnt be surprised if sometime this year or next they start checking for CRB forms upon sign in.

Reply to
Tom Woods

Erm... CRB checks are a very small part of an overall process of child protection. Only convictions show on a CRB check - as many will realise following Soham, police and social services local knowledge is not included.

I (personally) have little faith in any blanket Government initiative in this respect - common sense is the best line of defense and it's common sense that often tends to be left at home...

Reply to
Mother

Good point. I'd never actually stopped to think about how little useful purpose that check actually serves.

Reply to
Tom Woods

Have we seen a massive increase in child abductions/assaults then ? No course we haven't- the same very low toll continues as it has for many years, CRB or no CRB. What we have lost is the community being responsible for everyones children, directly as a result of mis-guided "child safety" guidance. Like the case of the little girl a couple of weeks ago who went off too school on her own at 5.00 am, and wouldn't talk to the passing milkman, who enwuired where she was going, because, well, she wasn't allowed to talk to strange men.

Steve

Reply to
Steve

The CRB was implimented to try to ensure that 'convicted' abusers (and others with 'any' criminal record) could not access children. The purpose was only partly to protect children - the other part was to protect the Government and local authorities.

I'll agree with that.

I disagree with that. I think we've lost a sense of community and collective responsiblity because we've all become selfish lazy bastards who would rather prefer to believe that it's 'SEP' (Somebody Elses Problem).

An (elderly) friend of mine recent saw a toddler wandering around a large indoor shopping complex (Meadowhall for those who may know it). She was obviously in some distress having parted company from 'mum'.

Although he did grab her hand and head for the information desk, he said he felt distinctly uncomfortable doing so lest he be accused of trying to abduct her, or worse. I'd suggest this combined with SEP leads to an environment whereby parents / children should, quite rightly, feel vulnerable.

('SEP' was first observed and chronicled by the great Douglas Adams)

Martyn

Reply to
Mother

...which is exactly what I said.

I'd suggest this combined with SEP

...and the well-meaning adult. Its "safer" to ignore the child in distress (Jamie Bulger) than to act in their defence.

Steve

Reply to
Steve

On or around Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:50:18 +0100, Tom Woods enlightened us thusly:

too bloody right. soon the kids won't have a childhood at all.

I'd like to see some perspective on this. We have endless news items about kids being murdered or assaulted or wotever. Just how many are attacked in a year compared to how many children there are? what are the figures? as high a probability as winning the lottery jackpot? higher? lower?

I'm not saying the problem need to be ignored, obviously, one should take reasonable precautions, (and no, I'm not a parent), but if you take away too much of the experience of growing up and learning by mistakes, IMHO, this results in no improvement overall.

There's an uncomfortable statistic (apocryphal and mebbe not true) that most of the child-related crime of "that" kind is committed by close friends or family members, and a similar one about murders too - which may well not be what we want to hear.

So by all means keep an eye on your offspring an know where they are, and maybe, yes, give them cheap mobile phones so that if for example they're lost or feel under threat in some situation they have a chance of summoning help, but try not to keep 'em tied up on a lead.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:15:49 +0100, Tom Woods enlightened us thusly:

very little, despite that we all have to have 'em. It only shows up people who have been caught. I've had it, for doing school transport.

Just been doing a "leader" course in archery (passed, too :-)) and there's a load of stuff in that about child protection and also about how to go about the process of teaching what is basically a tactile sport while at the same time minimising the risk to the teacher of being had up for molesting. Which I for one find depressing.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

On or around Sat, 03 Apr 2004 00:08:46 +0100, Mother enlightened us thusly:

which shows how bloody silly it's got, IMHO. The assumption is that he's got some nefarious purpose in mind, rather than that he's trying to help.

it's the same thing that makes me, for example, wary of picking up lone women hitch hikers. etc., and it's twofold: a) they might think I'm trying to ensnare 'em, and b) I lay myself open to false accusations, and while it's undoubtedly true that in the past there's been a tendency for victims not to be believed, I suspect that it's in danger of going the other way, that people claiming victim status will be believed regardless.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

I've sometimes wondered what to do in this situation. The best I could come up with is, accost a total stranger, explain the situation, then *both* of you grab the child's hand etc. At least if somebody cries foul, you have a totally independent witness who will back up your explanation.

David

Reply to
David French

I can't reference this data, but I've heard that the percentage of children being abducted now is pretty much the same as it always has been. The difference is, now when it happens, everybody knows about it because of the way we can share information in a way we never could before.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not in any way saying this is a good thing - any kids being abducted at all is clearly a bad situation - but it addresses the suggestion that kids are now less safe than they have been in the past.

David

Reply to
David French

Twas Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:46:21 +0100 when Austin Shackles put finger to keyboard producing:

You ought to try being a photographer of artistic nudes...

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

formatting link
mrniceATmrnice.me.uk
formatting link
110 CSW 2.5(na)D___________________________________________________________

Reply to
Mr.Nice.

Twas Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:42:00 +0100 when Austin Shackles put finger to keyboard producing:

I used to teach rock-climbing to kids, and for safety reasons, no two ways about it, you have got to be sure everything on that harness is secured properly, and it's secured right where you don't want to be seen putting your hand. I hated the prospect of someone getting the wrong idea, never happened to my luckily.

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

formatting link
mrniceATmrnice.me.uk
formatting link
110 CSW 2.5(na)D___________________________________________________________

Reply to
Mr.Nice.

Twas Sat, 3 Apr 2004 09:18:03 +0100 when "David French" put finger to keyboard producing:

When I was growing up in the countryside (80's) I would happily bugger off for a full day or longer, now I wouldn't feel at all right letting my kids go off alone for that long.

If what you say is true then the risk is no greater, funny that.

-- Regards. Mark.(AKA, Mr.Nice.) ___________________________________________________________ "To know the character of a man, give him anonymity" - Mr.Nice.

formatting link
mrniceATmrnice.me.uk
formatting link
110 CSW 2.5(na)D___________________________________________________________

Reply to
Mr.Nice.

My newsreader initally displayed every line above the one beginning with "off". For a moment I wondered where this thread was heading...

Like you, when I grew up I went out all day and just pitched home some time in the evening. I'd also frequently come home from primary school and find the doors propped open but the house empty because my parents had gone out for the afternoon.

There are still places where people do this - the Scillies for example, where nobody locks their houses and people leave their keys in the car (not exactly anywhere you can take them of course), but in my experience, not many.

David

Reply to
David French

Hmm. Returning to your original point, if I were a show organiser having read this thread I'd be very tempted to take the line that "if you can't show me a driving licence with your photo on it, you're not coming in", thereby avoiding any issue with children. Clearly society is becoming completely annal about children and their protection; as a show organiser my view would be that it's an issue I don't want to be bothered with. Bollocks to writing a further risk assessment. My site would probably be crawling with under-cover cops looking at chassis numbers and for stolen bits, I don't want the paedophile police there as well...

From the perspective of someone attending Land Rover gatherings I'd be more than happy (filled with joy in fact) if children were banned; they get under foot constantly, are rarely properly controlled by their parents, have zero respect for anyone else and don't buy anything (doesn't spot them nicking what they fancy though!). Further, jumbles of heavy sharp items (such as are common at events such as Sodbury) are not child compatible.

Cheers,

M
Reply to
McBad

Oh yes, yes, yes... This is my nemesis...

Not only ensuring that the harness is on properly but also teaching people to belay properly, steadying them on their first few feet up the wall, catching them on their descent...

I think new harnesses are far better with fixed leg loops, the old adjustable leg straps were an open door to misunderstanding.

I had to explain myself to the Management Committee of a youth club once after having stopped a girls club climbing trip when there was only one (male) worker intending to go with them. I insisted that at least one qualified female worker should also go with them, there wasn't one, so no trip. This was in 1986

Reply to
Mother

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.