Yes, Give up, I'm afraid. That's what our anti-everything government wants. What with insurance for evreything under the sun, Police CRB checks if you have to so much as look at a child let alone carry one in your car, no 4x4s in London, etc etc. Its getting so difficult to do voluntary servcie activities nowadays that the sooner we all stop, the sooner Westminster will realise that society is failing to get the benefits and sort out the whole mess of vountary service. It's the americans and their "sue everyone" attitude that everyone is so afraid of, and unfortunately it seems to be coming over here.
Rant mode off,
Gordon
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
M
Mike Buckley
Hmmm - I'm unsure as to exactly why our yp shouldn't be entitled to be protected (as far as possible) from the attentions of pervs, paedophiles and the like or why those of use working in the voluntary sector should be allowed to give a lower standard of care / service to our "clients", but perhaps the voluntary sector shouldn't have to conform to modern norms and latest thinking. Special case, and all that. Or not!!!!!
As to alternatives for carrying Scouts in the 90 - all the forward facing seat options you've mentioned are probably good but you'll not like the cost! Notwithstanding what I've said before, there's no reason why you can't use the rear seats of course (John seemed to suggest there is a ruling in PoR - but I can't find anything and he's not responded).
It's a difficult quandary - on the one hand, those of us in (or who were in) a Movement like Scouting usually buy something like a Landy specifically for it's multitude of uses in Scouting and in a sense that makes sense of some of what Gordon says - we give of our time and provide a resource that in turn maybe doesn't fulfil the spirit of legislation intended to curb the excesses of commercial operators who put three kids on a seat intended for 2 adults and used crew-buses as cheap transport for schools / youth groups / whatever.
Children aren't some form of second-class citizen and are entitled to all the protection they can be given, especially when they are at risk from the unscrupulous of whatever form.
I wish you well with your decision.
Mike.
J
JD
Not to comment on the specific case, but this is the sort of problem that is always arising when we decide that "something" needs to be done to protect against "something". The decision is easy - raise the standards. But there are usually unintended consequences, which may well have adverse effects that have more adverse effects than the change is intended to improve, simply because it has not been thought through.
A good example here is that following the conviction of a volunteer firefighter for lighting fires, all volunteer firefighters will be required to have police checks. If actually enforced, this will require either a substantial increase in police funding (because of the numbers involved) and will possibly cost more than the total spent by the government on rural firefighting. It will also result in a lot (most?) people deciding it is not worth the hassle, so volunteering will gradually dry up. And there will probably be no firebugs stopped from joining brigades, since very few have police records!
Sooner or later we have to face the fact that there is no such thing as perfect safety - and the cost of safety increases exponentiually as we get closer to perfect safety. JD
A
Austin Shackles
On or around 19 Jul 2004 05:18:34 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@drytecltd.com (Gordon) enlightened us thusly:
got them bleddy things here. have to take the form, in person, with 3 (minimum) bits of ID to the office, 30 miles away. *both* of us.
feckem.
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.