child protection - politically correct monster

[Furface]

Speaking entirely personally, I beg to differ with most of what has gone before. There is nothing in the Child protection policies that is not exactly the sort of common sense we all moan has gone. It has simply been written down - SO WE CAN NO LONGER IGNORE IT. I have seen bullies operating at clubs; I have seen men and women who take too close an interest in children; I have known children "stalked" because of a photo in a paper. And I have also seen others who have seen what goes on and choose to look the other way, saying "Oh, it's only old Ambrose - he's harmless really". It has always been too easy to ignore bad practice - now it is a little bit harder. No, the policy doesn't assume everyone is a pervert, and it doesn't remove any protections from anyone that were there previously. The monster that has been released is the idea that anything can be 100% risk free (hence the ridiculous lengths some schools go to at sports days) or that we protect anyone by stopping them doing anything. No, protection comes from being aware of possibilities and knowing what appropriate steps are needed to counter them. And that is what the policy covers. And that is just common sense.

[not dead yet]

Originally Posted by Furface

Speaking entirely personally, I beg to differ with most of what has gone before. There is nothing in the Child protection policies that is not exactly the sort of common sense we all moan has gone. It has simply been written down - SO WE CAN NO LONGER IGNORE IT. I have seen bullies operating at clubs; I have seen men and women who take too close an interest in children; I have known children "stalked" because of a photo in a paper. And I have also seen others who have seen what goes on and choose to look the other way, saying "Oh, it's only old Ambrose - he's harmless really". It has always been too easy to ignore bad practice - now it is a little bit harder. No, the policy doesn't assume everyone is a pervert, and it doesn't remove any protections from anyone that were there previously. The monster that has been released is the idea that anything can be 100% risk free (hence the ridiculous lengths some schools go to at sports days) or that we protect anyone by stopping them doing anything. No, protection comes from being aware of possibilities and knowing what appropriate steps are needed to counter them. And that is what the policy covers. And that is just common sense.

sorry furface ,maybe the policy doesn't assume everyone is a pervert.. forget pervert. child abuse i would like to use here.

the people running the system assume that the person involved is guilty untill proven innocent.

by the way a junior hit me on the head with a score board, he is 16. he got a slap back my twins fighting in the garden one nearly smashed the patio doors, guess what they got one too.they were 17 at the time

[Nightimer]

Of course it assumes we are all perverts hence the no photo regs.
Once more I ask,how many PROVEN child molestation cases have the GNAS had to deal with.
I have heard of one case where a person has been wrongly accused.
If that person had been me you would not have a GNAS as it would have been sued off this planet!!
I was asked by a club member if I could take his son to the club one evening as he might not be able to do it himself.
I said yes of course I could.
When I got home I realized what a trap I had fallen into and what could happen.
I thought "bugger that" I dont want somebody calling the GNAS with a report of a underage child in my car.
As it happens I was not needed to do this but just think what COULD have happened under CP "laws".
Under the GNAS whistleblower policy I could have been dropped in the mire big time by someone with a "score" to settle.
Dont dare tell me that this cannot happen.
The UK Archer has 1 page dedicated to CP and its full of updates,what colour ink to use,steering groups and God know what other rubbish.
All this CP stuff has turned into a monster that costs money and employs people when all that is needed is common sense.
If you take things one step further you will find clubs refusing to take children and that would be terrible but it could happen.
Why?because people will not be subjected to searches to prove that they are clean of a criminal past etc.
So in my book you are guilty until proven innocent by the investigating body and just make sure you fill the form in with the correct colour ink.
Correct ink?take a look at page 58 in Summer edition of Archery UK under "common errors filling in forms" and tell me that this is not total nonsense!!

[Furface]

Originally Posted by Nightimer

Of course it assumes we are all perverts hence the no photo regs.

No such regs.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

Once more I ask,how many PROVEN child molestation cases have the GNAS had to deal with.

There have been some. Even stopping one might be seen as worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

I have heard of one case where a person has been wrongly accused.
If that person had been me you would not have a GNAS as it would have been sued off this planet!!

A wrongly accused archer is protected by following the recommendations. To sue the GNAS for a wrongful accusation by a third party would not work

Originally Posted by Nightimer

I was asked by a club member if I could take his son to the club one evening as he might not be able to do it himself.
I said yes of course I could.
When I got home I realized what a trap I had fallen into and what could happen.
I thought "bugger that" I dont want somebody calling the GNAS with a report of a underage child in my car.
As it happens I was not needed to do this but just think what COULD have happened under CP "laws".
Under the GNAS whistleblower policy I could have been dropped in the mire big time by someone with a "score" to settle.
Dont dare tell me that this cannot happen.

Of course it can, but the fault is not with the GNAS policy, but with the "score settler". Following the policy gives some protection against all unjustified accusations.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

The UK Archer has 1 page dedicated to CP and its full of updates,what colour ink to use

The form in question is a CRB form, with regulations imposed from an outside body. As with just about every form you fill in, black ink is specified because it can be photocopied.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

...steering groups and God know what other rubbish.

I'm sure He does. I'd rather have a steering group actually working on this than have a policy drawn up on a fag packet by someone who thinks he can cover everything.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

All this CP stuff has turned into a monster that costs money and employs people when all that is needed is common sense.

Actually, it is common sense (see my previous post)

Originally Posted by Nightimer

If you take things one step further you will find clubs refusing to take children and that would be terrible but it could happen.
Why?because people will not be subjected to searches to prove that they are clean of a criminal past etc.

That would be terrible indeed, but only because the clubs involved would be sacrificing their future and the introduction of young people into our sport because of fears that are unfounded. Again, though in many ways a bad example, the case at Soham shows what can happen without checks. I would rather have everyone checked and catch the one bad apple than wait until that apple has corrupted the barrel before doing anything.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

So in my book you are guilty until proven innocent by the investigating body

That may be your book - it's not the GNAS view.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

and just make sure you fill the form in with the correct colour ink.
Correct ink?take a look at page 58 in Summer edition of Archery UK under "common errors filling in forms" and tell me that this is not total nonsense!!

Certainly. It's not total nonsense.

[Nightimer]

So you are saying that there are no photo regulations in place and that I can take photographs at shoots.
Also that I can get "some" protection against wrongful accusation.
Dream on !!
Once the mud had been thrown some would stick and you cannot kid me that people would believe what they wanted to believe.
Once again -- how many proven cases of child abuse have happened on a archery field!!
I would be interested to know.

[Watch_Man]

Without wishing to enter into the debate of the rights or wrongs of the GNAS child protection policy, I was talking to an archer at Clophill today who is also a coach. He was saying that there have been a number of coaches stop because they did not want to be put in a position of being accused of anything by a vindictive child. He also said they were finding it difficult to recruit new coaches for the same reason.

Regarding 'mud sticks' the headmaster of our local primary school was accused by a young girl, this cost him his job and his health. After about 2 years the girl admitted the accusation was false. The headmaster was awarded a five figure sum in compensation because of the way it was dealt with. His wife, also a teacher had her career put on hold during the investigation.

The headmaster now works for a football team. He could not go back to teaching after the witchunt instigated by the police and social services who took the girls word without any other evidence, additional accusors or witnesses. Many parents stood by him but some parents immediately assumed he must be guilty, even after he was completely cleared there was still some of these thicko knuckle heads who thought there must be no smoke without fire...... so while accepting that there is a need for child protection policies I can also appreciate why so many men now refuse to get involved with any kind of voluntary or professional work that brings them in direct contact with children. Esther said it all in her article.

[Furface]

Originally Posted by Nightimer

So you are saying that there are no photo regulations in place and that I can take photographs at shoots.

No - but you had said "no photos". You can take photos, but under controlled conditions.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

Also that I can get "some" protection against wrongful accusation.
Dream on !!

Quite simple protection really. Wrongful accuser says "He did that", witness says "No he didn't" - witness is there BECAUSE you followed guidelines. Accusation dies the death at club level. Of course, accuser could lie about time and place - but that takes a lot more doing.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

Once the mud had been thrown some would stick and you cannot kid me that people would believe what they wanted to believe.

That might be because we have all been brainwashed into thinking the worst. But having a reputable witness must help.

Originally Posted by Nightimer

Once again -- how many proven cases of child abuse have happened on a archery field!!
I would be interested to know.

Perhaps only a handful - but that is a handful too many.
I agree that the great unwashed tend to think the worst of anyone, but surely the best way to counter that is to show that archers are well trained, and always act in a controlled and responsible manner.

[Woodie]

one of the real problems is that there are, as far as I can find, no hard statistics on child abuse. Most of the data used by NSPCC etc is based on surveys. The main one seems to be
Cawson, P. et al. (2000) Child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. London: NSPCC.

from this I have determined,
11% of children aged under 16 experienced sexual abuse 1 during childhood by people known but unrelated to them.

Of those 11% very few children (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example a teacher, religious leader or care/social worker. That makes it one child in every thousand or 3 people from the survey of 2,800.

For the children who experienced sexual abuse outside of the family, the most common perpetrator was a boyfriend or girlfriend.


70% of penetrative/oral acts of sexual abuse outside of the family were by a boyfriend/girlfriend
17% were perpetrated by 'someone I recently met' 7
10% were perpetrated by a fellow student/pupil
6% were perpetrated by a friend of their parents
6% were perpetrated by a friend of their brother/sister.

[grimsby archer]

Surely the majority of the child protection policy is about good practise.
Ways of doing things to avoid putting adults in situations that could be construed as potentially comprimising. They are about protecting the adult, not the child.
Like it or not, there are a lot of wierdos and pervs out there.
You might know its safe for you to cart other peoples children around in your car but there is NO WAY you can be sure of other peoples intentions or motives. So, what do we do? Just accept that the odd kid here and there getting abused or molested is just collateral damage.
The good practise that says "dont be alone with a child" is to protect the child from a potentially abusive situation, but also protect the adult from accusation of that potential abuse.There is no GNAS rule (as far as I am aware) that says all people working a have-a-go have to be CRB checked. Lets face it, the opportunity for inappropraite behaviour in a have-a-go is negligable. But what about when you are the last adult at the club, and get left with the kid who's parent is late collecting him/her.

You could say it all comes down to risk and what we as individuals are prepared to accept and the price we are prepared to pay but the reality is PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Print in your local paper that "XYZ archery club doesnt bother with child protection policies and doesnt care about the safety of children" and you wont have to ban children or close your junior club. You just wont have a junior club.

[Trunkles]

Originally Posted by grimsby archer

But what about when you are the last adult at the club, and get left with the kid who's parent is late collecting him/her.

So that is why we do not act as a "baby"sitting service and insist that parents stay with their child. More difficult with the older teens but two adults always leave last - its also to make sure the person locking up doesn't get attacked by the local chavs (probably unlikely but better safe...).
Still trying to get some of the parents to shoot as well - much better when you are a family but some just have real problems with shifts and so on.