One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently about 
the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have contact with 
children and other vulnerable adults. These people will appear to have to 
have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own expense. How is your club 
handling this if you have a junior section?  I know of at least one club 
that is closing it's junior section in response to these proposals, which is 
a pity.We are just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and 
would welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules.

Keith Patrick wrote:
> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently about 
> the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have contact with 
> children and other vulnerable adults. These people will appear to have to 
> have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own expense. How is your club 
> handling this if you have a junior section?  I know of at least one club 
> that is closing it's junior section in response to these proposals, which is 
> a pity.We are just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and 
> would welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules. 
> 
> 
Hi,
Slightly off topic but i'm in Amateur Dramatics, and my outfit started 
talking about setting upa  youth arm, in order to get teenager off the 
streets and give them something useful to do.

When we started to investigate what this would entail, we found that we 
would have to basically build a complete new dressing room for the kids 
to be staffed by CRB checked people.  We quickly abandoned the idea on 
cost ground befroe anything else.  Guess who lost out in the end.  The 
very tennagers that society is demonising because they are out of control.

We did once have a young girl in a play but she was chapperoned by her 
grandad, but how many parents could be arsed these days to actually 
spend time with their kids?

The UK is going to the dogs.

Rob.

Keith Patrick wrote:
> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made
> recently about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who
> regularly have contact with children and other vulnerable adults.
> These people will appear to have to have a CRB check costing about
> £70, at their own expense. How is your club handling this if you have
> a junior section?  I know of at least one club that is closing it's
> junior section in response to these proposals, which is a pity.We are
> just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would
> welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules.

Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are 
free.
I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in practise, but the 
comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that those who are volunteering 
their time and not earning can have their check for free. The discussion is 
usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure activities for 
children where the adults are not paid.

I can't see a fundamental difference between a hobby athletics club with a 
junior section and a hobby model club with a junior section.  Both have a 
structure and someone to look after the club's money, some premises (either 
rented or bought), some equipment bought for the activity, subscriptions 
paid by members to cover costs of running club, members who have their own 
equipment and bring it along to the club, have events where the public can 
pay to come and see what's happening (sports competition vs. model 
exhibition), do things which occupy the members, encourage juniors to 
participate, learn skills, become more capable, etc..   In those terms, I 
cannot see a difference; if the athletics club volunteers can have free CRB 
checks, then so can the model club.


Otherwise, I think your choice of actions are down to either;
a) no under 18's and no vulnerable adults (typically learning difficulties)
or
b) under 18's / vulnerable adults ONLY if accompanied by their 
parent/guardian/career.


The current rules, whilst perhaps for well meaning intent, are destroying a 
lot of club activities and voluntary work. I think the baby has gone out 
with the bathwater, bath, and most of the bathroom fittings.


- Nigel

-- 
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

"Nigel Cliffe"  wrote in message 
news:hce8gu$72q$1@news.albasani.net...
> Keith Patrick wrote:
>> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made
>> recently about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who
>> regularly have contact with children and other vulnerable adults.
>> These people will appear to have to have a CRB check costing about
>> £70, at their own expense. How is your club handling this if you have
>> a junior section?  I know of at least one club that is closing it's
>> junior section in response to these proposals, which is a pity.We are
>> just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would
>> welcome any advice which could be incorporated into the club rules.
>
> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are 
> free.
> I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in practise, but the 
> comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that those who are 
> volunteering their time and not earning can have their check for free. The 
> discussion is usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure 
> activities for children where the adults are not paid.
>
> I can't see a fundamental difference between a hobby athletics club with a 
> junior section and a hobby model club with a junior section.  Both have a 
> structure and someone to look after the club's money, some premises 
> (either rented or bought), some equipment bought for the activity, 
> subscriptions paid by members to cover costs of running club, members who 
> have their own equipment and bring it along to the club, have events where 
> the public can pay to come and see what's happening (sports competition 
> vs. model exhibition), do things which occupy the members, encourage 
> juniors to participate, learn skills, become more capable, etc..   In 
> those terms, I cannot see a difference; if the athletics club volunteers 
> can have free CRB checks, then so can the model club.
>
>
> Otherwise, I think your choice of actions are down to either;
> a) no under 18's and no vulnerable adults (typically learning 
> difficulties)
> or
> b) under 18's / vulnerable adults ONLY if accompanied by their 
> parent/guardian/career.
>
>
> The current rules, whilst perhaps for well meaning intent, are destroying 
> a lot of club activities and voluntary work. I think the baby has gone out 
> with the bathwater, bath, and most of the bathroom fittings.
>
>
> - Nigel
>
> -- 
> Nigel Cliffe,
> Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Bit of a farce as usual - not as if children would be staying overnight ! 
Hear hit entertainment had to drop their insistence that all volunteers at 
Thomas events go through CRB check as their making such a requirement wasnt 
legal.

cheers,
Simon

"Keith Patrick"  wrote

> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently 
> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have 
> contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will 
> appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own 
> expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I 
> know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response 
> to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming 
> a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be 
> incorporated into the club rules.

Isn't it a sad reflection of society when knee-jerk reactions become the 
norm & ordinary people are potentially demonised in this way.

It the namby-pamby brigade want to legislate to avoid child abuse, then it 
should be aimed at the area where most problems arise, and that's with the 
parents and close relatives of kids.

Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before 
they're allowed to have kids.

John.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:32:44 +0000, John Turner wrote:

> "Keith Patrick"  wrote
> 
>> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently
>> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have
>> contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will
>> appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own
>> expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section? 
>> I know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in
>> response to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process
>> of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice
>> which could be incorporated into the club rules.
> 
> Isn't it a sad reflection of society when knee-jerk reactions become the
> norm & ordinary people are potentially demonised in this way.
> 
> It the namby-pamby brigade want to legislate to avoid child abuse, then
> it should be aimed at the area where most problems arise, and that's
> with the parents and close relatives of kids.
> 
> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before
> they're allowed to have kids.
> 
> John.

That's what happens now are governed by single issue pressure groups. 
Just a shame that those of us who have been trying to point out the folly 
of this for years were just laughed at until something came along that 
effected those doing the laughing ;-)

Cheers
Richard



-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:SZadnedZ4uN2QXfXnZ2dnUVZ7qudnZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Keith Patrick"  wrote
>> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently 
>> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have 
>> contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will 
>> appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own 
>> expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I 
>> know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response 
>> to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming 
>> a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be 
>> incorporated into the club rules.
> Isn't it a sad reflection of society when knee-jerk reactions become the 
> norm & ordinary people are potentially demonised in this way.
> It the namby-pamby brigade want to legislate to avoid child abuse, then it 
> should be aimed at the area where most problems arise, and that's with the 
> parents and close relatives of kids.
> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before 
> they're allowed to have kids.

Ian Huntley (assuming that he is actually guilty and isn't to be freed by 
some
subsequent court of appeal) was caught and punished by laws that existed at
the time of his offence. therefore, no new laws were needed in response to
his activities. It has been said elsewhere that the previous CRB (and now 
ISA)
checks would not have in any case  prevented him.

The whole ethos of the situation was presumed to be to prevent sexual
deviants from having contact with children, and yet it seems to be those
who stole sweets from the sweet shop when they themselves were children
who are being excluded.

In terms of the OP, the only solution can be to exclude all children from
activities and social clubs intended in the first instance for adults. That 
had
always been the case for pubs and drinking dens, so it is only a small step
to increase the scope to cover all forms of social club, especially those
for railway modelling.

Perhaps that would not be a bad thing, for it would ensure that only those
who had a genuine long-term interest would seek membership of our clubs.

It goes against the whole traditions of Brit justice where one is presumed
innocent until shown to be otherwise for anybody to have to prove that
he is not a paederast. (Stricly, all parents who love their children are 
paedophiles,
just as we are railwayphiles)

The state of affairs is ridiculous when those of us who withdraw from areas 
where
we might come under the new draconian laws leave the field open to the
paederasts, who were illegal anyway, and to whom the new laws would
be irrelevant

>
> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are 
> free.

As I understand it the check is free for volunteers, yes.

However......

You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.   You have to go 
through someone else and that body is allowed to charge a handling fee.   I 
gather that provided the body handling your check agrees to do so they don't 
have to be working in the same area as you so you could work through an 
athletics club or a youth club or your local authority or through a non 
local (to you) authority.   Listen to R4 at noon - there was an item about 
this there.

Daft really.

"Graham Harrison"  wrote in message 
news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
> However......
>
> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.

This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and
runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that
you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending
yourself.

Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:42:29 +0000, Phil O. Sopher wrote:

> "Graham Harrison"  wrote in
> message news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> However......
>>
>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.
> 
> This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and runours
> that may have been laid at your door; accusations that you are
> prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending yourself.
> 
> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice

But far more dangerously, if you were turned down for some minor issue 
the you could easily end up with a mob outside the front door - as 
happened on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth during the last media 
feeding frenzy when the mob attacked a pediatrician's house.....

Cheers
Richard



-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

Graham Harrison wrote:
>> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those
>> are free.
>
> As I understand it the check is free for volunteers, yes.
>
> However......
>
> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.   You
> have to go through someone else and that body is allowed to charge a
> handling fee.   I gather that provided the body handling your check
> agrees to do so they don't have to be working in the same area as you
> so you could work through an athletics club or a youth club or your
> local authority or through a non local (to you) authority.   Listen
> to R4 at noon - there was an item about this there.

Yes, I heard some of that piece when out and about, and was going to post an 
amendment to my posting. Thanks for passing the latest gem along....

"The free check isn't really free as an approved body has to request the 
check for you, and they might charge an admin fee......".

If I recall correctly, the minister said something about still open to 
consultations, so bombard the muppet with questions about why "free for 
volunteers" means in practice "pay fee to be allowed to continue 
volunteering".


(My guess is that some charities, trade unions and similar bodies might 
eventually work out free handling schemes for their members who are 
volunteers.  Whether its practical for some umbrella "Society of Model 
Clubs", or similar body to form and do this is an open question.  )


> Daft really.

Totally bonkers.



- Nigel


-- 
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

John Turner wrote:

> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before 
> they're allowed to have kids.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8331446.stm

Even the parents aren't deemed fit to supervise their children!

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

brushhead wrote:

> Slightly off topic but i'm in Amateur Dramatics, and my outfit started 
> talking about setting upa  youth arm, in order to get teenager off the 
> streets and give them something useful to do.
> 
> When we started to investigate what this would entail, we found that we 
> would have to basically build a complete new dressing room for the kids 
> to be staffed by CRB checked people. 

In my previous job, an ex-employee approached us to see if we could give 
her 15 year old son a job as he'd just left school.  As it happened, we 
could offer him a job.  Except when we looked into "child labour" laws 
it just wasn't practical, and one of the reasons was that every employee 
would have had to have a CRB check, paid for by the company.  We just 
waited a few weeks until he was 16, when miraculously he's deemed to be 
safe from predators...

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Phil O. Sopher wrote:

> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice

That went out long ago.  Just look at what happens when someone is 
charged of any sex crime (or any other crime for that matter) - the 
media vilify the accused without bothering to wait to find out if the 
accused is actually guilty.  Specifically in sex crimes, that can have 
an absolutely devastating effect on the accused's life if they turn out 
to be innocent.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote:
> John Turner wrote:
> 
>> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before 
>> they're allowed to have kids.
> 
> See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8331446.stm
> 
> Even the parents aren't deemed fit to supervise their children!

Without knowing any more than has been in the papers, this strikes me as 
one of those cases where there might just be slightly more to it than 
meets the eye, or would fit the usual IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE 
MAD!!! line which sections of the media like to take.

Do children actually *want* their parents following their every move, 
monitoring everything they do, never letting them out of sight, even in 
an adventure playground?

Someone made a comparison with schools, where we don't generally allow 
parents to go in and sit and watch their kids all day, and parents who 
try to do so are generally considered a downright nuisance, if not a bit 
odd as well.

If some parents genuinely think the playground is run by axe murders 
and/or paediatricians, why are they taking their kids there in the first 
place?

=================
http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en
Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground

Contrary to reports in the media, Watford Borough Council has not banned 
parents from public parks and playgrounds in the town!

The press have inaccurately reported what Harwoods and Harebreaks are; 
they are not open public facilites. They never have been. They are 
closed, fully supervised facilities.

They are no different to other fully supervised facilities, like 
schools, playgroups or nurseries - where adults are not allowed to stay.

Parents and carers are, of course, welcome to bring their children 
safely into the sites and settle them in.

If parents aren't happy leaving their children - there are lots of other 
options open to them. In the town, there are 4 community centres, 5 
children’s centres, over 40 areas of park and playgrounds, as well as a 
museum, two libraries... These are also free to attend and open to everyone.
==================

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

Arthur Figgis wrote:

> =================
> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en 
> 
> Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground

That does put a different light on it.  Once, the BBC was a good, solid 
media organisation.  It seems to have been getting more and more tabloid 
over the last decade or so.

I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of adventure 
playgrounds we had as kids!  Demolished factory sites with structures 
made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling 
down to the ground.  Anyone remember the Felix Road adventure playground 
in Bristol during the 1970s/80s???  It wasn't anything like it is now!!

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

"Paul Boyd"  wrote in message 
news:4aeb5482$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>
>> =================
>> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en 
>> Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground
>
> That does put a different light on it.  Once, the BBC was a good, solid 
> media organisation.  It seems to have been getting more and more tabloid 
> over the last decade or so.
>
> I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of adventure 
> playgrounds we had as kids!  Demolished factory sites with structures made 
> of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling down to 
> the ground.  Anyone remember the Felix Road adventure playground in 
> Bristol during the 1970s/80s???  It wasn't anything like it is now!!
>
> -- 
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Nope, we had to  make do with a few miles of fields next to the estate we 
lived on. There was an unfenced pond (rumoured to be 15 ft deep in the 
middle) and a couple of streams with trees deliberately left in place that 
had to be climbed as a matter of course. All unsupervised and unregulated by 
health and safety. Apart from one or two broken bones and an electrocution 
when someone flew a kite that hit power lines we all survived with only 
minor bruises. Never heard of anyone attacked by perverts though a few got 
bruises from parents and the particularly nasty kids.

How did we survive physically and mentally unscarred ?

cheers,
Simon

"Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4aeb0966$1@news.x-privat.org...
> "Graham Harrison"  wrote in 
> message news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>> However......
>>
>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.
>
> This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and
> runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that
> you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending
> yourself.
>
> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice
>
You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you get 
a copy of the report. Realise its a big mistake but have agreed* to go on 
cub camp next year as the general dogsbody and car driver if anyone has to 
go to A&E - transport by minibus not allowed for some reason.

* Or at least tot did.

Cheers,
Simon

simon wrote:
> 
> "Paul Boyd"  wrote in message 
> news:4aeb5482$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>
>>> =================
>>> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en 
>>> Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground
>>
>> That does put a different light on it.  Once, the BBC was a good, 
>> solid media organisation.  It seems to have been getting more and more 
>> tabloid over the last decade or so.
>>
>> I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of 
>> adventure playgrounds we had as kids!  Demolished factory sites with 
>> structures made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire 
>> slides hurtling down to the ground.  Anyone remember the Felix Road 
>> adventure playground in Bristol during the 1970s/80s???  It wasn't 
>> anything like it is now!!
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul Boyd
>> http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
> 
> Nope, we had to  make do with a few miles of fields next to the estate 
> we lived on. There was an unfenced pond (rumoured to be 15 ft deep in 
> the middle) and a couple of streams with trees deliberately left in 
> place that had to be climbed as a matter of course. 

We had to go and live in an unfenced pond.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:S9CdnX4FgMie_nbXnZ2dnUVZ8qhi4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> simon wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Boyd"  wrote in message 
>> news:4aeb5482$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>
>>>> =================
>>>> http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/content/strategic-services/home-page-content/statement-about-harwoods-and-harebreaks-adventure-playground.en 
>>>> Statement about Harwoods and Harebreaks Adventure Playground
>>>
>>> That does put a different light on it.  Once, the BBC was a good, solid 
>>> media organisation.  It seems to have been getting more and more tabloid 
>>> over the last decade or so.
>>>
>>> I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of adventure 
>>> playgrounds we had as kids!  Demolished factory sites with structures 
>>> made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling 
>>> down to the ground.  Anyone remember the Felix Road adventure playground 
>>> in Bristol during the 1970s/80s???  It wasn't anything like it is now!!
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Paul Boyd
>>> http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/
>>
>> Nope, we had to  make do with a few miles of fields next to the estate we 
>> lived on. There was an unfenced pond (rumoured to be 15 ft deep in the 
>> middle) and a couple of streams with trees deliberately left in place 
>> that had to be climbed as a matter of course.
>
> We had to go and live in an unfenced pond.
>
> -- 
> Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

We werent allowed in the pond, it was reserved for cows. However we did 
managed to sneak in and catch a newt occasionally - a rare treat for 5, all 
that meat. Was open season when frog spawn hatched.

Cheers,
Simon

"Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4aeaf3c5$1@news.x-privat.org...
snip
>
> It goes against the whole traditions of Brit justice where one is presumed
> innocent until shown to be otherwise for anybody to have to prove that
> he is not a paederast. (Stricly, all parents who love their children are 
> paedophiles,
> just as we are railwayphiles)

Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)

"simon"  wrote in message 
news:toKdnYu-TPCownbXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@bt.com...
> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:4aeb0966$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> "Graham Harrison"  wrote in 
>> message news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> However......
>>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.
>> This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and
>> runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that
>> you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending
>> yourself.
>> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice
> You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you 
> get a copy of the report.

Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under the
previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to
let you see the information that he received.

"Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4aebffaf$1@news.x-privat.org...
> "simon"  wrote in message 
> news:toKdnYu-TPCownbXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:4aeb0966$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>> "Graham Harrison"  wrote in 
>>> message news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> However......
>>>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.
>>> This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and
>>> runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that
>>> you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending
>>> yourself.
>>> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice
>> You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you 
>> get a copy of the report.
>
> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under the
> previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to
> let you see the information that he received.
>

That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of the 
report under the old system.

Jeff

"Jeff"  wrote in message news:hch4ou$jk0$1@aioe.org...
> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:4aebffaf$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> "simon"  wrote in message 
>> news:toKdnYu-TPCownbXnZ2dnUVZ8imdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:4aeb0966$1@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> "Graham Harrison"  wrote in 
>>>> message news:ttKdnY8apJw8lXbXnZ2dnUVZ8j2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> However......
>>>>> You can't approach the people who do the checking yourself.
>>>> This is so that you do not become aware of false accusations and
>>>> runours that may have been laid at your door; accusations that
>>>> you are prevented, through ignorance of them, of defending
>>>> yourself.
>>>> Again, something contrary to the traditional spirit of Brit justice
>>> You sure, thought it said on the form that I recently filled in that you 
>>> get a copy of the report.
>> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under the
>> previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to
>> let you see the information that he received.
> That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of 
> the report under the old system.

AIUI, if an extended CRB check was called for, and that check reported
back unsubstantiated allegations (possibly resulting from malicious
complaints) then the person being checked could not be told of
that "intelligence"

>>>> I bet the H&S mob would have had a fit if they saw the sort of 
>>>> adventure
>>>> playgrounds we had as kids!  Demolished factory sites with structures 
>>>> made of telegraph poles and rotting pallets, with wire slides hurtling 
>>>> down to the ground.

Not forgetting abandoned canal boats, nearly full of grimy water, which 
always seem to get 'stuck' in the middle of the canal when I was aboard!!
The important thing was risk was learned to be managed- what was possible, 
what was not, once called 'common sense'

>>> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under 
>>> the
>>> previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to
>>> let you see the information that he received.
>> That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of 
>> the report under the old system.
>
> AIUI, if an extended CRB check was called for, and that check reported
> back unsubstantiated allegations (possibly resulting from malicious
> complaints) then the person being checked could not be told of
> that "intelligence"
>

The person involved gets exactly the same report as the employer, if is up 
to the police as to what information they wish to disclose or feel is 
relevant, or legal to disclose.

Jeff

LDosser wrote:
> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
[...]
>> just as we are railwayphiles)
> 
> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)


My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
Latin and Greek Bases...

So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)

cheers,
wolf k.

"Keith Patrick"  wrote in message
news:-vCdnXpDT-tTEHfXnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...

> How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I know of at
least one club
> that is closing it's junior section in response to these proposals, which
is a pity.We are
> just in the process of forming a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would
welcome any advice
> which could be incorporated into the club rules.

Hi Keith, I think I can help here, I have walked this way before and
although what I am about to present is under the "Previous regime" my
understanding is that things have NOT CHANGED substantively with the latest
version that has obviously sparked this debate.

We, Fareham & Dist MRC, had a vexatious member who, for reasons best known
to himself, tried to stop us having the junior members in the club at all
when the CRB system first came in.  As a result we went through the "proper
channels" and set everything up the way is should be.  This is what you need
to know:

1.    The first thing you will need to do is to talk to your local Council
for Voluntary Service.  Your email address suggests that you live in Powys,
if so then your nearest contact would be Powys Association of Voluntary
Organisations.  Their website is http://www.pavo.org.uk.  If this isn't
where you live then google "Council for voluntary Service <location>" to
find out who to contact.  Our organisation is Fareham Community Action at
http://www.farehamaction.org.uk.

2.    They will advise you to write a Protection Policy for the club and you
need to get it approved by your membership.  Depending on how your club is
set up you might be able to make it a part of your constitution.  You will
find ours at http://www.fadmrc.hampshire.org.uk/fownload/vmppolicy.pdf.

3.    The way we work it is that we insist that if a youngster wants to come
along then it is the parent who joins the club and takes full responsibility
for the youngster's safety and actions whilst on club premises.  We are
"flexible" as to who actually comes with the child, it could be the mother
one week and the father the next, it doesn't really matter as long as there
is always an adult to take charge of the child.  And you'd be surprised just
how keen the parents are to get involved, even if it is just making the tea
(or cleaning our kitchen area up).

3a.   We find this approach also gives us the ability to protect the club
from the child, for instance we had one child who was a total nightmare and
wouldn't accept that when we were using power tools and said to him, "don't
stand there, its dangerous" we really meant it.  In that case we said to the
mother, if he won't take safety advice we can't have him in the club - and
they left.  Handling that situation without the parent available would be
very difficult (as any teacher will tell you).

4.    Don't forget, it isn't just children that need protecting in this way.
The proper title of our policy is Vulnerable Members Protection Policy; we
have a couple of late teen/early adulthood members/prospective members who
have learning difficulties and they are very much in the sphere of needing
"protection" as well.

Finally, if anyone tries to tell you that you need to make a clean CRB check
a condition of membership ignore them, to do so would be an infringement of
human rights (or so I was told).  This was the approach our vexatious member
insisted we went down until we were able to rein him in.  Also, I see in
some of the other responses in this thread that the question has surfaced of
who can apply for the CRB disclosure and how much it costs.  The answer is,
for a voluntary organisation it has to be the CVS in who's jurisdiction the
organisation resides, in our case Fareham Community Action; that's not to
say that the someone might slip under the radar and manage to get a
disclosure direct from the Bureau, but in theory they should only release
info to the responsible CVS.  The cost is very much down to the CVS, I think
ours charge a fiver to cover the postage &c but they can and do waive the
charge if they think that might be the most appropriate thing to do.

Hope this has helped, let me know how you get on.

Regards

Elliott

"Wolf K"  wrote in message 
news:4aec3a22$0$1596$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> LDosser wrote:
>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> just as we are railwayphiles)
>>
>> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
>
>
> My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
> Latin and Greek Bases...
>
> So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)
>
> cheers,
> wolf k.
like that, it should go down well as a starter when meet a lady :-) Guess 
the hippo bit refers to a horse but can you explain the rest ?

Thanks,
Simon

"Jeff"  wrote in message news:hch780$mbs$1@aioe.org...
>
>>>> Perhaps there has been a change with the new ISA, but certainly under 
>>>> the
>>>> previous CRB, the person enquiring about you was not permitted to
>>>> let you see the information that he received.
>>> That is not correct, the person being checked always receives a copy of 
>>> the report under the old system.
>>
>> AIUI, if an extended CRB check was called for, and that check reported
>> back unsubstantiated allegations (possibly resulting from malicious
>> complaints) then the person being checked could not be told of
>> that "intelligence"
>>
>
> The person involved gets exactly the same report as the employer, if is up 
> to the police as to what information they wish to disclose or feel is 
> relevant, or legal to disclose.
>
> Jeff
Dont think received anything from social services 10 years ago when they did 
an enhanced check, but there was so much paperwork flying around could have 
missed it.

Cheers,
Simon

simon wrote:
> 
> "Wolf K"  wrote in message 
> news:4aec3a22$0$1596$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>>> just as we are railwayphiles)
>>>
>>> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
>>
>>
>> My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
>> Latin and Greek Bases...
>>
>> So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)
>>
>> cheers,
>> wolf k.
> like that, it should go down well as a starter when meet a lady :-) 
> Guess the hippo bit refers to a horse but can you explain the rest ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Simon

iero - Gk for iron, hippo- Gk for horse, phil- Gk for love/affection.

You're welcome. ;-)

wolf k.

Wolf K  wrote:
> LDosser wrote:
>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote...
> 
>>> just as we are railwayphiles)
>> 
>> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
> 
> My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
> Latin and Greek Bases...
> 
> So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)

What about "television"?

-- 
Martin S.

MartinS wrote:
> Wolf K  wrote:
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote...
>>>> just as we are railwayphiles)
>>> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
>> My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
>> Latin and Greek Bases...
>>
>> So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)
> 
> What about "television"?

No good will come of it.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Elliott Cowton"  wrote in message 
news:ivYGm.58014$X75.11037@newsfe20.ams2...
> Hi Keith, I think I can help here, I have walked this way before and
> although what I am about to present is under the "Previous regime" my
> understanding is that things have NOT CHANGED substantively with the 
> latest
> version that has obviously sparked this debate.
>
> We, Fareham & Dist MRC, had a vexatious member who, for reasons best known
> to himself, tried to stop us having the junior members in the club at all
> when the CRB system first came in.  As a result we went through the 
> "proper
> channels" and set everything up the way is should be.  This is what you 
> need
> to know:
>
> 1.    The first thing ... etc etc

The point is surely not how easy it is to achieve but that it should
not be needed at all.

It is an example of several recent laws which are ineffective.

Ineffective because they target the innocent (who never did the disputed
acts anyway), whilst the evil among us carry on as they did anyway (because
they were illegal within the old laws and new laws don't change their 
attitudes!)

An examples is handgun control after the Dunblane massacre; there are now
more handguns on the street than ever before when previously all hand guns
were safe in the hands of law-abiders.

As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements
will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the
paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected by any new laws)

MartinS wrote:

> What about "television"?

It'll never catch on, y'know :-)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Phil O. Sopher wrote:

> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements
> will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the
> paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected by any new laws)

There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that all 
that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.  All it 
does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep tabs 
on it.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
> 
>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new arrangements
>> will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide open to the
>> paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected by any new 
>> laws)
> 
> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that all 
> that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.  All it 
> does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep tabs 
> on it.

In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to 
people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the politicians 
don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc etc.

Come the revolution...

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

MartinS wrote:
> Wolf K  wrote:
>> LDosser wrote:
>>> "Phil O. Sopher" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote...
>>>> just as we are railwayphiles)
>>> Surely you meant Ferroequinophile? :o)
>> My uncle had a fit when he saw "ferroeuqinologist". Thou Shalt Not Mix 
>> Latin and Greek Bases...
>>
>> So it should ierohippophile.  ;-)
> 
> What about "television"?
> 


Should be "teleoptikon".

Heh heh!

wolf k.

On 30 Oct, 12:32, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Keith Patrick"  wrote
>
> > One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently
> > about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have
> > contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will
> > appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own
> > expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I
> > know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response
> > to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming
> > a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be
> > incorporated into the club rules.
>
> Isn't it a sad reflection of society when knee-jerk reactions become the
> norm & ordinary people are potentially demonised in this way.
>
> It the namby-pamby brigade want to legislate to avoid child abuse, then it
> should be aimed at the area where most problems arise, and that's with the
> parents and close relatives of kids.
>
> Maybe potential parents should be required to have a CRB check before
> they're allowed to have kids.

I suspect no one on this group have had a child of their own or a
relative abused but if we had then we may well have a very strong
viewpoint on the matter ....... "protection at all costs".  The
problem is CRB checks are just that a CRIMINAL records check,  anyone
who has not been caught, in theory, would be allowed a pass.

My feelings on the matter is not extra legislation but a greater
awareness by people in groups that these people do exist and to
actively protect the youngsters in the temp care of the group.

Youngsters like their independence and these groups help give them
that plus more.

As is the case be it football, concerts, a quiet drink down the local
or a 'social' club a very small minority spoil it for us all.

Chris

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:

> Paul Boyd wrote:
>> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
>> 
>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new
>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide
>>> open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected
>>> by any new laws)
>> 
>> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that
>> all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.  All
>> it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep
>> tabs on it.
> 
> In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to
> people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the politicians
> don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc etc.
> 
> Come the revolution...

They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the 
public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones 
with access to the media (or the media itself). Thinking things though 
would be a good idea too - creating a situation where a Police Officer 
cannot look after another Police Officer's child, never mind ordinary 
folk, just shows that very little, if any, thought went into the 
consequences of legislation.

Doing a Failure Mode Analysis used to be the job of Parliament/House of 
Lords at the various Committee stages, but since Smiling Tony and his 
chums started side-stepping Parliament and the Lords any old rubbish gets 
passed.

Cheers
Richard 



-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:35:41AM -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:

> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are 
> free.
> I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in practise, but the 
> comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that those who are volunteering 
> their time and not earning can have their check for free. The discussion is 
> usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure activities for 
> children where the adults are not paid.

I'm not a trained and qualified cricket umpire because to become one I'd
have to get a CRB check, which I refuse to do because it's bloody
stupid, and because it's an affront to decency to make me, effectively,
prove my innocence.  And I'm not aware that there's been a spate of
cricket umpires standing in the middle of a field where everyone can see
them abusing children.

And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could
umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it,
and doesn't play childrens' teams.  In fact it consists mostly of large
tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen ears.

-- 
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

You don't need to spam good porn

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:10:12AM +0000, Paul Boyd wrote:

> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that all 
> that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.

"Fraud is illegal, therefore we didn't fiddle our expenses"?

-- 
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat

    If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the
    entrails of the bastard denying me access to anything else.

On Nov 2, 10:17 am, beamends  wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:31:37 퍍, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> >> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
>
> >>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new
> >>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide
> >>> open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected
> >>> by any new laws)
>
> >> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that
> >> all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.  All
> >> it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep
> >> tabs on it.
>
> > In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to
> > people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the politicians
> > don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc etc.
>
> > Come the revolution...
>
> They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the
> public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones
> with access to the media (or the media itself). Thinking things though
> would be a good idea too - creating a situation where a Police Officer
> cannot look after another Police Officer's child, never mind ordinary
> folk, just shows that very little, if any, thought went into the
> consequences of legislation.
>
> Doing a Failure Mode Analysis used to be the job of Parliament/House of
> Lords at the various Committee stages, but since Smiling Tony and his
> chums started side-stepping Parliament and the Lords any old rubbish gets
> passed.

And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
smiling David gets in with his chums.

MBQ

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:

> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
> smiling David gets in with his chums.

Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............

Cheers
Richard



-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

"David Cantrell"  wrote in message 
news:20091102112830.GA32045@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk...
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:35:41AM -0000, Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
>> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those are
>> free.
>> I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in practise, but the
>> comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that those who are 
>> volunteering
>> their time and not earning can have their check for free. The discussion 
>> is
>> usually in terms of sports, charities or other leisure activities for
>> children where the adults are not paid.
>
> I'm not a trained and qualified cricket umpire because to become one I'd
> have to get a CRB check, which I refuse to do because it's bloody
> stupid, and because it's an affront to decency to make me, effectively,
> prove my innocence.  And I'm not aware that there's been a spate of
> cricket umpires standing in the middle of a field where everyone can see
> them abusing children.
>
> And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could
> umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it,
> and doesn't play childrens' teams.  In fact it consists mostly of large
> tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen ears.
>
> -- 
> David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"
>
> You don't need to spam good porn

If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a piece 
of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask 
them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath.

Cheers,
Simon

beamends wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
>> smiling David gets in with his chums.
> 
> Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
> 
> Cheers
> Richard
> 
> 
> 


Don't you guys vote?

wolf k.

On Nov 2, 2:08 pm, Wolf K  wrote:
> beamends wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatba...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
> >> smiling David gets in with his chums.
>
> > Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
>
> > Cheers
> > Richard
>
> Don't you guys vote?
>
> wolf k.

When all you have to choose from is red or blue slime, lib dems, UKIP,
BNP or various fringe parties what would you advise?

MBQ

The message <4aeee7eb$0$1589$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>
from Wolf K  contains these words:

> Don't you guys vote?

Yes, but the government always gets in...

-- 
Dave,                                     
Frodsham
http://dave-jackson.fotopic.net

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:08:43 -0500, Wolf K wrote:

> beamends wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
>>> smiling David gets in with his chums.
>> 
>> Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Don't you guys vote?
> 
> wolf k.

I can't speak for others, but no - I don't even register (no junk mail). 
There's no one who represents me (and 'Er Indoors) in any way, shape or 
form at local or national level, because I'm not Mr. Wannabe-Middle-
Class, I can't stand "the environment" being used as an excuse for tax 
raising, policies always being London-centric (no consideration is ever 
made for those living in rural/remote areas any more) and my health or 
otherwise is nothing to do with the government other than offering 
impartial advice (see the furore about Professor Nutt). 

Until there is a "none of the above" box (or some radical new party that 
acknowledges that some people like a fag, a beer, enjoy off-road driving, 
don't want to fund other peoples kids so *they* can still afford their 
nice big house and flash car, wants to see the likes of the Bankers 
brought to book like us mere mortals would be, etc etc) the only sanction 
I have is not to vote - but even then we still get them on the TV 
wondering why voter turn out is so low! I won't even start down the road 
of MP's expenses, Parliament being side stepped when issuing new 
proclamations (sorry, carefully considered legislation) and Councillors 
who are more interested in their career than representing their 
constituents. And of course the current favourite - "the terrorist 
threat" - being used to drive rough shod over peoples freedoms (train 
spotters being threatened with arrest and such).... the list just goes on 
and on..... 

In short, integrity seems to be a word completely alien to our current 
politics, and "the people" are only a bunch of quiche-eaters in Hampstead 
or such, who's idea of an exiting weekend is going to the garden centre.

I'm well aware (my family has a long Royal Navy tradition) that people 
fought and died for our freedoms, but I expect a lot of them, given the 
chance, would be demanding a refund - they didn't fight for us to have to 
prove ourselves innocent when accused as UK law is now becoming.

I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way, but from customers in the 
shop I'm not the only one.. Everyone is allowed their own point of view! 
(at least for the time being)

Well, you did ask ;-)

Cheers
Richard


-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

David Cantrell wrote:

> "Fraud is illegal, therefore we didn't fiddle our expenses"?

Except that almost without exception they bleated "But it's in the 
rules" or "Oops, silly me, it was just a mistake so I'll pay it back and 
everything will be alright again so I didn't really commit an illegal act."

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Wolf K wrote:

> Don't you guys vote?

I do, but there's not actually much choice!  Realistically, there are 
only two parties with a chance of forming the next government, and apart 
from the colour of their ribbons, there's no difference between the two 
of them.  I would really support a "None of the above" option, and I 
suspect that if that option was available, a lot more people would turn 
out.  If enough people voted "None of the above", that is a pretty good 
clue that people have no confidence in any of the parties.  I also have 
a problem with our system in that we can't actually vote for which party 
should run the country - we can only vote for who we want to run our 
local area, which isn't necessarily the same party.

I will vote though, and always have done, so that I have a right to 
complain if I don't agree with the winning party's policies :-)

Oh yeah - alt.politics is thataway, for the brave ====>>>>>>

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

beamends wrote:

> I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...

Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full 
stop. :-)

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

"Paul Boyd"  wrote in message 
news:4aef1caf$0$2488$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> beamends wrote:
>
>> I don't expect anyone to agree, by the way...
>
> Mmm - mostly I do agree, except that cigarettes should be banned, full 
> stop. :-)
>
> -- 
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

Ah, but everyone has their favourite exception :-)

Cheers,
Simon

"Paul Boyd"  wrote in message 
news:4aef1c3a$0$2488$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Wolf K wrote:
>
>> Don't you guys vote?
>
> I do, but there's not actually much choice!  Realistically, there are only 
> two parties with a chance of forming the next government, and apart from 
> the colour of their ribbons, there's no difference between the two of 
> them.  I would really support a "None of the above" option, and I suspect 
> that if that option was available, a lot more people would turn out.  If 
> enough people voted "None of the above", that is a pretty good clue that 
> people have no confidence in any of the parties.  I also have a problem 
> with our system in that we can't actually vote for which party should run 
> the country - we can only vote for who we want to run our local area, 
> which isn't necessarily the same party.
>
> I will vote though, and always have done, so that I have a right to 
> complain if I don't agree with the winning party's policies :-)
>
> Oh yeah - alt.politics is thataway, for the brave ====>>>>>>
>
> -- 
> Paul Boyd
> http://www.paul-boyd.me.uk/

You may be right, but I suspect and hope not, and i'm pleased to say that 
was never fooled by blair although could not imagine the incompetence and 
waste that GB would cause.

cheers,
Simon

Wolf K wrote:
> beamends wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
>>> smiling David gets in with his chums.
>>
>> Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
>>
>> Cheers
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Don't you guys vote?

It only encourages them.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

beamends wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> 
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new
>>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field wide
>>>> open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be affected
>>>> by any new laws)
>>> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that
>>> all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.  All
>>> it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to keep
>>> tabs on it.
>> In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to
>> people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the politicians
>> don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc etc.
>>
>> Come the revolution...
> 
> They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the 
> public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones 
> with access to the media (or the media itself).

I'm not sure that listening to silent people would be the best use of time.

  Thinking things though
> would be a good idea too - creating a situation where a Police Officer 
> cannot look after another Police Officer's child, never mind ordinary 
> folk, just shows that very little, if any, thought went into the 
> consequences of legislation.
> 
> Doing a Failure Mode Analysis used to be the job of Parliament/House of 
> Lords at the various Committee stages, but since Smiling Tony and his 
> chums started side-stepping Parliament and the Lords any old rubbish gets 
> passed.
> 
> Cheers
> Richard 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

manatbandq@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2:08 pm, Wolf K  wrote:
>> beamends wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:40:51 -0800, manatba...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> And now the precedents have been set, it will be no different when
>>>> smiling David gets in with his chums.
>>> Absolutely! Same slime, different colour flag...............
>>> Cheers
>>> Richard
>> Don't you guys vote?
>>
>> wolf k.
> 
> When all you have to choose from is red or blue slime, lib dems, UKIP,
> BNP or various fringe parties what would you advise?
> 
> MBQ


Join the constituency association, and shake 'em up.

cheers,
wolf k.

> When all you have to choose from is red or blue slime, lib dems, UKIP,
> BNP or various fringe parties what would you advise?

Will the reneging by David Cameron upon the issue of a referendum
about the Lisbon Treaty mean that the next government will
be a Labour one?

Not because anybody will want one, but merely because the protest
vote will now be split amongst the Conservatives, UKIP, and the BNP.

You read it here first.

Perhap's David Cameron's epitaph will be "The man who
catapulted the BNP into power"?

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:07:55 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:

> beamends wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> 
>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new
>>>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field
>>>>> wide open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be
>>>>> affected by any new laws)
>>>> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians that
>>>> all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal. 
>>>> All it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder to
>>>> keep tabs on it.
>>> In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander to
>>> people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the
>>> politicians don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc etc
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Come the revolution...
>> 
>> They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the
>> public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy ones
>> with access to the media (or the media itself).
> 
> I'm not sure that listening to silent people would be the best use of
> time.
> 
>   Thinking things though

The silent people are shouting loud, but have no voice - exactly what the 
politicians are failing to comprehend, and why they are so out of touch.

Cheers
Richard







-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:50:12PM -0000, simon wrote:

> If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a piece 
> of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask 
> them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath.

I prefer "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you wearing clothes?"

-- 
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

  engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in
    to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists

"David Cantrell"  wrote in message 
news:20091103113738.GC23105@bytemark.barnyard.co.uk...
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:50:12PM -0000, simon wrote:
>
>> If anyone comes out with the line whats youre problem with getting a 
>> piece
>> of paper signed - if you are truly innocent then theres no harm done, ask
>> them if theyve ever read 'Catch 22'. Were not far off the loyalty oath.
>
> I prefer "if you've got nothing to hide, why are you wearing clothes?"
>
> -- 
OnTopic, I often think of his pilot building/dismantling the parrafin thing 
when I'm trying to get a chassis to run smoothly.

cheers,
Simon

"MartinS" wrote

> What about "television"?

Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the 
development of television.

John.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:55:47 +0000, John Turner wrote:

> "MartinS" wrote
> 
>> What about "television"?
> 
> Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the
> development of television.
> 
> John.

Fantastic, wasn't it. I'd never heard of the high res stereoscopic colour 
TV - just think where we'd be now if he hadn't died early.

Cheers
Richard 



-- 
I have become...............comfortably numb

"John Turner" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "MartinS" wrote
> 
>> What about "television"?
> 
> Excellent program on TV last night about JLB (John Logie Baird) and the 
> development of television.

I saw it on bit torrent. Maybe I'll download it.

Also, on thebox.bz, there are quite frequent posts of obscure railway 
videos and old BTF films. Some are very interesting.

-- 
Martin S.

David Cantrell  wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
> 
>> Its worth finding out if you can get checks as a volunteers as those
>> are free. I've no idea if non-profit model clubs can do this in
>> practise, but the comments by spokes-people on the radio imply that
>> those who are volunteering their time and not earning can have their
>> check for free. The discussion is usually in terms of sports,
>> charities or other leisure activities for children where the adults
>> are not paid. 
> 
> I'm not a trained and qualified cricket umpire because to become one
> I'd have to get a CRB check, which I refuse to do because it's bloody
> stupid, and because it's an affront to decency to make me,
> effectively, prove my innocence.  And I'm not aware that there's been
> a spate of cricket umpires standing in the middle of a field where
> everyone can see them abusing children.
> 
> And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could
> umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it,
> and doesn't play childrens' teams.  In fact it consists mostly of
> large tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen
> ears. 

It sounds more like though you need protection from them!
Do they have to have CRB checks too?

-- 
Martin S.

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:50:49PM -0500, MartinS wrote:
> David Cantrell  wrote:
> > And never mind that the reason I wanted to get qualified is so I could
> > umpire for my local pub team which, obviously, has no children in it,
> > and doesn't play childrens' teams.  In fact it consists mostly of
> > large tattooed gentlemen with scars, broken noses, and mis-shapen
> > ears. 
> It sounds more like though you need protection from them!

Hehe.  They're lovely people, honestly :-)

-- 
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

    It's my experience that neither users nor customers can articulate
    what it is they want, nor can they evaluate it when they see it
        -- Alan Cooper

Just to say many thanks for the useful responses (and the somewhat OT 
diversions!) to my original query. Your varied suggestions, well not all of 
them!, are being considered for incorporation into our club rules
"Keith Patrick"  wrote in message 
news:-vCdnXpDT-tTEHfXnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently 
> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have 
> contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will 
> appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own 
> expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I 
> know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response 
> to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming 
> a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be 
> incorporated into the club rules.
>

"Arthur Figgis"  wrote

> We had to go and live in an unfenced pond.

Remember some of us going skinny-dipping in a pond at the local brickworks.

We were interrupted by a rare (for those enlightened days) WPC who told us 
to get out.  Needless to say we all refused.

LOL.

John.

"turbo"  wrote

> Not forgetting abandoned canal boats, nearly full of grimy water, which 
> always seem to get 'stuck' in the middle of the canal when I was aboard!!
> The important thing was risk was learned to be managed- what was possible, 
> what was not, once called 'common sense'

Or not as the case may be.

One of my mates fell off the cliffs at Flamborough (or at least that's where 
I think it was) whilst 'climbing' and was killed.

It was announced at school assembly on the following Monday morning, and by 
dinner time it was all forgotten about.  No suggestion of (or need for) 
counselling, and no threats to fence off the area.

John.

"beamends"  wrote in message 
news:ComdnS3kVrVfnW3XnZ2dnUVZ8ipi4p2d@bt.com...
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:07:55 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>
>> beamends wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:31:37 +0000, Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>>>> Phil O. Sopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As with child protection; those of us who object to the new
>>>>>> arrangements will simply withdraw support thus leaving the field
>>>>>> wide open to the paederasts (who were illegal anyway and won't be
>>>>>> affected by any new laws)
>>>>> There does seem to be a very naive attitude amongst politicians 
>>>>> that
>>>>> all that's needed to make a problem go away is to make it illegal.
>>>>> All it does is to drive the problem underground where it's harder 
>>>>> to
>>>>> keep tabs on it.
>>>> In a democracy the politicians are more or less obliged to pander 
>>>> to
>>>> people shouting "someone[else] should do something". If the
>>>> politicians don't, they will be declared offensive, uncaring, etc 
>>>> etc
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Come the revolution...
>>>
>>> They are very much obliged to listen to the public, but *all* of the
>>> public, and that includes the silent majority - not just the noisy 
>>> ones
>>> with access to the media (or the media itself).
>>
>> I'm not sure that listening to silent people would be the best use of
>> time.
>>
>>   Thinking things though
>
> The silent people are shouting loud, but have no voice - exactly what 
> the
> politicians are failing to comprehend, and why they are so out of 
> touch.

... and which is probably why the BNP is getting so much support 
nowadays.

>
> Cheers
> Richard

-- 
Jane

"Keith Patrick"  wrote in message 
news:-vCdnXpDT-tTEHfXnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> One for model railway club members really. Much has been made recently 
> about the need for enhanced CRB checks for those who regularly have 
> contact with children and other vulnerable adults. These people will 
> appear to have to have a CRB check costing about £70, at their own 
> expense. How is your club handling this if you have a junior section?  I 
> know of at least one club that is closing it's junior section in response 
> to these proposals, which is a pity.We are just in the process of forming 
> a club in mid-Lincolnshire, and would welcome any advice which could be 
> incorporated into the club rules.

My local engineering has recently enquired upon this matter to the county
council's protection officer, and the advice received, at least as far as
public running and exhibitions goes, is that provided the child's parents
are present, then there has only to be one official accredited under the
CRB also present at all times.

I appreciate that this situation isn't quite the question posed, but
may nonetheless be of interest