Young peolple, caving and carers, Insurance

  • Thread starter hole_in_the_rock
  • Start date

Have you taken young people on activities such as climbing/caving/diving?

  • YES and I have been vetted

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • YES and I have not been vetted

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO and I have been vetted

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO and I have not been vetted

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • NO because it's too much trouble

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
H

hole_in_the_rock

Guest
I am correct in thinking that anyone involved in activities where under 18s are participating needs vetting for their suitability. Some sort of criminal check etc?

Does this rule also apply to those of us taking small parties of children (be they Scouts, Guides, Cadets, disadvantaged children etc) on pot-holing/caving trips/rock climbing activities and so on?

If it does, how do clubs go about gaining such vetting?
If it does not, has anyone thought about the implications of not being officially recognised, particularly when kids go missing?

We all want to protect both the children, ourselves and clubs, so is this an issue that needs addressing?
What would be the insurance issues if a member helping look after the group was not vetted properly, and one of the children got hurt? Would they refuse to pay out because the person did not have proper vetting (irrespective of whether it was their fault or not)? We all know how insurance companies are tightening up on policies, is this another aspect we should be looking at?
 
A

Andy Sparrow

Active member
hole_in_the_rock said:
I am correct in thinking that anyone involved in activities where under 18s are participating needs vetting for their suitability. Some sort of criminal check etc?

Does this rule also apply to those of us taking small parties of children (be they Scouts, Guides, Cadets, disadvantaged children etc) on pot-holing/caving trips/rock climbing activities and so on?

If it does, how do clubs go about gaining such vetting?
If it does not, has anyone thought about the implications of not being officially recognised, particularly when kids go missing?

We all want to protect both the children, ourselves and clubs, so is this an issue that needs addressing?
What would be the insurance issues if a member helping look after the group was not vetted properly, and one of the children got hurt? Would they refuse to pay out because the person did not have proper vetting (irrespective of whether it was their fault or not)? We all know how insurance companies are tightening up on policies, is this another aspect we should be looking at?
Click to expand...
"I am correct in thinking that anyone involved in activities where under 18s are participating needs vetting for their suitability. Some sort of criminal check etc?"

No. Such vetting depends upon the policy of the organisation. Most require it but it is not a legal requirement.

"Does this rule also apply to those of us taking small parties of children (be they Scouts, Guides, Cadets, disadvantaged children etc) on pot-holing/caving trips/rock climbing activities and so on?"

No, because it is not a rule.

"If it does, how do clubs go about gaining such vetting?
If it does not, has anyone thought about the implications of not being officially recognised, particularly when kids go missing?"

Most clubs don't deal much with under 18s. In my opinion there are no real implications. If a child was abused by a caving club member or volunteer helper a judge might advise that the organisation tighten up its procedures. Bear in mind that most 'child protection' policies are not about child protection but about adult protection from false allegations. No one in their right minds imposes this sort of nonsense on themselves if they can possibly avoid it.



"We all want to protect both the children, ourselves and clubs, so is this an issue that needs addressing?"

NO!

"What would be the insurance issues if a member helping look after the group was not vetted properly, and one of the children got hurt?"

None whatsover if you are talking about some unconnected accident rather than physical violation.

"Would they refuse to pay out because the person did not have proper vetting (irrespective of whether it was their fault or not)?"

NO.

"We all know how insurance companies are tightening up on policies, is this another aspect we should be looking at?"

NO.

My responses to these questions are based on 20 years experience as a professional instructor, consultant to the outdoor industry and expert witness advising on litigation cases.
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
I have been Security & CRB vetted for work. With it I feel happier with parents taking minors underground.

I remember a meeting at my caving club saying everyone had to be vetted to take minors underground unless the parent is in attendance all the times.

Them young-uns need to be included in outdoor/underground activities otherwise they just end up as chavs. Its a shame 'offical' organisations put up the most barriers to minors, leaving the unoffical in a difficult position. Engadge with the youth of today or they will be tomorrows criminals.
If you know a 13 year old, get em in the Air Training Corps. Failing that the sea cadets or army cadets but the ATC is the best.
http://www.aircadets.org/
 
cap n chris

cap n chris

Well-known member
a meeting at my caving club saying everyone had to be vetted to take minors underground unless the parent is in attendance all the times.
Click to expand...

They're being paranoid. Mind you, if the club said the parent had to join in with the trip it might help increase membership if they decided to join as a result! - also, it would mean they could act as mentor for the children while they remained members of the club and could relieve any club member from undue worries about false allegations (should any arise).
 
M

Mole

Guest
But if you take a minor on a trip aren't you considered to be acting "in loco parentis" ?
 
A

Andy Sparrow

Active member
But if you take a minor on a trip aren't you considered to be acting "in loco parentis" ?
Click to expand...

Yes of course and you are honour bound to look after that kid as if it were your own. But does this have to extend to proving you are not a pervert in advance? Let's not forget that the real dangers facing todays children are traffic, junk food and sadistic bullying by their peers in the playground. The great 'peado' paranoia is the media led witch hunt of our age.
 
cap n chris

cap n chris

Well-known member
The main thing about working with children is that it helps if you don't actually like them much and also don't really want to work with them but find that you're obliged to as a result of the job you've managed to sleepwalk into.

Put another way, anyone who volunteers to work with children automatically must have a motive for doing so and this then begs the question... what is that motive? This is even more intriguing in the realm of voluntary workers - the "What's in it for you?" syndrome. Hence the requirement for VOLUNTEERS working with children's organisations being required to have a CRB check beforehand..... At least if you're getting paid, the motive is obvious - "It pays the bills".

So, if you want to get a position as an adult leader with the Scouts (for example), it appears that it would help greatly if you don't want to do it and don't like children. Odd, but hey... that's logic for you! No wonder they're having trouble finding new people to step into the shoes of leaders who are hanging up their woggles.

"The person most suited to a particular task is usually the person who least wishes to do it".

All the above is merely a silly diversion from the original thread; sorry about that!
 
M

Mole

Guest
Andy Sparrow said:
The great 'peado' paranoia is the media led witch hunt of our age.
Click to expand...

It's a sad fact of life that paedophilia is still present in our society today,and the internet has made it a lot easier for paedophiliacs to communicate with each other.

Whislt I agree that the media do sensationalise such crimes,children are still at risk,and the likes of "chat rooms" provide a means for the "grooming" of children by abusers.

Contrary to popular belief,abusers do not walk around wearing dirty raincoats.

The effects of abuse stay with the victim for the rest of their life,some victims are unable to cope with this burden,coping strategies can involve drug and alcohol abuse,self-harm,some even become abusers themselves,and some find it all too painful and end their lives by their own hands.

Abusers aren't stupid,quite the opposite in my experience.
They are some of the most cunning and devious people I've ever met,but the most common factor is that it wasn't "their fault",and that the victim "led them on".
The dangerous thing is they really do believe it.
They have a completely different mindset,they live in a very strange world indeed.

My personal opinion is that they can't be "cured",but merely contained,in a manner which society deems appropriate.

Sorry if this appears to be a rant,but I spent a number of years working with victims of abuse,and I've seen the effects it has on people in later life.
 
A

Andy Sparrow

Active member
The effects of abuse stay with the victim for the rest of their life,some victims are unable to cope with this burden,coping strategies can involve drug and alcohol abuse,self-harm,some even become abusers themselves,and some find it all too painful and end their lives by their own hands.
Click to expand...

It is undeniable that such trauma exists. It is often compounded by the abuser being a person in a position of intimate trust such as a relative or a priest (the late pope will never be the patron saint of either the abused or those afflicted by aids). I don't think someone leading a 2-3 hour caving trip is really in a position to reak such psychological damage. Realistically, I would suggest, societies safeguards should be applied in residential situations or to those who have a prolonged opportunity to forge inappropriate relationships. But even this will not protect from the most common source of abuse - that is from within the family of the abused.
 
I

ianball11

Active member
Ignoring the child protection area, my pov being involved with our uni club is that we are unable to take minors on a caving trip. Mainly because they aren't members of the university union, although that's a cop out as ex-students still stick around forever.

I've never been say canoeing and would be totally reliant on the canoe instructor. The duty of care extends further than that for under 18's, novices are just as likely to come unstuck as a child, in fact I'd say more likely. And this should be and usually is covered in the preparation for a caving trip with novices.

What dissapoints me is that parents would be the first to blame anyone and everyone when their child is injured underground, yet an injury on the football pitch is just a part of the game. Why is caving different when essentially the dangers are known, understood and protected against?

Ian B.
 
kay

kay

Well-known member
What dissapoints me is that parents would be the first to blame anyone and everyone when their child is injured underground, yet an injury on the football pitch is just a part of the game.
Click to expand...

Have you got evidence for that, or is it just your opinion? I'd have thought it would depend on the parent - the one to blame others when their child is injured underground would be equally likely to look for someone to blame in any other situation.

Magnitude of injury would come into play too - I can see that one would be more likely to look for someone to blame if ones child fell down a 60ft pitch than if it returned home with a mildly sprained ankle.
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
I took a group of under 18's and a parent for a look round Box today, just jacks workings for an introduction. Worked out well. The parent told me they were really interested in the underground but had problems finding anyone who would do a trip. Made em wear hard hats (I now keep a few with me in the car) each had a torch. Apparently other tours (I dont know which they mean) had closed down due to health and safety. Caving is classed as a dangerous sport as opposed to school field sports, due to the fact that IF something were to happen underground its more likly to end serious. (Like speeding) thats why people shy away from taking responsability. I suspect ianball11's opinion that parents might go nuts if a child is hurt underground but accept a field injury has some basis in truth. Your avarage normal parent can understand and imagine a field injury but underground a head of fall injury would simply be asumed as thats the view people have of the underground, that big things fall on you.
 
A

Andy Sparrow

Active member
I took a group of under 18's and a parent for a look round Box today, just jacks workings for an introduction.
Click to expand...

May I ask how many you had in the group? And is this a service that you offer for free?
 
D

dunc

New member
What dissapoints me is that parents would be the first to blame anyone and everyone when their child is injured underground, yet an injury on the football pitch is just a part of the game. Why is caving different when essentially the dangers are known, understood and protected against?
Click to expand...
Are the dangers really known? Parents and most of the public instantly assume caving IS dangerous without a shred of knowledge to back that fact up, only media hype.. Yes accidents can and do occur in our sport, some with regretable concequences but the same could be said for any sport - I'm sure with little effort you could find information regarding numerable injuries and even death resulting from so called 'normal' sporting activities..

The public and the parents can't see whats going in a cave, we're hidden from view - thus they don't understand it, theres nobody to help out other than those underground until someone instigates a call-out.. On a football field helps is on-hand very quickly, a cave is a different matter..

As for blame - welcome to the modern world of greed.. If someone can sue they will, money won't help the injured person its just freely and readily available to those that wish to pursue the action, the british legal(lol)system is quite happy to award such money..

And I've only ever taken one person underground below 18, on a trip with one other experienced caver (the brother of the youngerster).. All went well.. Even though it would be good and worthwhile taking young 'uns caving I'll admit I'd be less happy taking them underground if no close relation was present - in our society it is potentially far too costly if in the unlikely event something should go wrong.. :(
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
Andy Sparrow said:
I took a group of under 18's and a parent for a look round Box today, just jacks workings for an introduction.
Click to expand...

May I ask how many you had in the group? And is this a service that you offer for free?
Click to expand...
5+parent+me / free - I offered rather then allow a bunch of silly rumors be perpetuated (about aliens), or they go and do it anyway and get lost/hurt. Told em how it was quarried, maps, from day one hardhats and torches. They were well behaved.
 
I

ianball11

Active member
kay said:
What dissapoints me is that parents would be the first to blame anyone and everyone when their child is injured underground, yet an injury on the football pitch is just a part of the game.
Click to expand...

Have you got evidence for that, or is it just your opinion? I'd have thought it would depend on the parent - the one to blame others when their child is injured underground would be equally likely to look for someone to blame in any other situation.

Magnitude of injury would come into play too - I can see that one would be more likely to look for someone to blame if ones child fell down a 60ft pitch than if it returned home with a mildly sprained ankle.[/quote

Nah, all my own opinion, after watching a couple of documentaries on student society accidents, so it's a case study of 2. Maybe blame is the wrong word. Quite rightly parents would want to know exactly what happened, down to the finest detail, and that might end up with blame at the end if something wasn't done as it should have been.

We spend alot of time with novices before contemplating more difficult trips. If they get injured, the parents will ask why did the club let you do this etc. whereas the novice will probably just say silly me for not thinking before I stepped on that green slimy ball shaped rock.

Ian B.
Click to expand...
 
D

Dave H

Guest
Recently, an organised, under 18 group that I was with had a fist sized rock roll a few feet down a gentle slope and stop when it encountered one lads back. He made one hell of a fuss, although it was such a minor incident (someone checked his back an hour later and there was still no bruising!) His parents even took him to A&E when he got home!
This raises two issues:
How soft are children really these days?
Was the child's attitudes learnt from his parents' attitudes?
I certainly wouldn't want to be this child's PE teacher!
 
A

Andy Sparrow

Active member
5+parent+me / free - I offered rather then allow a bunch of silly rumors be perpetuated (about aliens), or they go and do it anyway and get lost/hurt. Told em how it was quarried, maps, from day one hardhats and torches. They were well behaved.
Click to expand...

Aplologies for getting off topic here. Here is an interesting fact... I hold a CIC, an AALA license which includes mine exploration and am fully insured. Even with this level of qualification I cannot legally take a group (be they adults or children) into Box Mines if I charge them money. This is because it becomes my place of work and is subject to the Mines and Quarries Act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top