Youth and Development AGM Report 2018-2019

[ZombieCake]

There are a few absurd laws in the UK. For example, if a burglar injures themselves invading your property and smashes things up and so hurts themselves you could be liable under some some stupid duty of care legislation. 
Age is irrelevant. Brain dead fuckwits, criminals, etc. will always be prevalent regardless of age, gender, etc.
Therefore people in the line that could be sued or prosecuted will generally take the path of least resistance. So things get banned. Not rocket science. Yes, reality is some people are more responsible than others, but things go to the lowest common denominator, and so get banned on the perceptible risk level.
Waving flags or hastily scrawled protest signs won't help.  Reasoned argument might.

 

[nearlywhite]

Waving flags or hastily scrawled protest signs won't help.  Reasoned argument might.

The implication being that others don't have a reasoned argument? TBF it's your paragraph that's a little hard to follow  :-\

 

[2xw]

There are a few absurd laws in the UK. For example, if a burglar injures themselves invading your property and smashes things up and so hurts themselves you could be liable under some some stupid duty of care legislation. 

You could, but you realistically wouldn't. This would come under the Occupiers liability act 87, and you'd only really be liable in the event of say, a boobie trap. Actually trespassers are owed very little liability (you increase liability by permitting visitors). For relevant examples regarding liability owed to U18s by landowners see Keown Vs Coventry NHS trust or Bucket v Staffordshire City Council for some case law.

 

[ZombieCake]

I think I'll be buying a cordless angle grinder.  Can't be arsed with the BCA, CCC or other politics any more.

 

[cap n chris]

Ignoring the random ranting and absurd incitements but picking up on the relevant commentary instead: yes, there will be many under 18s perfectly capable of caving where they are currently disallowed but many is not the same as all; looking at the bigger picture though I think the main restrictions on under 18s are from caving clubs and the bodies of British Caving which historically have been based on drinking age culture and an aversion to anything to do with children, hence Scouting and Outdoor Pursuits Companies have been the go-to bodies for under 18s in this country for decades - this has created its own subset of issues for ACBs because it is difficult to facilitate access for a preferred user group without appearing to discriminate against another.

BCA award-holding cave leaders and professional outfits are used to being tramrailed and extremely limited in their choice of sites for training, assessment or group trips: imagine the outcry on here and from cavers at large if they too were barred from as many caves as we are. Perhaps an argument should be made for freer access to ALL user groups leading under 18s in the nation's caves.

As an example: should there be vociferous lobbying for Outdoor Pursuits Companies to be allowed to take capable under 18s to OFD? Would this meet with approval and widespread support?

 

[nearlywhite]

Let my business operate more freely is a very different argument to we shouldn't discriminate against under 18s because of unsubstantiated legal concerns.

I am sympathetic to CICs as they do take a hell of a lot of young people caving - absolutely dwarfs the rest of caving. Unfortunately the reality is that not many of them will become cavers - especially relative to other user groups. Until we can better link up the commercial to the long term hobbyist there's not much hope of the wagons being hitched.

We've had discussions before on this topic Chris and Y&D are still looking at ways to increase opportunity with a couple of plans in the offing. However I'm always happy to hear other suggestions or plans. Do more isn't really that helpful.

 

[alastairgott]

I have met a scout group in Derbyshire who, due to anonymity :idea: , I have forgotten where they came from 


But I do know that they were based somewhere below the line I draw across the country and call "south".


On the way to peak cavern with their kids (to go caving), they were saying they wish they could visit more caves on Mendip but weren't allowed. Similarly, instructors regularly visit Peak (average once a week?  ).


Clearly this shouldn't be whitewashed over all caves in the country, as each will have their reasons, but some greater flexibility in the application of access restrictions would be great for the introduction of conservation and caving to more individuals.


There are "risks" in peak cavern, which most casual visitors ignore, but when Uni groups or instructors take new cavers down surprise view they can be lifelined down the fixed ladder. So the presence or absence of a perceived risk should not preclude visitors from being allowed to make their own decision as to whether to avoid or mitigate the risk.


It should be up to the visiting group to decide if they have the required skills to undertake the trip they intend to.

 

[NewStuff]

there will be many under 18s perfectly capable of caving where they are currently disallowed but many is not the same as all;

The same can be said for the competence of cavers in general. Do we just ban caving because a few may have issues? Or do we just let the person/group/party involved decide their abilities for themselves, as we do with every other aspect of the hobby.

You're grasping at straws.

 

[cap n chris]

The same can be said for the competence of cavers in general. Do we just ban caving because a few may have issues? Or do we just let the person/group/party involved decide their abilities for themselves, as we do with every other aspect of the hobby.

Agree. You're spot on picking up on this - once I'd posted and the time out had passed I realised that there was a phrase error namely the expression:

"...many is not the same as all..." is easily defeated and is untenable.

I should have written (but was too late to alter it):

"...many is not the same as most..." .. which makes a world of difference in the debate.

People can easily decide what trips are suitable for them by reference to guide books (cave grading) and the BCA core skills checklist for caver competencies which align to their chosen trip grade, as listed in the leadership syllabus available online.

 

[Jenny P]

Surely what we want to do here is to encourage youngsters to join caving clubs and for clubs to welcome younger cavers.  That's where the next generation of cavers is going to come from!

We already have some extremely useful guidance from the BCA Safeguarding Officer on what is required in the way of paperwork if a club does encourage younger members - so we know it can be done legally and by the book.  It does require an older caver (parent, guardian, etc.) to take responsibility - but that's surely not a problem.  It is a real pity if outdated notions of "liability" get in the way of encouraging youngsters.

 

[Ed]

Nice little earner for some......ban under 18s and only allow them in official groups.....

 

[Pitlamp]

I started caving well below age 18. If anyone had told me not to go because of my age, my response would have been to go caving and regard any perceived problem as someone else's problem.

 

[ian.p]

I should have written (but was too late to alter it):

"...many is not the same as most..." .. which makes a world of difference in the debate.

So most groups with members under the age of 16 are also not competent?
Thats still an untenable statment based on zero evidence most of the children i have encountered underground have been in the company of their parents usualy established cavers and youth groups such as the scouts or FSC and the rest in instructed groups. I have met a far higher percentage of clueless adults underground and theyre often less sober.


Im not sure how youve ended up on the opposing side of a debate around derestricting access for under 16's im pretty sure weve had conversations about how daft these restrictions are in the past. Theres a second debate to be had around ensuring responsable comercial caving but the two should not conflict.

 

[NewStuff]

I should have written (but was too late to alter it):

"...many is not the same as most..." .. which makes a world of difference in the debate.

.
No, it doesn't. There is no debate. Anyone not on a sodding power trip (the vast, overwhelming majority of cavers) fully understand that it's essential to bring new, enthusiastic, passionate people into caving, or caving as we know it dies a lingering death with fewer and fewer people doing it.

The only people trying to keep U18's out of caves are a small handful of power hungry saddo's who feel threatened.

 

[Ed]

Such a difference to the way the BMC, BCU etc encourage new new blood....young and not so young

 

[JasonC]

We already have some extremely useful guidance from the BCA Safeguarding Officer on what is required in the way of paperwork if a club does encourage younger members - so we know it can be done legally and by the book.  It does require an older caver (parent, guardian, etc.) to take responsibility - but that's surely not a problem.  It is a real pity if outdated notions of "liability" get in the way of encouraging youngsters.

Indeed, but it's not just that.  Our club - doubtless in common with others - had to form a policy re taking U18s caving.
Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine
- if not, then the trip leader must have passed a DBS check, and also the club must appoint a Youth/Vulnerable Adult Officer to ensure that all paperwork is complete and regulations complied with.

Personally, I would have no objection to undergoing a DBS check, but definitely wouldn't want the responsibility of being a Y/VA officer.  I think this feeling was general, so our policy had to be "no U18s unless accompanied by parent/guardian".

I'm not aware that we have ever (at least recently) taken unaccompanied U18s, so in practice it won't make much difference, but it seems a pity - if a member wanted to take their child and his/her mate (whose parents wouldn't contemplate caving) on a trip, then presumably we'd have to say no.

 

[ian.p]

I think it is very important to understand that in the case of CCC "safeguarding" is being used as a smoke screen to maintain access control.

I have spoken to a club rep present at the last CCC AGM and it is abundantly clear that BCA advice on safeguarding requirements has been wilfully misrepresented to club reps.


The current position taken by CCC is that any 16-18 year old wanting to enter a CCC controlled cave must be accompanied by 2 adults and apparently this is to be applied to all children in the party I.E if there were 2 children there must be 4 adults in the party.


I have previously worked as a cave leader and presently help to run children?s caving camps as a volenteer. Commercial caving companies with far greater liability than the CCC typically work on a ratio of 1 instructor to between 8 -12 children with an adult assistant (usually a parent or teacher). As a volunteer taking children caving I usually have a ratio of 4-6 children to 1 leader and 1 assistant. So it is quite clear that the CCC'S stance is not in line with curent good practice.


CCC is an access controlling body, it is not offering to take children caving. The responsibility for ensuring a child's safety lies with the group undertaking the trip, not CCC. If the 50p charged for a permit is thought to create liability THEN FOR GODS SAKES JUST STOP CHARGING IT AND GET RID OF THE PERMITS the only thing that costs CCC any money is printing the permits! BCA has lots of money at the moment im sure CCC could ask for a subsidy if it was desperatly affected by the loss of revenue.

To highlight the ridiculousness of this stance lets say for example an adult caver assaulted a child down Swildons hole or on the Ingleton waterfalls walk. Does anyone seriously think it would be in the public interest for the farmer or estate to be held liable for either of those incidents? Does the Ingleton estate insist that every group using it proves they have two responsible adults to every child?


As a further point, contrary to popular belief, you do not need a DBS check to interact with somone elses child. What you do need to be is sensible. Yes it is a good idea to always have two adults in a party, yes you should think about arangments for changing and accomadation if you are planning an overnight trip. Clubs should have a safeguarding policy, but a DBS check is not a silver bullet and neither is it a legal requirement for everyone to have one. Remember that a DBS check only safeguards against previous offenders who have been caught and prosecuted.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine

You omit friend of the family, see Section 58 of the 2007 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/data.pdf.  That covers your scenario of member, child and mate of child.  It is in the new policy presented to the AGM.

 

[Graigwen]

Our understanding of the position is
- if their parent/guardian accompanies them, then all is fine

You omit friend of the family, see Section 58 of the 2007 Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/47/data.pdf.  That covers your scenario of member, child and mate of child.  It is in the new policy presented to the AGM.

...and this also covers the situation I was in years ago when I habitually took a 17 year old child into old mines without consulting her parent as S58(3) covered me in my other role as the child's husband.

.