PDA

View Full Version : They kept this one quiet!



66FRAN
13-01-2011, 04:07 PM
The January 2011 POR is now available!

www.scouts.org.uk/por (http://www.scouts.org.uk/por)

Neil Williams
13-01-2011, 04:42 PM
Hmm... doesn't seem anything massive there, but yes, IMO it should be better publicised, preferably before taking effect.

Neil

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

Yellow Beaver
13-01-2011, 04:43 PM
Must have gone up today as when I looked yesterday it was the 2010 verison.

frazzle
13-01-2011, 04:56 PM
It appears that Beaver Scouts can now camp (although not for more than 24 hours, unless a family camp) - not massive but quite significant for a 7 year old!

big chris
13-01-2011, 05:06 PM
It appears that Beaver Scouts can now camp (although not for more than 24 hours, unless a family camp) - not massive but quite significant for a 7 year old!

???

Not in my version


<edit>

oops...

FS155053 is now updated too...

BigBadBaloo
13-01-2011, 05:28 PM
It appears that Beaver Scouts can now camp (although not for more than 24 hours, unless a family camp) - not massive but quite significant for a 7 year old!

Well spotted - I hadn't really noticed that. I have just sent details to our BL - I can see I might be having to up our game a bit if he goes for this! I have already had several beavers come up with 3 - 5 NA and even had one with 7!

Mark W
13-01-2011, 05:32 PM
It appears that Beaver Scouts can now camp (although not for more than 24 hours, unless a family camp)
That's not how I read Factsheet FS155053 Jan/11 Edition no 7 (http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs155053.pdf), which quotes Beavers Nights Away from 9am Sat to 5pm Sunday, including camping outdoors, and talks about Family Camps separately (and they can be more than one night).....:thup:

BigBadBaloo
13-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Another nice spot! It has changed from:

One night only: Sleepovers should not exceed more than 24hrs duration, which must include travel time. The venue should be local to allow parents/carers to have access to their child at any time should it be required. It is suggested that a Sleepover starts early evening and finishes mid-morning.

In the older version of the factsheet to this in the new version:

Duration
Residential experiences for Beaver Scouts must be for one night only. The venue should be close enough to allow parents/carers to have access to their child should it be required. This will be only in exceptional circumstances, and ‘dropping in’ should be discouraged. As an example, the residential experience could begin at 9am on Saturday morning and finish at 5pm on Sunday afternoon. This will enable Beaver Scouts to take part in two full days of activities with a night away in the middle. Family Camps are a different type of residential experience and can be for more than one night (see factsheet FS120083) and are another option.

wealdbrook
13-01-2011, 06:09 PM
It is good to see that the list of amendments are much more detailed than in previous years - it points you to the section which has been altered. However I do wish that they would highlight the changed text or side-bar the change. I was looking at the change to Scout Leader numbers and without a copy of the old one to hand it is not obvious which of the sub clauses has been amended.
Anyway, well done to Gillwell for the better amendment list.

neilr
13-01-2011, 06:17 PM
It is good to see that the list of amendments are much more detailed than in previous years - it points you to the section which has been altered. However I do wish that they would highlight the changed text or side-bar the change. I was looking at the change to Scout Leader numbers and without a copy of the old one to hand it is not obvious which of the sub clauses has been amended.
Anyway, well done to Gillwell for the better amendment list.

They have changed 3.9 c

The old one says "..... plan to ensure at least two adults...... are present at Troop Meetings......"

It now says "...... plan to ensure at least two adults..... are present at Troop Activities......"

shiftypete
13-01-2011, 08:06 PM
I can't believe they have allowed Beavers to camp with as far as I know no consultation and no announcement of the change. So we get consulted about proposed changes to mountain biking rules and high ropes rules but not a change which affects an entire Section :smash:

A fairly significant change to 3.23bii

All Section Leaders (i.e. individuals holding a Beaver Scout Leader, Cub Scout Leader or Scout Leader role) subject to that Section Leader expressly indicating to the AGM (in writing or orally at the meeting) that they are willing to perform such a function.
The bit in brackets has been added

66FRAN
13-01-2011, 08:16 PM
The update to 3.7 Means that Colonies MUST now offer Nights Away to Beavers to meet minimum requirements. This wont go down too well with some Beaver Leaders, including mine, as they dont do Nigts Away.

gregharewood
13-01-2011, 08:47 PM
They have changed 3.9 c

The old one says "..... plan to ensure at least two adults...... are present at Troop Meetings......"

It now says "...... plan to ensure at least two adults..... are present at Troop Activities......"

Is this mean to reduce what we do outside of regular troop meetings??

I fully intend to wilfully consider anything less than troop sized to be a Scout activity but not a troop one. There is no way that I'm going to stop doing PLCs just because I can't get a second adult.

Fiyero
13-01-2011, 08:51 PM
The update to 3.7 Means that Colonies MUST now offer Nights Away to Beavers to meet minimum requirements. This wont go down too well with some Beaver Leaders, including mine, as they dont do Nigts Away.
Very interesting. It has been our colony's intention to offer one a term and if not at least 2 a year but for various reasons we haven't had one since the summer and aren't in a position to plan one for a while.
Am I right in thinking that Beaver can now camp in pretty much the same way as Cubs but with the restriction of only one night?

shiftypete
13-01-2011, 09:00 PM
The update to 3.7 Means that Colonies MUST now offer Nights Away to Beavers to meet minimum requirements. This wont go down too well with some Beaver Leaders, including mine, as they don't do Nights Away.
WHAT! That is utter madness not a single Beaver Colony in our District does this to my knowledge and many Leaders do not want to. Our meeting place is unsuitable and unavailable for a sleepover anyway. We struggle to meet the min requirement for Cub nights away never mind trying to meet this for Beavers.

:mad:

Kiff76
13-01-2011, 09:21 PM
The update to 3.7 Means that Colonies MUST now offer Nights Away to Beavers to meet minimum requirements. This wont go down too well with some Beaver Leaders, including mine, as they dont do Nigts Away.

Where does it Say MUST - I can see the word opportunity but that could be a District Sleepover or a County/Area event.


Is this mean to reduce what we do outside of regular troop meetings??

I fully intend to wilfully consider anything less than troop sized to be a Scout activity but not a troop one. There is no way that I'm going to stop doing PLCs just because I can't get a second adult.

From a Child Protection point it is best practce to have a second adult present.

big chris
13-01-2011, 09:26 PM
Where does it Say MUST - I can see the word opportunity but that could be a District Sleepover or a County/Area event.


3.7k


i have never known a district or county beaver sleepover. Irrelevant as the point is that the leaders must be there anyway...

shiftypete
13-01-2011, 09:29 PM
Is this mean to reduce what we do outside of regular troop meetings?? Quite frankly yes, why should you be allowed to meet with Scouts outside of Troop meetings with no other adult present but be barred from running Troop meetings without at least one other Adult being there?



I fully intend to wilfully consider anything less than troop sized to be a Scout activity but not a troop one. There is no way that I'm going to stop doing PLCs just because I can't get a second adult.
You can consider it what you like it won't stop you from being in breach of POR and leaving yourself wide open if any scurrilous accusation was ever made against you.

66FRAN
13-01-2011, 09:33 PM
Quite frankly yes, why should you be allowed to meet with Scouts outside of Troop meetings with no other adult present but be barred from running Troop meetings without at least one other Adult being there?



You can consider it what you like it won't stop you from being in breach of POR and leaving yourself wide open if any scurrilous accusation was ever made against you.

Not really a change on that front- just a clarification- as we shouldn't be planning events where there is only one adult present anyway. It's only in exceptional circumstances.

daveb123
13-01-2011, 10:03 PM
WHAT! That is utter madness not a single Beaver Colony in our District does this to my knowledge and many Leaders do not want to. Our meeting place is unsuitable and unavailable for a sleepover anyway. We struggle to meet the min requirement for Cub nights away never mind trying to meet this for Beavers.

:mad:

I can understand some Beaver Leaders not wanting to run nights away - but a whole district???

I'm not certain taking them camping is a move in the right direction though.

And who says you have to use your meeting room? What is wrong with Bramhope or another site with suitable building.

Beavers from my Group & District have used Bramhope a few times and will be doing so0 again in April.

And again what is the problem with Cubs you have sites in your County and West & South Yorks aren't far.

shiftypete
13-01-2011, 10:16 PM
The problem with Cubs is a Leadership one as our CSL and ACSL both work in service industry jobs and rarely have weekends free and when they do they don't want to spend them running a Cub Camp.

I know we could do sleepovers away from out meeting place but this obviously involves a cost (hiring the lodge at Bramhope is not cheap) whereas I know many Colonies are able to simply sleep in their Group's hut. We also only have two Beaver Leaders and I am doubling up in adition to my main role as AESL and I spend what time I am prepared to doing nights away stuff with Explorers.

Hatman
13-01-2011, 10:32 PM
I very much welcome the change in the rules relating to sleepovers and allowing Beavers to camp. There certainly was a consultation process and I was definitely consulted. I asked for changes along these lines and am pleased to see that they have been implemented.
We have already planned our sleepover for this year. Maybe we will take them camping next year.
This should give us some flexibility to camp with other sections. It also means that Beavers who have families who can't come to our family camp, now get a chance to try camping.
I don't think the intention was to make it compulsory although it does sound a bit that way.
I agree it is not going to be easy to do, and it is probably not for everyone. However, just because it is hard that does not mean we should not do it.

Nigel

derekchambers
13-01-2011, 10:38 PM
Our beavers have always wanted to camp on group camp and so the change is welcomed

Spider
13-01-2011, 10:54 PM
I welcome the changes to the Beaver sleepover requirements - although this might mean I have to learn how to put up a tent. :cool:

And I ****** hate camping.

boomer_ie
13-01-2011, 11:56 PM
I mentioned this change at my GSLs meeting and the few GSLs that were there were very positive about the taking Beavers camping change.

Now to feed the news around to the Beaver Leaders and see what the feedback is there.

roger-uk
14-01-2011, 05:00 AM
I mentioned this change at my GSLs meeting and the few GSLs that were there were very positive about the taking Beavers camping change.

Now to feed the news around to the Beaver Leaders and see what the feedback is there.

I think its apositive step and one we should embrace and look how we can raise our game to ensure it works.

Do joint camps with Cubs and ease the burden. I've been doing joint sleepovers for years

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 07:23 AM
Not really a change on that front- just a clarification- as we shouldn't be planning events where there is only one adult present anyway. It's only in exceptional circumstances.

Indeed, though I think the SA should be careful of wording. I think there's a certain (slighly pedantic) combination of reading in the new rules that would require two adults to be present during the day at Event Passport camps (and would disallow other non-supervised Patrol activities) but none overnight.

This is, I think, certainly not the intention (it would be ridiculous were it the case - the Scout Section rules have long been "0 is OK, 2 or more is OK, 1 isn't"), but I can see someone who wanted to make a point reading it in that specific way.

I think this should illustrate the danger of clarifying a Rule by doing a single-word find and replace, which appears to be how this one has been done.

Suggestion to Wayne, then, if he's reading: how about putting out changes to POR to the membership as a whole in advance to allow us to point out inconsistencies and errors before it actually takes effect? Free proof-reading, if you like.

Have suggested this in Wayne's forum.

Neil

gregharewood
14-01-2011, 07:41 AM
Quite frankly yes, why should you be allowed to meet with Scouts outside of Troop meetings with no other adult present but be barred from running Troop meetings without at least one other Adult being there?

Because the intent of 2 adults is was always to be in case of emergency, someone getting hurt, etc..

Child protection in the yellow card is worded very differently, and refers to another PERSON being present, i.e. avoiding one on one situations with children. Another SCOUT fulfills that requirement, so it means that I can do a PLC with a bunch of Scouts with no issue, and always have been able to, the same as I can take Scouts in my car without another adult, so long as there is more than one of them and I have the correct insurance.

On this basis, I will also wilfully interpret a PLC as not being an activity, since it is not very active and noone can get hurt. I honestly believe that this reasoning is sound.

Not only do I dislike what I think would be many people's reading of the new rule, I genuinely think it is less clear than what we had before. Everyone understood what the phrase "troop meeting" meant, as the regular weekly slot. "Troop Activity" is less clear.


You can consider it what you like it won't stop you from being in breach of POR and leaving yourself wide open if any scurrilous accusation was ever made against you.

The Yellow Card is our child protection document, and I follow it to the letter. I have upset parents by following it. On the one occasion that I drove a single kid home because there was no other choice, I had the parent put in writing that they had requested it, that it was their fault, and that it was the least worst option.

If the Yellow Card is not gospel on our child protection policy, someone please tell me, and maybe I'll just quit. Because we just cannot be expected to determine for ourselves the correct intersection between that and apparently different wording and intent in POR. Until then - POR is clear to me as determining troop standards. Troops can be shut down if they don't have 2 adults present frequently over a period of SIX MONTHS. You must PLAN to have two adults present at troop ACTIVITIES. This, to me, makes clear sense only if the intent is to reduce risk of accidents and behaviour incidents not being well handled, and to make sure that the troop is well run. But where there is a conflict, for child protection purposes which should be paramount, the yellow card is a magnificently written, concise and clear document, it is posted in the hut, and it is what we promise parents that we will adhere to.

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 08:05 AM
One that some will not see is this on membership of the Group Exec, and therefore of Trustee Status.

 All Section Leaders (i.e. individuals holding a Beaver Scout Leader, Cub Scout Leader or Scout Leader role) subject to that Section Leader expressly indicating to the AGM (in writing or orally at the meeting) that they are willing to perform such a function.

So Leaders are no longer automatically Trustees. Which means they cannot vote on any financial matter at all unless they agree to be Trustees.

gregharewood
14-01-2011, 08:08 AM
One that some will not see is this on membership of the Group Exec, and therefore of Trustee Status.

 All Section Leaders (i.e. individuals holding a Beaver Scout Leader, Cub Scout Leader or Scout Leader role) subject to that Section Leader expressly indicating to the AGM (in writing or orally at the meeting) that they are willing to perform such a function.

So Leaders are no longer automatically Trustees. Which means they cannot vote on any financial matter at all unless they agree to be Trustees.

That change needs to be publicised to all execs, otherwise there will be a horrible legal mess next time anyone is held to account for financial decisions.

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 08:09 AM
So Leaders are no longer automatically Trustees.

I think this is good for 2 reasons:-

1. It presumably means that someone who is ineligible to be a Trustee (I believe someone who is bankrupt would be ineligible?) is not prevented from being a Leader.

2. It means that those who are concerned about being a Trustee (there has been a high profile case relating to Trustee liability recently in my local area which wasn't in Scouting but could put people off if they knew about it) need not be.

That said, I've never quite understood why we can have limited companies but not limited-liability charities. I think there is a very strong argument to change this, though exactly on which basis I'm not sure. Why, logically, if I set up a charity (for the greater good), should I as a trustee be fully liable, whereas I can set up a business (for the good of my wallet) and have my liability limited?

Neil

Kastor
14-01-2011, 08:14 AM
I'm pleased the Beavers are now allowed to camp, it adds another opportunity. I did regular sleepovers either down the hut or offsite, but not being able to camp was one of the reasons I gave up Beavers. I felt very limited in what I could do within the timescales allowed.

I'm not saying everyone should rush out and take their Beavers camping, I would have kept it for the older Beavers and treated it like a camp abroad for Scouts - something for the older ones to aspire to.

As for Colonies now having a requirement to provide a nights away experience then I think that is good as well. Any decently run District should be able to provide a District NA experience if individuals can't manage it themselves. If Districts can't do this then there is a problem with the District and not with the requirement. I would however think that the Groups should be doing it themselves after all we are the scouts not childcare provision.

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 08:17 AM
Any decently run District should be able to provide a District NA experience if individuals can't manage it themselves.

Perhaps a good way is to turn a District/County "Beaveree" into a supported 2-day Nights Away event?

Neil

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 09:26 AM
That said, I've never quite understood why we can have limited companies but not limited-liability charities. I think there is a very strong argument to change this, though exactly on which basis I'm not sure. Why, logically, if I set up a charity (for the greater good), should I as a trustee be fully liable, whereas I can set up a business (for the good of my wallet) and have my liability limited?

Neil

Don't disagree with the reasoning but on the last point it is actually rather obvious, if you think about it. Charities are not businesses, though they must be run as such in many ways.

A business is a calculated riask, a gamble, and the aim is profit for profit's sake (in essence). A Charity is restricted and cannot itself gamble with funds, it is legally obliged to obtain the best return on funds and to manage the funds to the ennds of the Charity. Any profit is reinvested in the Charity, not the "operators" of the Charity. If Trustees were permitted to have limited liability, as such, then they could gamble with the Charity funds. It happens that it is possible to take out Trustee Insurance Policies, which might cover losses in a venture that was well considered and planned but failed nonetheless.

The alternative of a Not For Profit organisation is available, a halfway house bewteen a Charity and a Business, but here the owners/ operators can pay the increased profits out in wages to themselves, unlike Trustees, who cannot benefit in such a way without special permission.

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 09:39 AM
The alternative of a Not For Profit organisation is available, a halfway house bewteen a Charity and a Business, but here the owners/ operators can pay the increased profits out in wages to themselves, unlike Trustees, who cannot benefit in such a way without special permission.

So by that you mean something like a "community interest company"? Interesting.

Neil

Richard
14-01-2011, 10:13 AM
I dont know about England, but it's standard practice in Scotland to have Charities, especially ones with employees to be both registered charities and Limited companies.

Having said that TSA have a national policy on Trustee Indemity Insurance

http://unityins.co.uk/scouts/liability.html


Broadly, a Trustee Indemnity Insurance policy is designed to cover Trustees in the event that they are held personally liable for the loss of charity assets or for making a decision which results in the charity sustaining a loss in financial terms. It does not cover acts which the trustee knew (or should reasonably have known) would constitute a breach of trust, so deliberate malfeasance would not be covered.

Having considered the merits of such cover, The Scout Association elected to arrange a national policy to cover trustees of any Scout charity. That includes members of executive committees of Scout Districts, Counties and Groups, as well as those who manage other Scout assets such as building or campsite committees.

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 10:17 AM
I dont know about England, but it's standard practice in Scotland to have Charities, especially ones with employees to be both registered charities and Limited companies.

Having said that TSA have a national policy on Trustee Indemity Insurance

http://unityins.co.uk/scouts/liability.html

That's very good news. I wonder why they don't make that better known?

Neil

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 11:31 AM
That's very good news. I wonder why they don't make that better known?

Neil

Ah! This is only an indemnity liability in that the trustees must have complied with their duties and responsibilities as far as I am aware. It would not, I'm pretty certain, cover, for example, a Group undertaking a commercial venture where it risked its capital on what was a gamble - like buying £20,000 worth of Scotland, World Cup Champions 2012 and then finding that they didn't sell...

It would cover where they had done their best, complied with all the rules, and regardless something still went tits up.

Trustee indemnity insurance is not a panacea for badly run charities.

The other way of looking at this is that most larger operations in Scouting are in fact Ltd companies. Thus protecting the Trustees of the County that "owns" the sites, and rightly so. It also allows the site, I'd guess, to enter more easily into some contracts and agreements.

Chris Lambert
14-01-2011, 11:56 AM
They have changed 3.9 c

The old one says "..... plan to ensure at least two adults...... are present at Troop Meetings......"

It now says "...... plan to ensure at least two adults..... are present at Troop Activities......"

What's particularly odd is that the change from activities to meetings has only been made for Scouts and not Beavers or Cubs. It would be interesting to know what the reason is behind the change which means it's only relevant for Scouts.

andypagett
14-01-2011, 12:04 PM
What's particularly odd is that the change from activities to meetings has only been made for Scouts and not Beavers or Cubs. It would be interesting to know what the reason is behind the change which means it's only relevant for Scouts.

Off the top of my head, and I haven't got time to check right now, but I think the younger sections have a rule that says 2 leaders for meetings, and then a rule that gives a 1:x ratio + activity leader for other activities, which then also works at at min 2. May be wrong, just OTTOMH. Scouts don't have the ratio, hence 2 leaders for all activities.

Chris Lambert
14-01-2011, 12:15 PM
Off the top of my head, and I haven't got time to check right now, but I think the younger sections have a rule that says 2 leaders for meetings, and then a rule that gives a 1:x ratio + activity leader for other activities, which then also works at at min 2. May be wrong, just OTTOMH. Scouts don't have the ratio, hence 2 leaders for all activities.

The ratios only seem to apply for outdoor activities away from the usual meeting place so indoor activities don't appear to require it.

----------------
The Following Was Added to the post within 60 minutes of posting the above
---------------

Anyone able to work out what has change in 3.26a, 4.28a and 5.19a? They all look the same to me unless I'm being blind.

KatieB
14-01-2011, 12:17 PM
Indoors we must have 2 adults present , one of whom must be hold a leader, manager or supporter appointment (3.7d)

andypagett
14-01-2011, 12:32 PM
The ratios only seem to apply for outdoor activities away from the usual meeting place so indoor activities don't appear to require it.

Hmm, in that case I do not know. Interestingly, clarification has been added to the Scout rule as to which section the leader can be from, but this clarification has not been added to the Beaver and Cubs. I wonder if the update to only the Scout section was intentional, or if they meant to do them all.

The Leader must plan to ensure that at least two adults (aged 18 or over) are present at the Colony meeting, at least one of whom should hold a Leader, Manager or Supporter Appointment.

The Leader must plan to ensure that at least two adults (aged 18 or over) are present at the Pack meeting, at least one of whom should hold a Leader, Manager or Supporter appointment.

The Leader must plan to ensure at least two adults (aged 18 or over) are present at Troop activities, at least one of whom should hold a Leader, Manager or Supporter appointment (not necessarily with the Section concerned).

----------------
The Following Was Added to the post within 60 minutes of posting the above
---------------

Although having re-read the rules and had a cup of tea, I guess it makes sense as it is.

Beavers / Cubs = minimum 2 adults (including one Leader, Manager or Supporter) at all times, but for outdoor activites more adults may be needed due to ratio / number of Beavers / Cubs

Scouts = minimum 2 adults at all times (including one Leader, Manager or Supporter), no extra required for outdoor activities regardless of number of Scouts (risk assessment and common sense may of course dictate more adults)

I suspect this closes a minor loophole which would have previously allowed a solo Leader to define an outdoor, weekend activity (or similar) as 'not a meeting', and therefore bypass the requirement for 2 adults.

Doug in Canada
14-01-2011, 12:43 PM
Hmmm how do you eat an elephant (2 deep leader requirements) . . . one bite at a time!

Neil Williams
14-01-2011, 01:07 PM
I assume "Leader" also includes "assistant Leader"? Else we'll be getting multiple SLs...

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

BigBadBaloo
14-01-2011, 01:29 PM
Anyone able to work out what has change in 3.26a, 4.28a and 5.19a? They all look the same to me unless I'm being blind.

Yep, changed some of the "will" to "may" e.g.

New POR: may have unsupervised access to
young people; or

Old POR: will have unsupervised access to young
people; or


I'll give you that it is hard to spot though!

daveb123
14-01-2011, 02:06 PM
Yep, changed some of the "will" to "may" e.g.

New POR: may have unsupervised access to
young people; or

Old POR: will have unsupervised access to young
people; or


I'll give you that it is hard to spot though!

That part was made public a while ago. The difference being that under the old rule it was PLANNED - e.g there was a person volunteered where they had agrred to get involved and due to what they were offering to do it was pretty certain that they would have unsupervised access.

Under then new, it could be argued that if someone offers to help there is a chance that they MAY have unsupervised access just by the fact that they are there.

Whilst it does not make it totally black or white - it does mean that unless you are certain that person will not be left unsupervised then they need to be covered.

So the person from the local xxx club who is coming to run some badgework for a few weeks and they will be partnered with a checked person all the time they will not need to be checked as now.

If a person is coming to do similar and there is a good likelyhood that they will not be partnered with a checked person then they may need checking.

A person who comes regularly and are likely to be with a Group unsupervised like running a session or walking round the park with them will need checking - again like now except that now it is more of a likly hood rather than a certainty.

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 02:13 PM
Under then new, it could be argued that if someone offers to help there is a chance that they MAY have unsupervised access just by the fact that they are there.

Whilst it does not make it totally black or white - it does mean that unless you are certain that person will not be left unsupervised then they need to be covered.

Bushfella and Merryweather look at boxing gloves and think, nah, we've done that a zillion times already :bigsmiley

roger-uk
14-01-2011, 02:20 PM
Bushfella and Merryweather look at boxing gloves and think, nah, we've done that a zillion times already :bigsmiley

Now Now behave or I'll put you in the naughty corner. :smash:

PeterSheppard
14-01-2011, 02:32 PM
Now Now behave or I'll put you in the naughty corner. :smash:

Now that I'd love to see :bigsmiley

derekchambers
14-01-2011, 02:37 PM
http://www.scouts.org.uk/noticeboard/267/new-version-of-por-now-available

frazzle
14-01-2011, 02:50 PM
I can understand the debate about Beaver's camping, and mandatory offering of residential experiences, but I'd love to know why:

A phone should be on hand for the whole time that the residential experience takes place. This should be either a mobile phone that works or suitable access to a landline.

Applies to Beaver Scout Ressidentials, but for everything else we need In-touch procedures!

marcush
14-01-2011, 03:25 PM
I think it is good that groups can now run group camps, and not have to book accommodation for beavers.

It was kept quiet, but I think it was expected as it is year since last one.

GScrimgeour
14-01-2011, 04:06 PM
With reference to comments earlier in the thread about Trustees' liability, there is a plan to introduce a Charitable Incorporated Organisation CIO (in Scotland SCIO). This would give the members (trustees) protection without needing to set up a company and be subject to company as well as charity legislation.

There is more information here

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Start_up_a_charity/Do_I_need_to_register/Charitable_Incorporated_Organisations_index.aspx

The plan is to get these set up this year. The delay is that the Charity Commission (England and Wales) drafted rules for CIOs that were so long that it would be the same as complying with the companies act. Work is being done to ensure a simpler set of rules which can then be put in place.

I understand that OSCR (the Scottish Regulator) is working hard on the simpler set...

Graham Scrimgeour
ASL
122nd Inverleith Scouts
Edinburgh

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 04:18 PM
We have had beavers on Group camps for the past 3 years. They need a parent with them though.

Not sure about Beavers camping without parents though. Mind you, not really sure about them camping with parents either in some cases!

mediamanager
14-01-2011, 04:26 PM
I remember taking HQ to task at a regional meeting when they said that Beavers couldn't go abroad - I asked them to confirm the rule in POR!

We (as in my old District and current County) have taken Beavers to Disneyland Paris on a number of occasions in the past - and for more than 24 hours.

Bushfella
14-01-2011, 04:44 PM
We (as in my old District and current County) have taken Beavers to Disneyland Paris on a number of occasions in the past - and for more than 24 hours.

You got away with it because you are just a great big kid full of sparkle and excitement at the idea of Disneyland. You just swept everyone along with you.

I recall a now defunct Group here did a Disney trip with Beavers and Cubs a few years back.

Kastor
14-01-2011, 07:40 PM
I was planning a trip to France with Beavers a few years back and contacted "all the right people" about it. No one ever came back to say I couldn't do it.

Is this just a clarification of the death of an urban myth?

wealdbrook
14-01-2011, 08:14 PM
Yep, changed some of the "will" to "may" e.g.

New POR: may have unsupervised access to
young people; or

Old POR: will have unsupervised access to young
people; or


I'll give you that it is hard to spot though!

I think "may" is an issue - how could any leader say that they had thought about it in advance and ensured that it was never, ever going to be possible. I could (possibly) agree that "will" is a bit of a cop out excuse (in the event something (very unlikely) went wrong).

Perhaps words like "it is likely that" would be better?

PeterSheppard
14-01-2011, 08:40 PM
I was planning a trip to France with Beavers a few years back and contacted "all the right people" about it. No one ever came back to say I couldn't do it.

Is this just a clarification of the death of an urban myth?

No, its definitely a change - see the FAQ document in today's Scouting Plus.

POR 9.64a has had Beaver Scouts added, the previous omission implied that it was not allowed. It was probably explicit in a factsheet somewhere too.

Have just checked one I have here, and the forms in the VA Folder have boxes for numbers involved in each section, and also start with Cubs.

roger-uk
14-01-2011, 08:54 PM
No, its definitely a change - see the FAQ document in today's Scouting Plus.

POR 9.64a has had Beaver Scouts added, the previous omission implied that it was not allowed. It was probably explicit in a factsheet somewhere too.

Have just checked one I have here, and the forms in the VA Folder have boxes for numbers involved in each section, and also start with Cubs.

If it don't say you cannot do it then you can. They have just clarified it

PeterSheppard
15-01-2011, 01:31 AM
If it don't say you cannot do it then you can. They have just clarified it

Then why do the FAQs about the changes say this?


Beaver Scouts Visits Abroad
Operations sub-Committee has also approved new rules allowing Beaver Scouts to go on trips overseas. Up until now Beaver Scouts haven’t been included in the rules which has caused some problems. The change to the rules will allow Beaver Scouts to go overseas only in the care of a nominated adults. It has been made clear in the guidelines that this is to remain an option. Also, the decision to take Beaver Scouts overseas should be considered carefully in conjunction with the balanced programme.

roger-uk
15-01-2011, 02:25 AM
Then why do the FAQs about the changes say this?

If the rules say nothing about taking Beavers abroad then you can.

Quite simple really

Lets not get tied up in red tape and burecracy.

mediamanager
15-01-2011, 07:27 AM
If the rules say nothing about taking Beavers abroad then you can.

Quite simple really

Lets not get tied up in red tape and burecracy.

This omission of rules was exactly the problem I had - the rules didn't authorise taking Beavers abroad, BUT they didn't state you couldn't undertake the trip also!

I basically treated it as a family camp as a parent/grandparent had to attend to supervise the Beaver Scout - it also helped with numbers.

When I spoke to a number of people at Gilwell the response was that as the Beaver section progressed it hadn't been visualised that Beaver Scouts would go abroad.

I for one welcome the clarification and feel that responsible Leaders will ensure that international trips for this age range offer the appropriate experience.

My only concern is the requirement to offer an international trip - whilst living near to a coastline provides amble opportunity for short (i.e. 1-3 days) away in another country - many Scout Groups have a good few miles (and hours) on restrictive transport before crossing a border and therefore keeping 6-8 year olds entertained is a challenge to say the least.

BigBadBaloo
15-01-2011, 07:42 AM
.................My only concern is the requirement to offer an international trip -..............................

Mark,
Where does it say that it is a requirement to offer an international trip? I can't see that anywhere!

Neil Williams
15-01-2011, 08:03 AM
It doesn't require an international trip, just *permits* it.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk