Positions of Responsibility.

[roger-uk]

Whilst I understand and can see the reasoning behind not allowing a relationship between an Explorer [16+] and a Leader within the same unit. This then gets muddied when you look at:

1. Explorer [16+] and leader in another explorer unit.
2. Explorer [16+] and Leader in another section.
3. Explorer [16+] and network scout [18-25].

Is it acceptable for a network scout and a network leader as they will both be over 18.

If its o.k. for a married network scouts to be in same "unit" then is it o.k. for 2 married explorer scouts.

The more I think about it the more unsure I become.

Where does position of trust/responsibility start and end.

Please keep this to generalities and ensure we don't fal foul of any rules.

[fmolesey]

I think it all comes down to common sense.

[roger-uk]

I think it all comes down to common sense.

There is no such thing!! Otherwise we would all be coming to the same conclusions and we know thats not happening.

[orion1107]

There is no such thing!! Otherwise we would all be coming to the same conclusions and we know thats not happening.

Sadly :/

[Smartiepants]

I can't see there being a problem with a Network leader being in a relationship with a Network member (well I hope not!), it may be a position of responsibility, but not one of trust.

[fmolesey]

There is no such thing!! Otherwise we would all be coming to the same conclusions and we know thats not happening.

Why do we need to come to the same conclusions? There doesn't need to be a definate rule (or answer) to every issue that can be applied generally to all cases.

[Bushfella]

In the eyes of the Law ond POR, a Leader is in a Position of Trust. So, in theory, a Leader who has contact with a member in the course of his duty, has a Position of Trust. That much is crystal clear.

So an ESL of 19 who STARTS a relationship with an Explorer is technically in breach of a Position of Trust. Regardless of whether that relationship is acceptable in society at large.

However, if a pair have been in a relationship whilst in Explorers, and one becomes a Leader in the same unit whilst the other is still an Explorer, there is no breach, that has been clarified by the SA.

Now, in example 1 in the OP, there is some room for doubt as to the Position of Trust, was the Leader at some point tutoring/ mentoring the ES? If so, then there is a breach, IMHO, If they met elsewhere, and found themselves in this scenario, then probably not. The Position of Trust requires, as a recent court case sets precedent, that the holder of the Position of Trust, should be in the same theatre or tuition as the "victim". So, a teacher, having an affair with a pupil at a different school where he or she has not been teaching that pupil is probably not a breach of a Position of Trust. ( There is case law to that effect but I am not permitted to tell you what case...).

In example 2. see above.

In example 3. That becomes complicated, as it all depends upon, as above, how the Networker met with the Explorer. Was he/ she in a Position of Trust at the time? Were they supervising an activity that the younger partner was taking part in? If so, technically, we have a Position of Trust.

The great difficulty that we have is that relationships occur between people and very often age is not considered to be a factor. When dealing with under 18s, there is some arbitrary line where the age difference appears to define whether it is a natural or unnatural relationship. We cannot control relationships, we can only advise caution. If the parents are happy to allow the relationship, and I know several who have been, then what can we do?

We can, however, intervene where a Leader is developing a relationship, however unwittingly with a teenage girl - and sorry but this usually works this way around - where the girl has a crush on the older Leader and the older Leader flattered by the attention allows a relationship to start to develop. We can, should and must intervene - even if it results in abusive phone calls and more.

We must also be aware that the issue is not simply age related, a person in a position of trust who cultivates a friendship that later developps into something more post 18, may still be guilty of an offense, and again, we can, should and must intervene.

It is a very difficult scenario when the relationship is close to either side of the age barrier, but then you have to make a judgement call, don't you?

[Walsallwizard]

I was a VSL for a time
Barbie 17 turns up one week and tells me she’s pregnant, boyfriend Ken 16 is delighted, both were in my VSU. 2 weeks later they got married, both had very supportive families, both were asked to leave by the GSL. I never got it adequately explained to me why. The last I heard of them was a couple of years ago they are still married and have had another child but no longer involved in Scouting

Whilst I understand and can see the reasoning behind not allowing a relationship between an Explorer [16+] and a Leader within the same unit. This then gets muddied when you look at:

1. Explorer [16+] and leader in another explorer unit.
2. Explorer [16+] and Leader in another section.
3. Explorer [16+] and network scout [18-25].

Is it acceptable for a network scout and a network leader as they will both be over 18.

If its o.k. for a married network scouts to be in same "unit" then is it o.k. for 2 married explorer scouts.

The more I think about it the more unsure I become.

Where does position of trust/responsibility start and end.

Please keep this to generalities and ensure we don't fal foul of any rules.

I have no problem with any of the scenario’s in 1,2 & 3. What needs to be clear is the relative social and Scouting positions the couple were in when they developed whatever relationship they have and what the perception of that relationship may be; and whether one gains more from the relationship than the other

I do think there is a differential in Network between Scout and Leader.

Married Explorer Scouts, well some will try to force their views on them, thinking here single sex sleeping on camp, but we should be treating each other with the same level of respect so to me it’s not an issue. They are fine to carry on as Explorers and I would imagine would share sleeping accommodation on overnight experiences.

The positions of trust most definitely start in our heads; I have two work colleagues when I met them I instinctively trusted one yet not the other and that through bitter experience proved to be a good instinct. Responsibility can though be more clearly defined and is generally determined by what the majority would consider normal behaviour.

[mike142sl]

Whilst I understand and can see the reasoning behind not allowing a relationship between an Explorer [16+] and a Leader within the same unit. This then gets muddied when you look at:

1. Explorer [16+] and leader in another explorer unit.
2. Explorer [16+] and Leader in another section.
3. Explorer [16+] and network scout [18-25].

Is it acceptable for a network scout and a network leader as they will both be over 18.

If its o.k. for a married network scouts to be in same "unit" then is it o.k. for 2 married explorer scouts.

The more I think about it the more unsure I become.

Where does position of trust/responsibility start and end.

Please keep this to generalities and ensure we don't fal foul of any rules.

As per the link to the sexual offences act provided by Big Chris on the other thread, the Law relates to a sexual relationship. So in these scenarios is it a relationship or a sexual relationship?
Also, wouldn't the fact a couple are married override the sexual offences act in some way?

[Al Chartres]

As has been said by the CPS again and again, the law was never written with the intent of prosecuting young people of a similar age. It is there to protect young people from older possible predators!!!

I don't watch much TV, but did catch a programme on TV last year about young pregnant mums, mostly under age and all had partners a few years older, 19+. Surely you would ask yourself why they were nor prosecuted?

I understand there are a few cases brought to court each year, but they are because the parents made serious complaint!

Personally on this whole subject, there is far too much taboo and secrecy in this country, we need openness and honest parenting like our cousins in Europe!


Al

[baz1980]

In the eyes of the Law ond POR, a Leader is in a Position of Trust. So, in theory, a Leader who has contact with a member in the course of his duty, has a Position of Trust. That much is crystal clear.

Actually not - I was very surprised at some recent child protection training that the position of trust law does not cover voluntary youth leaders. According to the Sexual offences act 2003 - Teachers, social workers and carers yes, but not us.

So we are talking about the eyes of POR not the law.

Barry

[Scary Monster]

Actually not - I was very surprised at some recent child protection training that the position of trust law does not cover voluntary youth leaders. According to the Sexual offences act 2003 - Teachers, social workers and carers yes, but not us.

So we are talking about the eyes of POR not the law.

Barry

Really?

Are you very, very sure about that one? I ask because that hasn't been my understanding.

[charl_ie]

Really?

Are you very, very sure about that one? I ask because that hasn't been my understanding.

Don't trust a public internet forum, check yourself. Sexual Offences Act (2003), section 21 and 22: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ition-of-trust.

In the eyes of the Law ond POR, a Leader is in a Position of Trust. So, in theory, a Leader who has contact with a member in the course of his duty, has a Position of Trust. That much is crystal clear.

Citation Needed. According to section 22 of the act, we do look after young people under the age of 18. However I can't find a clause in section 21 which applies to us?

Not to say that this isn't a serious subject and we should continue to do our upmost to protect YP even if it's not written in the letter of the law, but we should be crystal clear about all the facts.

You seem to have some expertise in the manner, Bushfella. Is there case law you are able to point us at that would clarify things?

[Rover]

The 2003 act does apply to us. and there is no grey areas, if someone holds a role in scouting and is over 18, they must comply with the yellow card. trust me it is very sad when you see a person who has just turned 18, charged and put on the sexual offenders register. this has meant no scouting ever for the rest of his life, and will probably ruin his life.

we as leaders must educate and keep out young people safe.

[roger-uk]

The 2003 act does apply to us. and there is no grey areas, if someone holds a role in scouting and is over 18, they must comply with the yellow card. trust me it is very sad when you see a person who has just turned 18, charged and put on the sexual offenders register. this has meant no scouting ever for the rest of his life, and will probably ruin his life.

we as leaders must educate and keep out young people safe.

Have you actually witnessed this happen because of a genuine relationship or is this herasay or conjecture.