Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 81

Thread: Jan 2019 POR pre launch checks

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    64
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 35 Times in 23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post
    But SAs are not a leader, manager or supporter. Are they?

    I was under the impression that they were Supporters, but it's entirely possible that my memory is wrong.

  2. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    362
    Thanks
    248
    Thanked 251 Times in 124 Posts
    I have sent in my feedback and suggested an alternative wording for the Night's Away change:


    A Leader or other adult leading a camp or residential experience involving young people under 18 years old must:

    - ensure that parents have sufficient information about the event and the supervision arrangements that have been put in place to make an informed decision to allow their child to attend.



    It would then make sense to update the Night's Away factsheets to be clear about what "sufficient information" and "supervision arrangements" is meant to mean. This would allow sufficient flexibility in the application of the rules to cover the wide variety of camping experiences that we run with out placing unnecessary burdens on leaders running every camp.

  3. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to hippysurfer For This Useful Post:

    London Scouter (09-11-2018),Neil Williams (08-11-2018),PaulArthurs (08-11-2018),shiftypete (09-11-2018)

  4. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    330
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 90 Times in 73 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mang21 View Post
    Being slightly picky the maximum size for a Beaver colony is 24 - but even then its probably not what they intend....

    But playing devils advocate, the training required for a SA and the training required for a full section leader are identical for the first 3 years - i.e. a SL can run a section meeting only having done "Getting Started" to get their role upgraded from provisional to full, which is the same amount of actual training (Mods 1 and 3) as a Section Assistant gets in completing the training. So if its a problem having a SA run a session, surely its also a problem having a new SL run it?

    Such is the perverse nature of the training and appointments system. For once this change removes that strange distinction.
    It is easier for a Section Assistant to validate module one - as they only have to complete one validation requirement rather than three.

  5. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    751
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 106 Times in 53 Posts
    The proposal starts off with this:
    Following lengthy reviews and consultations with the Movement, the Operations Committee has agreed updates to a
    number of rules designed to remove unnecessary barriers, ensuring they remain safe while making them easy for
    Leaders to operate
    If anything they will make things substantially harder and add in extra unwanted paperwork, and add a few unnecessary barriers, this has already been mentioned

    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    This bit

    have parental consent (method to be
    determined by the leader) in which parents
    are informed of key information about the
    event including which leaders are present;


    I would understand a requirement to tell.parents who are the leaders in charge of the Event. That's common sense.

    I don't understand the need to tell.parents all leaders on an event. What is the aim here.

    Logical conclusion of this; DC arrives on camp to say hello. Permit holder turns him away as parents do not know about this extra leader being present at the event?



    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    When we go on a camp, we have enough leaders to cover the minimums, we also have more than that as any extra help makes things easier, sometimes we may even have leaders from another group/district/county who may know some of the 'home' group leaders.
    Last Summers Scout camp, we camped with another UK Scout Association group, as one entity. The other group also bought some leaders, we knew who some of them would be, but if they bought someone else, or there was a leader change part way through camp it didn't matter - likewise the situation for them.
    Next ( this!!) summer we may ( will probably) be camping with a Russian scout group at an international Scout camp in Holland - how will that work???

    Axe throwing -this should retain the term "Axe throwing" and add in tomohawks etc

    Another issue is with the permission creep - surely permission to attend a camp already exists when a parent/guardian fills on the health form, pays for the camp/event and then drops them off at either the campsite, or the meeting point.
    Also on permission creep is the addition of Laser tag, i can fully understand the need for permission to be gained for air pistols/firearms etc - as its also covered by the firearms act, but laser tag??
    what next banning water pistols/water fights?
    It could happen, as it already has with the Boy Scouts of America https://mashable.com/2015/05/20/boy-...e#M5hbQbYfKOqB

  6. #50
    ASL Kev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Hwicce
    Posts
    3,683
    Thanks
    362
    Thanked 723 Times in 530 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveF View Post
    It is easier for a Section Assistant to validate module one - as they only have to complete one validation requirement rather than three.
    SAs just have initial training and that is it. I suspect if a SA can run a meeting then nobody with bother to sign up as a leader.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Kev For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (09-11-2018)

  8. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Coast
    Posts
    2,209
    Thanks
    390
    Thanked 483 Times in 295 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by hippysurfer View Post
    I have sent in my feedback and suggested an alternative wording for the Night's Away change:


    A Leader or other adult leading a camp or residential experience involving young people under 18 years old must:

    - ensure that parents have sufficient information about the event and the supervision arrangements that have been put in place to make an informed decision to allow their child to attend.



    It would then make sense to update the Night's Away factsheets to be clear about what "sufficient information" and "supervision arrangements" is meant to mean. This would allow sufficient flexibility in the application of the rules to cover the wide variety of camping experiences that we run with out placing unnecessary burdens on leaders running every camp.
    Not provable. Classic requirement error. Better to have nothing than "sufficient information" as what's sufficient to one person is inadequate to another.

    I support the requirement for explicit permission be it, email, written or OSM. I don't see that parents need a list of leaders.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to RisingStar For This Useful Post:

    PaulArthurs (09-11-2018)

  10. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    East Devon
    Posts
    1,148
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 396 Times in 204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    I would understand a requirement to tell.parents who are the leaders in charge of the Event. That's common sense.

    I don't understand the need to tell.parents all leaders on an event. What is the aim here.
    This, completely. The first point as well as the (widely echoed) second point.
    John Russell
    ex-CSL now ACSL 1st Pinhoe Exeter Devon
    Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.

  11. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,669
    Thanks
    1,298
    Thanked 1,013 Times in 735 Posts
    I think this has already been mentioned...

    But, in terms of this naming leaders at camp thing... It's been commented upon in other threads about parents having a mump about kids going to camps where no leaders from their own lodge/pack/troop/etc have been in attendance (those district or other type of camps that occasionally happen...)

    Perhaps this is less about naming all leaders who are going to camp, but a particularly clumsy attempt at forcing organisers to let parents know if any leaders are going?

    If this is the case (and other than some attempt at pointless transparency, I can't think of any other reason), it's a daft way of going about it.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    PaulArthurs (09-11-2018)

  13. #54
    Group Scout Leader
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,059
    Thanks
    632
    Thanked 392 Times in 211 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by big chris View Post
    This bit

    have parental consent (method to be determined by the leader) in which parents are informed of key information about the event including which leaders are present;

    I would understand a requirement to tell parents who are the leaders in charge of the Event. That's common sense.

    I don't understand the need to tell.parents all leaders on an event. What is the aim here.

    Logical conclusion of this; DC arrives on camp to say hello. Permit holder turns him away as parents do not know about this extra leader being present at the event?

    This proposed requirement looks like another example of a rule adding an unnecessary and illogical burden on all of us in an attempt to solve an apparent problem affecting a few. Without knowing what issue they are trying to solve, then it is difficult to consider the best way of solving it.


    What key information should parents have? - Is it the full programme, the menu, the type of tents, who will be in which tent etc, etc, "key information" is too vague. There needs to be clarity here - if not in the rule then there needs to be clarity elsewhere.

    which leaders are present? If the SL is present solely to lead the Camp Fire on Tuesday evening, is she 'present' at the camp? What about the leader that drivers the minibus to and from the camp, are they 'present'? What about the leader from another group that is leading the archery session? What about the instructor(s) being provided by the site, are they 'present'? There needs to be clarity here - if not in the rule then there needs to be clarity elsewhere.

    If a list of Leaders is required, then why only the 'leaders'? (remember, 'leaders' is clearly defined in POR) With the proposed wording, you would advise the Beaver parents that the Scout Leader was to be 'present' at the Beaver Sleepover, but not tell them of the Beaver Scout Sectional Assistants, GSL, or occassional helpers that were to be 'present'. How does that make any sense?

    I agree with the need for parents to know who is leading the camp, but why do they need to know which leaders (or do they mean adults) will be present?


    Paul

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to PaulArthurs For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (09-11-2018)

  15. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,669
    Thanks
    1,298
    Thanked 1,013 Times in 735 Posts
    I think it's all moot.

    Most parents have no clue who the leader is anyway, only that there is a leader - maybe... If the aim is for parents to know who the leader/s is/are so they can make judgement on that leader's competence, then we've a distance to go before that information will be useful to the average parent.

    Sometimes, HQ demonstrate far too well they have no clue how Scouting works in the real world.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    boballan (10-11-2018),Kastor (10-11-2018),PaulArthurs (09-11-2018),richardnhunt (09-11-2018),shiftypete (09-11-2018),SteveF (09-11-2018)

  17. #56
    ACSL
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Cottingham
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    Just thinking back to the camp we had a last minute parent helper. there was another cub pack on site with us for the weekend, who were covering the communicators badge as part of their programme. They offered to let our cubs join in for that section so they could get the badge as well, so we basically reshuffled a large chunk of our plan on the Saturday morning to fit it in, along with agreeing to run the campfire for both packs in the evening etc.

    Most of this was agreed on the Saturday morning, I still don't know the names of all the people involved in running the communicators stuff, or the real names of the other leaders. Would the parents have to be informed before we started the activities in case they wanted to take their cub home?

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to jarrad For This Useful Post:

    richardnhunt (09-11-2018)

  19. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,669
    Thanks
    1,298
    Thanked 1,013 Times in 735 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    I think this has already been mentioned...

    But, in terms of this naming leaders at camp thing... It's been commented upon in other threads about parents having a mump about kids going to camps where no leaders from their own lodge/pack/troop/etc have been in attendance (those district or other type of camps that occasionally happen...)

    Perhaps this is less about naming all leaders who are going to camp, but a particularly clumsy attempt at forcing organisers to let parents know if any leaders are going?

    If this is the case (and other than some attempt at pointless transparency, I can't think of any other reason), it's a daft way of going about it.
    Thinking about this...

    We in the past, have sent Scouts to a winter camp at Fordell. None of our leaders went to it. I can't remember if that was on any forms the parents got. So, they could be forgiven for thinking (unless one of us mentioned we wouldn't be there - I know I didn't) that parents would have no clue their sprog was at a camp with adults they or said sprog did not know.

    We tend not to send kids to this sort of camp anyway (I think with Scouts, we only did that once), preferring to do our own thing, if and when we can. That's not just a leader decision, the kids usually say no to them anyway for various reasons.

    Perhaps it's just HQ's heavy way of getting leaders to let parents know the kids will (essentially) be on their own. The question then becomes, did they decide it looked bad having a tick box that just said 'Tick here if no leaders from the member's home group will be attending the nights away activity', and instead decided it would look better if they listed the names of leaders who would be there.

    I suppose, since most parents don't know who all the leaders are anyway - providing them with names that mean very little to them one way or the other, is more of a comfort than a tick box that basically says no leaders your kid knows is going.

    Or something...

  20. #58
    Senior Member Matt Donnelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    697
    Thanked 261 Times in 138 Posts
    All this begs the question: should all POR changes come with an explanation for why the specific rule change is being made?

    Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
    Scout Active Support Member & Webmaster
    Deep Sea Scouts National SASU


    Membership Data & Engagement Support Manager
    Merseyside County Scouts


    Webmaster
    St. Helens Scout District - 1st Whiston Scout Group - 1st Kirkby Scout Group


    Tawd Vale Active Support Unit
    Tawd Vale Scout Camp

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Matt Donnelly For This Useful Post:

    boballan (10-11-2018),shiftypete (09-11-2018)

  22. #59
    ASL and YLUL wealdbrook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    2,130
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 475 Times in 194 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Donnelly View Post
    All this begs the question: should all POR changes come with an explanation for why the specific rule change is being made?

    Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
    It would be very helpful and the start of having reasons for all the rules (where they are not obvious to a new starter at the coalface).
    John Alexander,
    ASL and Assistant Webmaster
    1st Weald Brook
    http://www.1stwealdbrook.org.uk
    ESL(YL) Brentwood District

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wealdbrook For This Useful Post:

    boballan (10-11-2018),hippysurfer (10-11-2018)

  24. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,813
    Thanks
    2,558
    Thanked 1,904 Times in 1,204 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wealdbrook View Post
    It would be very helpful and the start of having reasons for all the rules (where they are not obvious to a new starter at the coalface).
    One of the problems with this is that that is sometimes confidential i.e. Safeguarding issues.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cubjam 2019
    By cubjam in forum Cub Scouts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2017, 08:53 PM
  2. Cubjam 2019 Staff
    By cubjam in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-03-2017, 10:13 AM
  3. POR Pre-Launch Checks
    By Neil Williams in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 121
    Last Post: 17-01-2015, 09:19 PM
  4. [Answered] POR Pre-Launch Checks
    By Neil Williams in forum UK Chief Commissioner Questions (CLOSED)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13-10-2014, 11:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •