Additional POR Prelaunch Check

[PaulArthurs]

There are people at HQ who are paid to think this rubbish up. They don't really care that it can't be implemented effectively (or if it can, only in what I'd venture to say is a minority of ideal districts/regions/counties).

Consultation on changes to POR should include:
- an explanation of the change(s) being proposed (rather than having to wade through 40 pages to try to spot the differences)
- information on the issue / problem that is trying to be resolved / fixed by making the changes
- information on the anticipated impact on local Scouting and the additional (volunteer) workload that the change(s) would create.
But, that would become a true consultation


Paul

[ianw]

Consultation on changes to POR should include:
- an explanation of the change(s) being proposed (rather than having to wade through 40 pages to try to spot the differences)
- information on the issue / problem that is trying to be resolved / fixed by making the changes
- information on the anticipated impact on local Scouting and the additional (volunteer) workload that the change(s) would create.

And as you've already observed...
- time enough to actually take any feedback into account before implementation

[nevynxxx]

The assumption being, that you can get people into those roles in the first place...

Have the people who write this stuff ever actually scouted before? Or perhaps they only ever did it in a model district?

There is an argument that if the role is rotated regularly, more people see it changing, see it's not a life commitment, see it's something they could do, take it up. I'm not sure it's the strongest argument, and I'm not sure that a 10 year limit would play into that though.

I suppose the point with the LTM is to try to limit "we've always done it that way". It's hard to introduce changes to rules when people are still teaching the rules as they were 20 years ago. But again, if that's the case, 10 years seems a bit much. There are probably better ways to achieve both things.

[pa_broon74]

There is an argument that if the role is rotated regularly, more people see it changing, see it's not a life commitment, see it's something they could do, take it up. I'm not sure it's the strongest argument, and I'm not sure that a 10 year limit would play into that though.

I suppose the point with the LTM is to try to limit "we've always done it that way". It's hard to introduce changes to rules when people are still teaching the rules as they were 20 years ago. But again, if that's the case, 10 years seems a bit much. There are probably better ways to achieve both things.

The flip side of that argument though is best practice through experience. There's that thing about repeating mistakes because we're not longer able to learn from the past.

I think it's all a bit moot too though. People will stay in the posts for as long or as short a time as circumstances dictate.

What I've noticed with new and short-tenured leaders (for example), is that they only know the current system of training (for example). Since they don't have anything to compare it to, they can't really know if they'd prefer how we used to do it.

[ianw]

Is the ten year limit rules ([Pirate voice]"they're more, what you might call, guidelines") an admission that the appointment review thing just isn't working? Hmm, I guess I'm judging people by my own experience. On the one hand we all know people that have stayed in post just a little too long. On the other, if my DC came to me and said "you know, the guidance says 10 years, maybe you should think about stepping down"...not sure I'd take that in a positive way. I mean, I'd try to, but the devil on my shoulder might try and whisper "ungrateful sods aren't they?" in my ear.

12 years a DESC. I still can't quite believe I've done it for that long. Not sure what I did for the first year or so.

[Nik Bartlett]

Thing is, if home hospitality is now "verboten" in the UK, it presumably puts all school foreign exchanges off the agenda. My son's school currently has a home hospitality exchange going with schools in China (not that he'll be going at those airline prices!) - so presumably the risks can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

You have to wonder if the Safeguarding team in Gilwell have lost touch with reality. First the yellow card business earlier this year with a clumsy attempt at fundamental policy change by the back door and now this, which as suggest could kill off foreign exchange visits. Our Safeguarding procedures are held up as a gold standard - presumably if TSA ban home hospitality on the grounds of child safety then schools and other institutions will feel they will have to follow suit. Have there been some recent Safeguarding incidents around Home Hospitality to trigger an investigation or is this just a case of Safeguarding waking up one morning and deciding ban it on the grounds of just in case ?

[Neil Williams]

Thing is, if home hospitality is now "verboten" in the UK, it presumably puts all school foreign exchanges off the agenda. My son's school currently has a home hospitality exchange going with schools in China (not that he'll be going at those airline prices!) - so presumably the risks can be mitigated to an acceptable level.

TSA having banned it doesn't means schools have.

- - - Updated - - -

Have there been some recent Safeguarding incidents around Home Hospitality to trigger an investigation

FWIW I am aware of one at *hosted* hospitality where a UK Leader was able to prevent it actually becoming a problem. Had that Leader not been there...

[CambridgeSkip]

These hoho restrictions are great fun.

Here's my group, with our twin troop from Canada coming over next summer for camp and hoho. Many planned host families living in small terreced houses only able to host one scout. Now they MUST be in pairs. and we have to visit every 48 hours. Oh what fun this is to reorganise.

[hippysurfer]

I see that the GDPR training is now everywhere. Grrrr!

If they just added a slide to Module 1 on the few bits of GDPR that most adults in Scouting need to know about they could drop the need for the additional click-through online module.

Only the GSL and Chair really need to know the detail of GDPR legislation. The group should have a Privacy Policy and the Leaders/Exec should abide by what it says - that is it.