Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 120 of 120

Thread: Chasing unpaid subs

  1. #106
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,596
    Thanks
    415
    Thanked 2,893 Times in 1,570 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post

    If your anecdotal stories about the absolute worst case scenarios count in this, then so do mine about when we behaved like reasonable human beings and sorted it out by talking about it.
    There was no talking about either of my scenarios. The first, came about as the result of the Leaders trying to discuss the situation with the mother. My intervention came only when she made it impossible for the leaders to take her son on camp. There could be no discussion, it was all one sided. We gave and gave until the straw broke. In the second, well, discussion went from abuse on FB, which I did not respond to, to an accusation being made to the Police.

    You cannot discuss these things when things get that far.

    Yes, we have had many differences resolved by discussion, somtimes the outcome has been a departure.

    But ultimately, we have to follow the rules. We cannot pick and choose.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  2. #107
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,380
    Thanks
    3,534
    Thanked 1,184 Times in 786 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    then went on to say - if someone was of a mind to make an accusation, they'd make it anyway so it goes with the territory.t.
    And my point is that if you have followed the rules then you should be protected should someone make an accusation and you are innocent as you will have witnesses or an audit trail in the case of the accusation being financial in nature.

    Peter Andrews AESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  3. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,159
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 832 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    And my point is that if you have followed the rules then you should be protected should someone make an accusation and you are innocent as you will have witnesses or an audit trail in the case of the accusation being financial in nature.
    Not quite sure why you felt the need to make it in that case, because it's what I already say - within reason.

    I don't think anyone could reasonably claim it was possible 100% of the time to follow all the rules. And I'd posit the notion that when it comes to protection, the rules are a paper thin (literally) shield given how difficult (in places) they are to understand. (And yes, here's the required caveat - some of the rules are clear so can be followed, I'm not talking about all of them.)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    There was no talking about either of my scenarios. The first, came about as the result of the Leaders trying to discuss the situation with the mother. My intervention came only when she made it impossible for the leaders to take her son on camp. There could be no discussion, it was all one sided. We gave and gave until the straw broke. In the second, well, discussion went from abuse on FB, which I did not respond to, to an accusation being made to the Police.

    You cannot discuss these things when things get that far.

    Yes, we have had many differences resolved by discussion, somtimes the outcome has been a departure.

    But ultimately, we have to follow the rules. We cannot pick and choose.
    I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying my anecdotes of when things are discussed and agreed, are no less pertinent than yours if/when when they are not.

    We could both barter back and forth with experiences and probably end up about even - regardless of how we each did/do our Scouting.

    I'm just being openly pragmatic about it.

  4. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    427
    Thanks
    321
    Thanked 289 Times in 141 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Not quite sure why you felt the need to make it in that case, because it's what I already say - within reason.

    I don't think anyone could reasonably claim it was possible 100% of the time to follow all the rules. And I'd posit the notion that when it comes to protection, the rules are a paper thin (literally) shield given how difficult (in places) they are to understand. (And yes, here's the required caveat - some of the rules are clear so can be followed, I'm not talking about all of them.)

    I think that "reasonable" is the key here.

    If you can argue that your behavior was "reasonable" under the circumstances then you have a defense to stand behind.

    I think that the heart of the discussion here has been a disagreement on what we each consider to be "reasonable".

    Going back to the financial issue, of 'netting off' cash rather than paying it into the bank account, personally, I do not think that it is "reasonable" to do that. I would argue that it is inconvenient not to "net-off" much of the time, but that is not an argument that it is a "reasonable" thing to do so.

    However, in the case of the Scout left out in the rain, I would say that it is "reasonable" to breach the two-person rule in order to protect them from the elements.

    Why is one "reasonable" and the other not? In my view, it is because the consequence of not breaching the rule is very different. In the first case, the consequence is that it will take me more time and might end up meaning that certain activities are not viable. In the second case, the consequence is that a young person is left in discomfort. I think the first case does not warrant breaching the rules whilst the second case does.

    We each have our own perspective on this of course and it would ultimately be the judge that would decide.

  5. #110
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,596
    Thanks
    415
    Thanked 2,893 Times in 1,570 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    some of the rules are clear so can be followed,

    And what exactly is so unclear about the rules on finances? I'd argue that protection rules are about as tough as they can be without strangling what we do.

    I think we have to agree to differ on this. Maybe there is a different interpretation on emhasis on the subject that we are not seeing. Perhaps sitting around a campfire we might see differently.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  6. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,159
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 832 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    And what exactly is so unclear about the rules on finances? I'd argue that protection rules are about as tough as they can be without strangling what we do.

    I think we have to agree to differ on this. Maybe there is a different interpretation on emhasis on the subject that we are not seeing. Perhaps sitting around a campfire we might see differently.
    Why do you insist on always assuming the worst in things I'm saying here?

    I said some of the rules are clear, so can be followed, and you automatically assume I don't mean financial rules.

    Many of the rules are clear, but the circumstances to which they apply may not be, so they cannot - in those circumstances, however rare - be held to.

    What annoys me (slightly) when this is discussed here, is that if you say (pragmatically and honestly) that occasionally you have to bend the rules a little (and I'd say you were telling fibs if you've never (ever) had to do that), then there are those who treat it as if your behaviour is at the worst possible end of the spectrum.

  7. #112
    ESL and DESC ianw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    6,572
    Thanks
    1,518
    Thanked 2,129 Times in 1,243 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    What annoys me (slightly) when this is discussed here, is that if you say (pragmatically and honestly) that occasionally you have to bend the rules a little (and I'd say you were telling fibs if you've never (ever) had to do that), then there are those who treat it as if your behaviour is at the worst possible end of the spectrum.
    Though, honestly, a public forum, quiet backwater though we are, is definitely not the place to to be airing dirty laundry, should you have any.
    Ian Wilkins
    Farnham District Explorer Scout Commissioner

    Jambowlree - Worldwide Scout Ten Pin Bowling Competition
    All sections, all countries, runs December 2018 - May 2019
    http://www.jambowlree.org

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ianw For This Useful Post:

    BigBadBaloo (15-05-2019)

  9. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,159
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 832 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by hippysurfer View Post
    I think that "reasonable" is the key here.

    If you can argue that your behavior was "reasonable" under the circumstances then you have a defense to stand behind.

    I think that the heart of the discussion here has been a disagreement on what we each consider to be "reasonable".

    Going back to the financial issue, of 'netting off' cash rather than paying it into the bank account, personally, I do not think that it is "reasonable" to do that. I would argue that it is inconvenient not to "net-off" much of the time, but that is not an argument that it is a "reasonable" thing to do so.

    However, in the case of the Scout left out in the rain, I would say that it is "reasonable" to breach the two-person rule in order to protect them from the elements.

    Why is one "reasonable" and the other not? In my view, it is because the consequence of not breaching the rule is very different. In the first case, the consequence is that it will take me more time and might end up meaning that certain activities are not viable. In the second case, the consequence is that a young person is left in discomfort. I think the first case does not warrant breaching the rules whilst the second case does.

    We each have our own perspective on this of course and it would ultimately be the judge that would decide.
    Indeed.

    Obvs goes with out saying, people are assuming, on the very odd occasion I've done this, a) there was no other way to deliver the activity (which I think is reasonable cause due how that came to be the case and the timeline) and b) the additional oversight in place when I did it.

    I'd also say, netting of cash versus a serious allegation might make one change one's mind about what is or isn't reasonable in terms of what you might do when faced with those circumstances.

    It's subjective.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ianw View Post
    Though, honestly, a public forum, quiet backwater though we are, is definitely not the place to to be airing dirty laundry, should you have any.
    There it is again. 'Dirty laundry'.

    Seriously, at this stage, after everything I've just said - if you had to explain...

    (edit* Although, I take your point.../edit*)
    Last edited by pa_broon74; 15-05-2019 at 08:35 AM.

  10. #114
    ESL and DESC ianw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    6,572
    Thanks
    1,518
    Thanked 2,129 Times in 1,243 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    There it is again. 'Dirty laundry'.

    Seriously, at this stage, after everything I've just said - if you had to explain...

    (edit* Although, I take your point.../edit*)
    Glad you took my point, it was a general point, and it definitely wasn't directly aimed specifically at you.

    And yes, we've probably all got examples of where the, umm, envelope was pushed, due to "events dear boy, events", but nobody died and no one got hurt and someone just had to trust us that we hadn't pocketed 47p/536.15 Euros. Best to just save them stories for the campfire, the memoirs, and/or when The Appointments Process 7.viii* doesn't apply**.

    I'm aware I may be piously repeating myself here.

    * If the chapter on The Appointment Process is part of POR, and it is, because that's where I found it, how come it's not a numbered chapter so it's got a unique number for the rules? Tsk.

    ** Cancellation and non renewal of appointments - "the appointee has or is likely to bring the name of the Association into disrepute"
    Last edited by ianw; 15-05-2019 at 09:22 AM.
    Ian Wilkins
    Farnham District Explorer Scout Commissioner

    Jambowlree - Worldwide Scout Ten Pin Bowling Competition
    All sections, all countries, runs December 2018 - May 2019
    http://www.jambowlree.org

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to ianw For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (15-05-2019)

  12. #115
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,596
    Thanks
    415
    Thanked 2,893 Times in 1,570 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Why do you insist on always assuming the worst in things I'm saying here?

    I said some of the rules are clear, so can be followed, and you automatically assume I don't mean financial rules.

    Many of the rules are clear, but the circumstances to which they apply may not be, so they cannot - in those circumstances, however rare - be held to.

    What annoys me (slightly) when this is discussed here, is that if you say (pragmatically and honestly) that occasionally you have to bend the rules a little (and I'd say you were telling fibs if you've never (ever) had to do that), then there are those who treat it as if your behaviour is at the worst possible end of the spectrum.
    But this thread has been largely about finances and going on from that on the question of trust Safeguarding. I have not moved away from those two subjects.

    As for not bending the rules. There was a much protracted discussion etween Merryweather and myself over the provision of Explorers and how they were run. The mere mention of the subject sent fellow Escouters and UKRS members running for cover. My friend was adamant that they were a District provision and had to be run as such. I argued that where there was no District provision then in face of that dereliction, with the consent, explicit or implied of the DC, then a Group could run an ESU, managing it in every aspect as though it were a part of the group - keeping a seperate account for Explorers and submitting that to the DT. That is the extent to which I bent the rules, ever. I cancelled events and changed activities if they were going to break the rules - I had to because I had made enemies of the wrong people. The irony is that post departure, the ESU was relocated to a different group, where it continued almost exactly as it had done under my watch...

    There are areas, I agree, where breaking or bending a rule may have no impact, the trouble is though, that when one bends rules, when something goes wrong, then one has a problem. So, we, in any situation, weigh up the odds and roll the dice when we bend or break the rules. I'm not a gambler.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  13. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,159
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 832 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    But this thread has been largely about finances and going on from that on the question of trust Safeguarding. I have not moved away from those two subjects.

    As for not bending the rules. There was a much protracted discussion etween Merryweather and myself over the provision of Explorers and how they were run. The mere mention of the subject sent fellow Escouters and UKRS members running for cover. My friend was adamant that they were a District provision and had to be run as such. I argued that where there was no District provision then in face of that dereliction, with the consent, explicit or implied of the DC, then a Group could run an ESU, managing it in every aspect as though it were a part of the group - keeping a seperate account for Explorers and submitting that to the DT. That is the extent to which I bent the rules, ever. I cancelled events and changed activities if they were going to break the rules - I had to because I had made enemies of the wrong people. The irony is that post departure, the ESU was relocated to a different group, where it continued almost exactly as it had done under my watch...

    There are areas, I agree, where breaking or bending a rule may have no impact, the trouble is though, that when one bends rules, when something goes wrong, then one has a problem. So, we, in any situation, weigh up the odds and roll the dice when we bend or break the rules. I'm not a gambler.
    I'm not much of a gambler either, which is why I always weigh up the pro's and cons. If I find myself doing something, then it'll be under carefully considered circumstances.

    Maybe Scout Leaders are generally a lot more risk-averse. Maybe they need to be. Perhaps that comes from working with young people and not necessarily POR.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by ianw View Post
    ...and/or when The Appointments Process 7.viii doesn't apply**.

    ** Cancellation and non renewal of appointments - "the appointee has or is likely to bring the name of the Association into disrepute"
    Fair bit of irony from where I'm sitting with the comment above.


  14. #117
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,596
    Thanks
    415
    Thanked 2,893 Times in 1,570 Posts
    It
    __________________________________________________ _______

    Can we?
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Bushfella For This Useful Post:

    ianw (16-05-2019)

  16. #118
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,380
    Thanks
    3,534
    Thanked 1,184 Times in 786 Posts
    I only break the rules where the rules are a complete nonsense.

    For example for well over a year every Leader in the UK was breaking POR as POR manadated that all youth members details had to be recorded in Compass but Compass was offline so compliance with this rule was impossible and depsite having at least 3 updates of POR in that time TSA refused to add a simple line putting the rule in abbayance whilst it was impossible to comply with it.

    Another example that came up recently on 1st facbook is that there is a rule that we are supposed to ask permission for foreign nationals to be allowed to become members but I have not done this for any of the foreign nationals (about three I think, not that I ask) that I as GSL have admitted to membership

    Peter Andrews AESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  17. #119
    ESL and DESC ianw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    6,572
    Thanks
    1,518
    Thanked 2,129 Times in 1,243 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    It
    __________________________________________________ _______

    Can we?
    What? Surely the fairly new OP that innocently asked how to get subs payments out of parents will have been reading the following 8 pages of totally on topic and relevant replies avidly no!??!?
    Ian Wilkins
    Farnham District Explorer Scout Commissioner

    Jambowlree - Worldwide Scout Ten Pin Bowling Competition
    All sections, all countries, runs December 2018 - May 2019
    http://www.jambowlree.org

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

    hippysurfer (16-05-2019)

  19. #120
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,159
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 1,149 Times in 832 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by shiftypete View Post
    I only break the rules where the rules are a complete nonsense.

    For example for well over a year every Leader in the UK was breaking POR as POR manadated that all youth members details had to be recorded in Compass but Compass was offline so compliance with this rule was impossible and depsite having at least 3 updates of POR in that time TSA refused to add a simple line putting the rule in abbayance whilst it was impossible to comply with it.

    Another example that came up recently on 1st facbook is that there is a rule that we are supposed to ask permission for foreign nationals to be allowed to become members but I have not done this for any of the foreign nationals (about three I think, not that I ask) that I as GSL have admitted to membership
    Then of course there's all the times you have no choice but to body swerve swathes of process because you don't have people in positions to carry them out.

    I know it's been said before, but I wonder how often volunteers are being hoisted by TSA's own petard. POR - in places - is a rod for our own backs.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-02-2018, 02:21 PM
  2. Chasing end of term subs
    By derekchambers in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24-07-2017, 09:54 PM
  3. Subs
    By SwayWolf in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 15-04-2015, 08:56 AM
  4. Subs chasing
    By Tazmania in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 28-03-2012, 05:00 PM
  5. Subs
    By notgonehome in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-09-2009, 06:07 PM

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
  •