Model Railway Club 'Safeguarding' policy. Help Please?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

14 hours ago, cliff park said:

Be aware that it is all too easy to over-react. This is not to diminish the risk or the problem, but think carefully about the circumstances. Are minors (or other vulnerable people) alone with individual members for any length of time or on repeated occasions ? In other words is there an opportunity for grooming ? Giving lifts is a potential problem area. If you can ensure that minors are always with a group, peers or adults, there should be no need for DBS checks. In other words planning and management can obviate the need for them in a club environment. 

I would rate this as very optimistic. Your potentially vulnerable are going to be safe in the club environment. But outside? They know 'Harry' really well, he's great. When they just happen to meet 'by chance' on the street, and Harry suggests coming over and looking at the new model he's just bought or made? There's the weakness in what you propose. And unfortunately, as too many past events show, some are very adept at spotting and exploiting such weaknesses.

[DCB]

4 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

I would rate this as very optimistic. Your potentially vulnerable are going to be safe in the club environment. But outside? They know 'Harry' really well, he's great. When they just happen to meet 'by chance' on the street, and Harry suggests coming over and looking at the new model he's just bought or made? There's the weakness in what you propose. And unfortunately, as too many past events show, some are very adept at spotting and exploiting such weaknesses.

And some Adults really enjoy showing of their railway to young people and helping them without having any sexual desire or intention towards them.  Trouble is a single bloke showing a kid his GWR BLT in the spare bedroom of his flat is probably going to get locked up as its an easy win for Mr Plod while groups of predatory #######s have to be treated cautiously for fear of accusations of racism, or is that religionism?

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

3 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

And some Adults really enjoy showing of their railway to young people and helping them without having any sexual desire or intention towards them.  Trouble is a single bloke showing a kid his GWR BLT in the spare bedroom of his flat is probably going to get locked up as its an easy win for Mr Plod while groups of predatory #######s have to be treated cautiously for fear of accusations of racism, or is that religionism?

Solidly with you, as my previous posting:

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 18:02, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

It's frankly horrible. I'll be due for a renewal of my enhanced DBS check about this time next year, and some of the case history that is reviewed is distressing. The worst of it is quite simply the underlying message of 'trust no one'.

 

It's not just minors who are in scope, but also anyone deemed 'vulnerable'. With the latter group it is doubly difficult, many are quite properly not identifiable. No one has yet satisfactorily explained to me how the protections properly employed to keep minors secure can in any way be extended reliably to the 'vulnerable adult' group, given this situation.

 

[corneliuslundie]

The Church in  Wales renews DBS certificates every five years.

A warning. I know of two occasions when DBS checks have not been made properly. In one case it cost the individual involved a term's work - she was accused of an offence carried out in the UK years before she came to the UK. The other was farcical - a DBS certificate with the wrong sex on.

As I understand it anyone can get a basic DBS check but you have to obtain an enhanced check through an "approved organisation" and a model railway club is unlikely to be one. I have one through the Church in Wales but it is technically not valid for the model railway club, the local independent church or volunteering my wife and I do with a Christian organisation.

While I approve of the principle I am afraid that I regard the current system as a money spinner for the commercial company involved. The government promised to make the certificates transferable but has not done so. Yes, there is the facility to "generalise" them within a short period after they are issued, though I am not sure if this applies to Enhanced certificates.

BTW This has come up on RMWeb some time ago, with a case quoted within a model railway club involving two respected members who claimed to be vulnerable. Which shows that it is impossible to identify who is vulnerable, In fact it has been said only half  in jest that everyone is vulnerable at some stage in their life.

Our club has a "no youngsters without a parent or close relative" rule but that does not deal with vulnerable adults. I really don't know how you can.

Jonathan

[kevinlms]

2 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

The Church in  Wales renews DBS certificates every five years.

A warning. I know of two occasions when DBS checks have not been made properly. In one case it cost the individual involved a term's work - she was accused of an offence carried out in the UK years before she came to the UK. The other was farcical - a DBS certificate with the wrong sex on.

As I understand it anyone can get a basic DBS check but you have to obtain an enhanced check through an "approved organisation" and a model railway club is unlikely to be one. I have one through the Church in Wales but it is technically not valid for the model railway club, the local independent church or volunteering my wife and I do with a Christian organisation.

While I approve of the principle I am afraid that I regard the current system as a money spinner for the commercial company involved. The government promised to make the certificates transferable but has not done so. Yes, there is the facility to "generalise" them within a short period after they are issued, though I am not sure if this applies to Enhanced certificates.

BTW This has come up on RMWeb some time ago, with a case quoted within a model railway club involving two respected members who claimed to be vulnerable. Which shows that it is impossible to identify who is vulnerable, In fact it has been said only half  in jest that everyone is vulnerable at some stage in their life.

Our club has a "no youngsters without a parent or close relative" rule but that does not deal with vulnerable adults. I really don't know how you can.

Jonathan

No system can ever be 100% foolproof. 

After all, criminals often don't get convicted and (thankfully rarely) innocent people go to jail. Does that mean we don't bother with a legal system - of course not.

 

Any mistakes need to be fixed with utmost priority.

[corneliuslundie]

I agree with you completely Kevin. What worries me is evidence that the system is not as thorough as it should be. With a small amount of checking neither mistake would have happened. My concern is that it appears, though I have no proof, that the company does not make the kind of checks I would have expected. It is a commercial operation, which to my mind is not good for an activity such as this.

In fact it reminds me of the system in Kosova where all that was done was to take your money and check that you were not on the database on the computer in the police office. Again, on one occasion an (accidentally) wrong date of birth on the application form did not throw up any alarm  even though we had been in the country for some years and had work permits, and so were on the database.

I suspect that this makes it fairly easy for those who really wish to to slip through the system. That is not satisfactory.

Jonathan

[PaulCheffus]

On 12/10/2019 at 22:58, durham light infantry said:

 

It is far better to be proved to be innocent and scrutinised regularly, than to allow any chance of a misdeed being done which can ruin a life forever.

 

Hi

 

Is it?

 

Someone I worked with was accused of this sort of behaviour and even when cleared the stigma attached forced them to leave the area even though it turned out to be a malicious vendetta.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

[The Johnster]

Some years ago in a town which has since been declared to be a city about a dozen miles from Cardiff, a person whose job was as a paediatrician was hounded off the estate he lived on by people who found it difficult to process any part of a word that started with ‘paed...’ to process any part of the word beyond those four letters.  It is clearly pointless to attempt to explain their error to such folk, and one of them, interviewed by local news, commented that it was ‘better to be safe than sorry; you wouldn’t want it near your kids, would you.  No smoke without fire’! 

 

This is a serious problem, and, clearly, innocent people, especially single men without girlfriends, are vulnerable to victimisation and threat from those who refuse to know any better.  If the necessary robust system of prevention is in place it is inevitable that innocent people are going to be flagged up by it, and as soon as you reduce the robustness of the system to deal with this issue, you are facilitating higher levels of abuse.  

 

I don’t know what the answer to this problem is, and like most people don’t want it to exist in the first place, but exist it does nonetheless.  I can already hear the comment that the answer is better education and awareness of the issues, but there are always those who regard education as something they would rather avoid.  The principle is all too often that, in a democratic society, ‘my ignorant opinion holds the same credence as your informed one’, and any counter argument is dismissed as elitism, which it sometimes is.  

 

Not easy.  

Edited October 21, 2019 by The Johnster

[dasatcopthorne]

Thanks for all the replies to this.

 

Now sorted but I can see now why the hobby/clubs have less young members.

 

Cheers

 

Dave

[kevinlms]

On 22/10/2019 at 02:16, The Johnster said:

Some years ago in a town which has since been declared to be a city about a dozen miles from Cardiff, a person whose job was as a paediatrician was hounded off the estate he lived on by people who found it difficult to process any part of a word that started with ‘paed...’ to process any part of the word beyond those four letters.  It is clearly pointless to attempt to explain their error to such folk, and one of them, interviewed by local news, commented that it was ‘better to be safe than sorry; you wouldn’t want it near your kids, would you.  No smoke without fire’! 

 

This is a serious problem, and, clearly, innocent people, especially single men without girlfriends, are vulnerable to victimisation and threat from those who refuse to know any better.  If the necessary robust system of prevention is in place it is inevitable that innocent people are going to be flagged up by it, and as soon as you reduce the robustness of the system to deal with this issue, you are facilitating higher levels of abuse.  

 

I don’t know what the answer to this problem is, and like most people don’t want it to exist in the first place, but exist it does nonetheless.  I can already hear the comment that the answer is better education and awareness of the issues, but there are always those who regard education as something they would rather avoid.  The principle is all too often that, in a democratic society, ‘my ignorant opinion holds the same credence as your informed one’, and any counter argument is dismissed as elitism, which it sometimes is.  

 

Not easy.  

A late friend of mine decided years ago to never be alone with his grandchildren. A female adult had to be there as well.

He said it was better than attempting to 'prove' yourself innocent.

 

Another friend's wife ran a child minding business from home. He made sure he was never home, when any children were there. If he was too sick to go to work for the day, he still got up and went out until they had all left.

 

Extreme steps, but were they the correct decisions - probably.

[The Johnster]

2 hours ago, kevinlms said:

A late friend of mine decided years ago to never be alone with his grandchildren. A female adult had to be there as well.

He said it was better than attempting to 'prove' yourself innocent.

 

Another friend's wife ran a child minding business from home. He made sure he was never home, when any children were there. If he was too sick to go to work for the day, he still got up and went out until they had all left.

 

Extreme steps, but were they the correct decisions - probably.

I feel much the same way myself.  Few years ago I was approached by a girl of about 5 years old; 'please, mister, can you cross me the road?'  My instinct was to look around for any woman to pass her on to, but there were none.  'Ok, catch hold of my hand, then' and I saw her over the road.  'Are you going home?' I asked, and she said 'Yes', so I asked if she could manage the rest on her own.  'Oh, yes, thank you mister' and off she went around the corner where (presumably) older sisters took charge of her.  I was very conscious that my looking around the corner to check could be interpreted in another way.

 

What I did was I think the right thing, but suppose something had gone wrong after she'd left me and the last person she'd been seen with was me, leading her by the hand?  I would rightly have been under suspicion, and suspicion is enough for the local vigilantes.  I also avoid situations where I am alone with children or anyone who might be seen as vulnerable, not because I dislike these people but out of fear of gossip and suspicion.  Nobody should have to behave in this way, and as I now have a regular girlfriend and this is well known in the neighbourhood, matters are a little less fraught. but for single men of my age, visible and overt caution is advisable!  I accept this as an inevitable part of the cost of making children and vulnerable adults safer, not as extreme steps, but I don't like it...

[Calnefoxile]

 

Reading through this thread has been very interesting and has at some points made me chuckle and shake my head at some of the comments.

 

Let me explain, I volunteer as a Cub Leader, and have done for nigh on 20 years, and my current role is as an Assistant District Commissioner for Cub Scouts as well as being an Akela for my local Cub Pack and we are very hot on Safeguarding and ensuring Adults have Enhanced DBS checks carried out, and I mean extremely scorchingly hot on it, as everyone knows Scouting has had some very bad raps in the past. The rules within Scouting state that you must be DBS checked almost immediately upon volunteering to help, that is even before you decide to be a Uniformed Leader, your DBS check is redone every 5 years. Any Adult, whether DBS checked or not, is not allowed to be alone with any Child, unless in an absolute dire emergency and then all other avenues must have been exhausted. You must at all times try and ensure that there is either 1 or more Adults within direct eye contact of any child, or more than 2 children with you. we also have ratios for activities away from our own Scout Hut which change with each Section. I'll give you an example:

 

We recently took my Cub Pack away for a weekend to Swanage and my Leadership Team included one of our Parents, she is DBS cleared but not a Uniformed Leader so this prevented her from conveying in her own vehicle any other Young People, except her own, without another Uniformed Leader present, regardless of the fact that other Parents said "Oh so & so is going, great she can take my kids", but because it was a Scouting activity then everyone has to abide by Scouting rules.

 

But my main point is that surely if you are working/volunteering to help with Young People/Vulnerable Adults then having a regular DBS check is absolutely vital, if you don't agree with having those checks carried out then, I'm afraid, you shouldn't be volunteering/working in those Sectors. We've had similar conversations within our Modelling Group regarding a Junior Section and came to the exact same decisions as many others, to big a minefield to get involved with, so we have a simple policy, under 16's are allowed if they are accompanied by their Parents or Legal Guardian, they are not to be left in the Clubroom without their Parent/Legal Guardian present. A lot of Club Members pointed at me and said "You can run the Junior Section because you're already DBS'd" but I had to point out that my Enhanced DBS is not portable it is only valid within Scouting, ridiculous I know that DBS's are not portable, but why should one Organisation pay to have you checked and then another Organisation take advantage of that?? We have many School Teachers within Scouting, but they still have to be checked by the Scout Association before they can volunteer.

 

Right I hope my ramblings have made sense and not bored you too much. 

 

regards

 

Neal.

[johnofwessex]

I have seen a rather interesting article about the DBS scheme which points out that its a money spinner for whoever has the contract, hence its not easy to make changes that will make it less remunerative

[The Johnster]

I'd say this is generally true of any government activity that has been farmed out to private industry.  It always increases costs, is usually spectacularly inefficient, and delivers a poor quality service; private industry sees it as a cash cow and only the most incompetent firms take it on as it's an easy buck for them.

[Dungrange]

I suppose it's worth asking who you are safeguarding and what risks are you trying to reduce or eliminate.  Most of the comments in this thread have been about DBS Checks, which are about ensuring that minors and vulnerable people are not exposed to the predatory behaviour of some sexually deviant individuals, who are hopefully not members of your model railway club, but its understandable that you want to check (to at least verify that they have never been caught).  However, there are other risks to the safety of minors that should be considered.

 

Twenty odd years ago when I lived in another city and was a member of another club, an existing club member (probably in his mid thirties at the time) brought a young 'friend' (who was about 13 years old) along to the club.  They apparently went train spotting at the same locations and the teenager was also interested in model trains.  As a club we didn't have any rigid policy on junior members at the time and this young teenager seemed responsible enough, so no-one was against him becoming a junior member and coming along to the club each week.  However, a few months later these two individuals fell out over something (I don't know what) and the committee became acutely aware of the fact that this young boy was actually leaving our club room on his own at nearly 11 pm on a Friday night, walking roughly ten minutes or so through the city centre to catch a train and then he had a roughly ten minute walk from his station to his home.  Assuming his journey was uneventful, he'd have been getting home at something like 11:45.  I don't think his parents saw any problem with this, but I recall having conversations with others about who was responsible for his safety during his journey home.  Does the club's responsibility for his safety end when he leaves the club room?  What would happen if he was abducted on route home?  How would he even get home if he missed his train or it was cancelled?  Ultimately the secretary decided that this wasn't really acceptable.  This young lad was crossing several busy roads, walking past numerous pubs with drunks falling out the doors and the most direct route from his station to his home wasn't a busy thoroughfare: it was the sort of dark route that I'd not be keen on my family walking alone at that time of night.

 

I remember sitting down with the treasurer as 'witnesses', while the secretary took this young guy to the side to explain our concerns and tell him that he was going to write a letter to his parents to say that we were effectively going to change the club's policy to state that individuals under the age of 16 were to be accompanied to and from the club room.  His parents did bring him and collected him a few times after that, but they then decided that this was too much hassle for them and if we weren't willing to let their son travel 12 miles on his own late at night, then he wasn't coming back.  I think the policy was then adopted that we would only permit those under the age of 16 to become junior members if they were brought to and from the club and their parent or guardian remained with them at all times.  We effectively have a similar policy in my current club.

[Simon D.]

Reviving this topic as we have had a few discussions at East Surrey N Gauge.  In 2016 we added a paragraph to the constitution on safeguarding.  My professional background was in running safeguarding partnerships, so I have some knowledge in the area, but not at the sharp end like @Calnefoxile, who makes some excellent points.  

 

We will be updating the paragraph - other clubs are welcome to use if this is helpful:

 

"ESNG strictly complies with The Children Act 2004 and other relevant safeguarding legislation for all Junior Members.  As it is impractical to have all members DBS checked the club stipulates that all children under the age of 18 or vulnerable adults must be accompanied by a close relative or guardian when attending or travelling to club meetings. This policy also applies for club exhibitions and where club layouts are invited to other exhibitions."
 

It is also important to apply common sense and ensure that younger or vulnerable members are never unsupervised, eg. they should not be be taken to the toilet except by parents/carers.  I'm not aware of any incidents involving model railway clubs, but experience elsewhere has shown a need for vigilance.

 

It's a shame that the era of trust has perhaps gone, but historically there were those who grossly abused that trust, and there may be some who continue to want to do so.

 

Simon

[Ouroborus]

"But my main point is that surely if you are working/volunteering to help with Young People/Vulnerable Adults then having a regular DBS check is absolutely vital"

 

"Vital"?   Really?  Does this mean the role cannot be fulfilled without a DBS check undertaken?   Of course not! 

As per previous, all a DBS check means is that you haven't been caught.. ... ... yet.  IMHO, a pretty worthless piece of administrative burden.   Far far better that people working with children and vulnerable act in such a way that the protection for the child/adult is maximised.    Many of the policies i've read here are very laudable, but one i didn't see covered was 'if you suspect something, report it.'   That's why people came to harm in the past.  Invariably other people knew of the bad things that were going on, but a blind eye was turned.

Unfortunately, we live in times where a tick in box is all that is 'required'.  My CPR training is annual and we get a certificate to show we've done it.  But we're never assessed how what we learned, how we manage.    HEIW require us to check our drugs "periodically" and suggest that a tick is put in a book every week to show its been done.  You can guess what happens.

The trouble is with the tick box mentally and the risk culture is that people die as a result.  The nursery where Abby Rae died had all its policies and procedures in place, but people didn't follow them.  Worse still in this case was that a man observed the child drowning but didn't intervene because he feared someone may think he was trying to abduct her.

This is what happens when common sense goes out of the window.  Rather can just getting a tick in a box that you have a DBS check, get some knowledge of the signs of abuse.  YOU might be the person that a child or vulnerable adult trusts.  They may tell you things, show you things.  They may do this in confidence.  You need to know what to do if they do.  Keep their trust and keep quiet?  Tell someone?  Go and have 'word' yourself?  All the DBS checks in the world don't prepare you for this, yet your actions or inaction may save a life.     

This is why i get so vexed about child protection.  I've witnessed at first hand a two year old lose their life because professional people who should have acted sat back and did nothing because the perpetrator didn't reach the 'threshold'.  Paperwork again.    And i wonder how uncomfortable the neighbours felt when they turned their televisions up so they couldn't hear the sound of the child screaming as he was thrown face first into the wall.  They never did anything either.

 

So yes, DBS checks, a fine idea but for heavens sake look at ways of safeguarding children