English Chess Forum

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8249020.stm

Discuss!

"This is a common sense approach and what parents would rightly expect"

Does the Government not think that any parents who cared would seek to find out that sort of information first, anyway?

Alex Holowczak wrote:parents who cared

This a dangerous assumption...

I think you should be rational here, if your a parent of a child at a said club, you might be allowed to forgo these checks. Where as if your a random volunteer with no children of there own then perhaps you should require checks.

Ben

I took it as the nanny state going too far again to be honest

Ben Purton wrote:. Where as if your a random volunteer with no children of there own then perhaps you should require checks.

Ben

Ben,
I am not sure if I am clear as to what you are saying.

Are you saying that if you have children of your own you are less likely to be a paedophile?

Are you also saying that if you do not have children of your own you are more likely to be a paedophile?

John Upham wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:parents who cared

This a dangerous assumption...

Well quite, but if it's for the benefit of the parents, the parents who didn't care beforehand won't care now, either.

Ben Purton wrote:I think you should be rational here, if your a parent of a child at a said club, you might be allowed to forgo these checks. Where as if your a random volunteer with no children of there own then perhaps you should require checks.

Ben

I actually agree with this statement:

Chris Huhne wrote:"in danger of creating a world in which we think every adult who approaches children means to do them harm"

It's one step on the road to creating an atmosphere where everyone is assumed guilty until proven innocent, which in my opinion, is a cock-eyed notion.

It is reported that most child abuse happens in the home... I think the whole point of CRB checks and the like is so that officialdom can claim they have done something, and if it makes it more difficult for a paedo to work with children, that is good. It is of course offensive to everyone else!

One of the first tasks of the new ECF Press Officer will be to promulgate guidelines on this very issue and make clear the ECFs position on this matter.

Yet another example of Labour trying to control everything and being really stupid.

As if chess wasn't non appealing enough for kids...

If someone in a chess team (probably on the same team as his passanger) has to undergo a check to 'deliver his passanger' it would be a barrier in people taking anyone. Not that most chess players need a reason not to take children to matches...

Will probably have no useful effect other than to stop a few kids getting lifts to matches.

*The more he sees about chess the less likely he is to play OTB*

certainly i can't see this affecting anything where i play, as no-one will know about this new law or not know the people giving lifts well enough to trust them.

Perhaps we should wait to see the exact wording of the new law. I have not seen it ... but let us suppose that the duty to register applies to those

"whose work or activity involves contact with children and/or vulnerable adults on a regular basis"

and also to those who act on behalf of any such person (e.g the car-driving member of a chess club).

This wording could be argued to exclude adult chess clubs which happen to have a few junior members. You might argue that the wording means to refer to those activities necessarily involve contact with children and/or vulnerable adults, whereas in an adult chess club, this is not the case - it is just a matter of chance whether some children make a club team; sometimes they will, sometimes not. In which case any other member of the club could give that child a lift to a match without needing clearance.

Of course that would not help in the case of those teams which are specifically for juniors, which was John's chosen title for this thread.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Perhaps we should wait to see the exact wording of the new law. I have not seen it ... but let us suppose that the duty to register applies to those

"whose work or activity involves contact with children and/or vulnerable adults on a regular basis"

and also to those who act on behalf of any such person (e.g the car-driving member of a chess club).

This wording could be argued to exclude adult chess clubs which happen to have a few junior members. You might argue that the wording means to refer to those activities necessarily involve contact with children and/or vulnerable adults, whereas in an adult chess club, this is not the case - it is just a matter of chance whether some children make a club team; sometimes they will, sometimes not. In which case any other member of the club could give that child a lift to a match without needing clearance.

Of course that would not help in the case of those teams which are specifically for juniors, which was John's chosen title for this thread.

As a football referee I have had to undergo a CRB check in preperation for this legislation even though I do not referee junior matches! When I queried the necessity I was told the reason was that "Players aged 16 or 17 can play in adult football (true) and are legally classed as juveniles (also true)." So I have minimal contact and certainly dont give them a lift anywhere!

Ah, maybe my argument fails then. I recall now that it is often said that the real reason why some Oxbridge Colleges have for some years now been fussy about admitting students who will be under eighteen when they matriculate relates to the same concern/annoyance about these checks.

Sean Hewitt wrote:As a football referee I have had to undergo a CRB check in preperation for this legislation even though I do not referee junior matches! When I queried the necessity I was told the reason was that "Players aged 16 or 17 can play in adult football (true) and are legally classed as juveniles (also true)." So I have minimal contact and certainly dont give them a lift anywhere!

The obvious follow-up question is what is the position if the football team does consist of a mixture of adults and juniors? The adult members of the team are coming into regular contact with the juniors. That suggests that all the adults need clearance. I don't see how you could reasonably argue that the referee is a greater threat to the juniors than their adult team-mates.