Help support TMP


"Wargames Clubs & Protection of Children" Topic


171 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Wargaming in the United Kingdom Message Board

Back to the Clubs Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Profile Article

A Rescue House for Editor Katie & Her Grandparents

Thanks to the generosity of TMP readers, there has been much progress in building a new home for our staff editor and her family, evicted from their home.


Current Poll


10,466 hits since 20 Jul 2009
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

archstanton7320 Jul 2009 5:09 p.m. PST

As borrible pointed out most abuse happens in the family--So attending a club with blokes playing with toy soldiers is probably actually a place of safety!!--But from what was said in the E-Mail from CRB if you are in a group then you don't need it--it is when you are alone etc etc that you need checking which seems fine..
I do get the impression that the CRB agency is probably playing up the need to boost revenue..

The Black Tower20 Jul 2009 6:05 p.m. PST

But the problem is that many clubs meet at a venue where there are other people (non club members)

What is the position of a club organiser with regards responsibility of care while they are attending such a venue?

Even kids need to use the loo from time to time so you cannot say they are never alone with someone ,, and it might not be a club member.

This is like car insurance, you need it because others may be bad drivers but if you haven't got it and there is an accident… The press will have a field day

I can see this becoming an over 18 only hobby

Nobody would ever dare to call for crb checks for males with children in their family.

That is just what the law does alow! There is a data protection act exemption that allows a girl friend to have a potential boyfriend checked out

The law doesn't even ask the woman to prove she is in a relationship so basicaly any woman with a kid can apply for a check on any male!!

Oh Bugger20 Jul 2009 7:01 p.m. PST

I can only refer to a statement by the previous and much lamented Home Secretary Jaqui Smith MP who said she had not really done anything before becoming Home Secretary and there should be training. So there you go. Laws approved by people who have not really done anythng before and need training. Darwin defied. And the trains still don't run on time. Not that I believe for a moment that the Jellyfish will be any better.

Guthroth21 Jul 2009 1:15 a.m. PST

IMO this issue is serious enough to require a seperate discussion from the re-enactment position, so I started a new thread on this on the Re-enactment board

TMP link

Pete

myrm1121 Jul 2009 4:12 a.m. PST

Just going through the most relevant websites (oh and the usual IANAL qualification which is a tad relevant here)

crb.gov.uk
and
isa-gov.org.uk

Costs, this is contentious with statements of £64.00 GBP a head. Examining further, there is a Home Office document linked form the front page of the CRB site on the VBS. In there, it states (p55) that volunteers – 'those involved only in an unpaid voluntary activity' do NOT pay the fee. This is backed up by the same statement on the ISA site – in two places on one page no less (http://www.isa-gov.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=316).

Now all these sites talk about mandatory checking those providing 'regulated' activities in 'specified' places (emphasis mine), voluntary checking for others – and barring those on the Barred List from taking part. There is a subtle difference there in the different grading there – there is a level of required checks for some people and the ability to make checks on others from a much wider spectrum.

Quoting the relevant Act:
The most relevant section I can find is this
A person (P) is a regulated activity provider if—
(a) he is responsible for the management or control of regulated activity,
(b) if the regulated activity is carried out for the purposes of an
organisation, his exercise of that responsibility is not subject to
supervision or direction by any other person for those purposes, and
(c) he makes, or authorises the making of, arrangements (whether in
connection with a contract of service or for services or otherwise) for
another person to engage in that activity.

Section 5 and 6 seem to put members in the 'private arrangements' section as I go to the club for my personal benefit.

Full ext of ACT
PDF link

Schedule 4 is also extremely relevant Scehdule 4, Part 1, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 requires' work (paid or unpaid)' to be involved for it to be regulated activity. This Schedule also lists what are specified premises and despite being long its moderately restrictive – and worth diving through. There's definitions of supervision of children in there too.

I cannot find any further Statutory Instruments relevant being quoted but they will clearly have a bearing if anyone finds them and can quote/link them

So…..OK I think its not a simple set of regulations and well worth looking at in detail to work out some things and vital to talk to the regulatory bodies to find out what has been included, who is relevant (people organising things seem to fall into the equation firmly for instance, but I don't think anyone is arguing against that) – ISA are gonna to have the final say, but previous posters seem to have shown then giving a fairly reasonable answer and not the all encompassing doomsaying the mass media are giving.

Most importantly the 'no fee for volunteers' statement seems to be very very clear on all the websites and that seemed the biggest bar for many….

MotttheHoople21 Jul 2009 4:48 a.m. PST

myrm11 got in everything I wanted to say 5 minutes before I finished typing…
I would add that the only contentious point appears to be the adequacy of supervision. Club officers could very well be responsible for the regulated activity and if they haven't asked for ISA registrations could find themselves subject to criminal proceedings.
Also, I'm a little worried about the application process. The idea is that you get your ISA registration pretty much up front, it's kept up todate by the ISA and so becomes both current (so you don't need an up to date check every year) and portable (any "employer" can ask for your ISA registration which they can check on the database). What isn't clear is how the 12 million applications are going to be processed or how the access to the ISA database is going to be regulated. For a wargames club I suspect that you can't just register for access, so which body would we use to access the database, or for that matter to make our registration applications?

myrm1121 Jul 2009 5:08 a.m. PST

There's a lot of contentious stuff, a lot of holes possibly – its not simple – I think in part this is why my rugby club is changing from a social club structure to a full limited liability company – it makes things clear for such bodies.

SirGiles7121 Jul 2009 5:18 a.m. PST

Wow … Glad I live in Canada!

We have Police checks for people that work in the school
system or in an organized/registered group for children … beavers/cubs/scouts/cadets etc. and there is no cost to a volunteer.
If I want to organize an informal group of friends for a game club … that's my own buisness (at least for now).

Sounds like the intent of the British law is a bit mis-leading and needs clarification … I can't imagine that your law wasn't ment to be any different then what we have.
It sounds like until everyone is clear some people at your children services offices are going to say get a check done because they just don't understand it, or care to, and would rather cover their butt.

The Black Tower21 Jul 2009 5:26 a.m. PST

Club officers could very well be responsible

This puts the person in charge of the club in a difficult position the possibility of charges and fines if a Local authourity interpretation is different from the interpretation above.

Perhaps it is time for a umbrella organisation for wargamers
maybe it could get discounted public liability insurance for shows and perhaps co-ordinate this and other legal problems that the hobby faces?

Jemima Fawr21 Jul 2009 5:52 a.m. PST

Myrm,

Thanks for picking through the details for us there. Along with AM's post, I think that rules out standard members from needing such checks (aside from those who provide transport or who maybe run games with kids on a regular basis), but as you say, the case for club officers having to be cleared is pretty clear-cut.

However, on the status of 'volunteers', the CRB's definition is:


What is the CRB's definition of a "Volunteer"?

The CRB will issue a Disclosure "free of charge" if the person for whom a Disclosure is required satisfies the following criteria:

‘a volunteer is person who is engaged in any activity which involves spending time, unpaid (except for travelling and other approved out-of-pocket expenses), doing something which aims to benefit someone (individuals or groups) other than or in addition to close relatives'.


Would this definition include wargames clubs? I'm not sure that it would. In my own organisation, I know that we have to pay for the over-18 cadets to be cleared, as they do not fall within the CRB's narrow definition of a 'volunteer'. However, our unpaid adult staff do have a 'freebie'.

Jemima Fawr21 Jul 2009 5:59 a.m. PST

Mott,

As mentioned above, there should be an organisation in your local area providing such services to the Voluntary Sector (which loosely also includes small clubs and associations) and your local authority should be able to point you in the right direction.

Our local organisation (Pembrokeshire Association of Voluntary Services) is great. They'll process CRB checks for you without adding any 'handling fees' (unlike some companies providing this service) and also offer other services such as photocopying, web-design and hosting, accountancy, legal services, funding grant applications, etc.

GildasFacit Sponsoring Member of TMP21 Jul 2009 6:05 a.m. PST

This comes back to what was being discussed just before I left teaching – who would be responsible for what aspects of the system.

The prospect of management being able to pass the responsibility down to individuals was the most worrying aspect and I suspect that local authorities will try and do the same – whether or not that is the intent of the law.

The 'Devil is in the detail', as they say, but it does seem that someone has tried to formulate a code that is reasonable and then the lawmakers have added all the usual 'legal' verbage that make it almost impossible to interpret without professional assistance (more jobs for the boys).

I wonder if there aren't some wargamers out there who have experience of this legislation and applying it to their 'day job'. I have a mate who is a youth social worker – when he has finished his recent move and got himself sorted out, I'll ask him if he has any advice to offer.

Jemima Fawr21 Jul 2009 6:08 a.m. PST

Black Tower,

You're not wrong. My own local authority certainly has a more 'cautious' interpretation of the regulations. I was just talking to someone at the local rifle club and they've been told, in no uncertain terms, that all members must be CRB'd if they have access to children in the club… Which of course, is nonsense and not what the regulations actually say at all, as we can see from the above posts and links.

I agree though, that it does place a lot of responsibility upon the shoulders of the club officers, but provided the club officers are armed with the knowledge above and have fulfilled their responsibilities in getting themselves CRB'd, they should be pretty bulletproof.

Unfortunately in this country, our masters have a habit of making regulations FAR more strict than the original intention of those who actually drafted the laws in the first place. For example, hardly a week goes by without the Health and Safety Executive criticising schools and local authorities for being totally over-the-top in their approach to H&S.

myrm1121 Jul 2009 6:09 a.m. PST

Mark, Im suggesting that the 'Volunteer' status seems to cover the officers who organise clubs, so providing the regulated activity. Certainly our officers (and anyone they delegate to) are definitely unpaid, and their activity benefits the group, as otherwise we would have no club. This would seem to cover anyone falling under the providing regulated activities, or supporting those activities in a wargames club to my untrained eye.

The 'free pass' check seems to remove financial bars for small volunteer-run clubs to getting anyone and everyone who might be relevant checked out – gets rid of all those 64 quids in those organisations that really couldn't afford it but the ISA would want included.

Jemima Fawr21 Jul 2009 6:13 a.m. PST

Coming back to the earlier question about what constitutes 'regular' activity:

The CRB define 'regular' activity as once per month and 'intensive' activity as three times per month OR overnight (such as supervision on a camping expedition).

Guthroth21 Jul 2009 6:16 a.m. PST

Does anyone know how much of this is negated if the parent is present ?

myrm1121 Jul 2009 6:34 a.m. PST

VERY hard to say GUthroth – there may be some hints in the details of the Act that you could put an argument together a parent counts as family supervision and so there is no other supervision going on but nothing concrete and nothing that a simple decision from on high couldn't just blow away. I wouldn't want to rely on that as a protection without a clear statement from the organising body.

Goose66621 Jul 2009 6:34 a.m. PST

Before people in the UK pannic. I suggest that they ring the ISA on their helpline. 0300 123 1111 and have a chat with them. You can get the information direct from the horses mouth as it were.

There is a LOT of miss-information floating about.

Ring and ask is the best advice.

myrm1121 Jul 2009 6:37 a.m. PST

For example, hardly a week goes by without the Health and Safety Executive criticising schools and local authorities for being totally over-the-top in their approach to H&S.

Thats familiar – some of the things people come up with on their own for fear of H&S make the things the HSE actually require from us in a lab seem minor sometimes…..there's no substitute for talking to a specialist at the HSE in their field to get what is really needed and what isnt- that probably holds here for the current subject under discussion too…..

Guthroth21 Jul 2009 6:40 a.m. PST

Goose666 this is your very first post here.

Do you mind if I ask if I know you already ? From re-enactment perhaps ?

Phillip Forge21 Jul 2009 6:42 a.m. PST

All GW staff are subject to a CRB in the UK.

For a UK club to belong to the GCN then the committee must be subject to a CRB – I understand that the GCN will pay for standard CRB checks for committee members.

link

Goose66621 Jul 2009 7:00 a.m. PST

Guthroth, not at all. And yes possibly. Though not been involved in re-enactment for a long while really, but am a regular LARPer for my sins.


Back on the subject. I think a lot of people are overly worrying about this issue of ISA/CRB checks. Each club will probably have a unique set of circumstances, depending on their location, their structure etc. So each is best off ringing and discussing their circumstances with the ISA.

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus21 Jul 2009 11:39 a.m. PST

Best one I ever heard was two environmental activists who dressed up as Penguins and hung around in the local park to hand out leaflets on Global Warming.

The Council had them run off as they were near a Children's play area and might be paedophiles!

Paedophiles dressed as Penguins – What?

kevanG21 Jul 2009 2:24 p.m. PST

This has been brought up on some occasions at committee level at my club.

Perhaps the definition of "contact" is spending time on supervision alone. I know my club have no intention of having any under 18's, since we meet in licensed premises.

Gwydion21 Jul 2009 3:46 p.m. PST

After reading the 'Redtop' hyperbole the other day I thought I would actually check to see what the position was. So I sent off an email to the ISA and this is what they said:

"Dear Guy,

Thank you for your recent email.

As your potential club is not targeted specifically at children there would be no need for ISA registration.
The inclusion of under 18 year olds would be merely incidental, however if you were to start a childrens club the organiser of this would require ISA registration as it would be an activity aimed at children.

If you would like to be kept up to date in the future on the Vetting and Barring scheme, please reply to this email with your preferred contact details.

Kind regards,

Elizabeth Scott

The Vetting & Barring Scheme Information Team

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy xxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 7:25 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Wargames Club


Dear Sirs,

Some friends and I are thinking of starting a wargaming club and although we are all adults would not want to turn away under 18s if they wanted to join and play and learn about military history.

Would this constitute a 'regulated activity' and require registration by whoever was an officer of the club – or indeed by adult members of the club? Would a requirement that parents were present make any difference?

Thank you for your advice on this matter.

Yours"

Now I place the usual Caveat here – I do not offer this as any form of legal advice and you act on it at your own risk.
But… for *&^%s sake calm down.
And before anyone asks what the relationship between the ISA and the CRB is – see link

Best Wishes
Guy

Jemima Fawr21 Jul 2009 4:21 p.m. PST

Thanks Guy, I'll be saving that response as well! :o)

However, that is actually at odds with what their policy actually says and is totally contradictory to the advice issued by our local authority. I've quoted directly from the ISA's own literature in my earlier posts and it says nothing about 'organisations specifically aimed at children' – only organisations in general that might have regular or intensive activites that involve children. By my (and my local authority's) interpretation, this includes all organisations that accept children as members – not just those that specifically target children.

There are a great many organisations which are not specifically aimed at children, but are getting CRB'd nonetheless, because that is what local authorities, their solicitors and indeed, the ISA are advising them to do.

I phoned the ISA earlier today and (when I finally got through) they told me that if you are a 'constituted' club (i.e. with a committee, club rules, etc, which is essential in order to have a club bank account, or to hire council-owned venues, for example) that accepts children, you MUST have CRB clearance for the club officers as a minimum.

I don't think there's any need to tell people to 'calm down', as this is an interesting and reasoned debate on what is clearly a very confusing issue and I don't see anybody panicking here (annoyed; yes). However, if the same organisation is issuing contradictory information, what hope have we got of understanding what our responsibilities are?

Regards,

Mark

arthur181522 Jul 2009 1:38 a.m. PST

That, IMHO, is the whole problem with English law: complex regulations or statutes that can only be 'understood' or 'interpreted' by legal professionals, who may then disagree, whereupon only a decision by the High Court or House of Lords constitutes a binding precedent. Then one gets the position that opposing parties in dispute are both advised – for hefty fee! – that they can win in court. If two legal experts can disagree on how the law applies to a particular set of circumstances, either the law is very badly drafted, or some lawyers will simply tell their clients what they want to hear to generate fees!
Okay, rant over.
I suspect, for many small groups that do not have to hire premises, but meet in each others' houses, the solution will be not for form a formal club and have officers at all – just remain a group of friends pursuing an activity in private [the group with whom I play kriegsspiel has always operated quite happily in that way]- until the Big Brother state moves into our home too…

Connard Sage22 Jul 2009 1:52 a.m. PST

I don't think there's any need to tell people to 'calm down', as this is an interesting and reasoned debate on what is clearly a very confusing issue and I don't see anybody panicking here (annoyed; yes). However, if the same organisation is issuing contradictory information, what hope have we got of understanding what our responsibilities are?

One of the reasons I dropped out of this discussion. It was going to start generating more heat than light.

Anyway, while I'm back, I'll just add that, as I mentioned upthread, the law is a typically, hastily drafted, ill-thought out instrument designed to satisfy Daily Mail readers. It's bound to be open to interpretation and contradictory, even to officers who have to enforce it.

I suspect, for many small groups that do not have to hire premises, but meet in each others' houses, the solution will be not for form a formal club and have officers at all – just remain a group of friends pursuing an activity in private

The ramifications of inviting a child(ren) into your home to be 'entertained' by a group of middle-aged men are not something I wish to dwell on…

myrm1122 Jul 2009 2:06 a.m. PST

Hmm, the statement they have given Guy rather turns things on their head doesn't it….

Vulture22 Jul 2009 2:48 a.m. PST

Guys

To add to the 'confusion' I've just this minute come off the phone with the CRB (Tel No: 0870 90 90 844) who said that:

1. It is not a legal requirement for a wargames club committee to be CRB checked. They would recommend it however.

2. It is up to the club committee whether they accept the portability of CRB checks.

So in my case where I already have an enhanced disclosure certificate (for voluntary work I do as the Treasurer of a Per-School charity), it would be up to the other members of the committee to decide whether the existing CRB check was adequate or not.


Following this thread with interest

Regards to all

Vulture

(My Blog link )

Jemima Fawr22 Jul 2009 2:51 a.m. PST

Connard,

You've hit the nail on the head (twice).

Myrm,

Yes, but the same people told me something entirely different over the phone and that isn't the way that other governmental departments are interpreting it.

The simplest solution might be to become a member of the GCN, linked above. I'd never heard of it before, but it seems like just the sort of umbrella organisation we need. They'll also do CRB checks for free.

Jemima Fawr22 Jul 2009 2:54 a.m. PST

Vulture,

Yes, the news that 'portability' is now going to be allowed will certainly simplify matters, as lots of us already have CRB checks.

Mark

arthur181522 Jul 2009 3:23 a.m. PST

Connard Sage, you make an amusing point, but by slightly misinterpreting my comment, which was, perhaps, insufficiently explained. I was not suggesting that informal groups of friends actually invite children unrelated to any of them to join them – that would, indeed, be a dangerous line to take in today's society! – but that such a group would have no problem should one of the adults choose to bring his children along, the situation then being analagous to family friends attending a dinner party or other social gathering. That has always been the case in the informal kriegsspiel group to which I referred.

Gwydion22 Jul 2009 3:34 a.m. PST

Connard -absolutely agree with you regarding the purpose of this law- a reflex reaction to something that required a little quiet consideration and thought before action.

(my earlier quibble was NOT that New Labour is not pathetic in this way but that ALL politicians seem to lack leadership in this respect now -apologies if that was not clear)

My comment about calming down was in response to the sheer volume of frankly idle speculation, a lot of which (not all admittedly) appeared to be based on the 'I heard a bloke in the pub say to his mate that this guy he knew…' model.

And my comments on sourcing stand – beware journalists of any description, but particularly the redtop variety, commenting on or even 'quoting' official statements – they get paid to sell copy not accuracy these days (if ever).

Mark, obviously those comments are not aimed at you – I know different bodies react differently and being a school governor I am aware of how people jump at the hint of new regulation – thanks to the Americanisation of British legal responses. Also see Arthur's incisive comment on the English Legal system re the contradictions.

Vulture – Don't see the contradiction – CRB – who are the admin arm now of decisions ISA is responsible for -stated you don't require CRB checks. The recommendation is (admittedly a tempting) belt and braces response – 'to be on the safe side', and is an appeasement of Daily Mail muppets not a legal requirement.

Guy

KatieL22 Jul 2009 2:08 p.m. PST

OK. So I've read that act. My reading is that a wargames club is a regulated activity if children are allowed. And that the officers of the club commit an offence if they fail to get a ISA clearance off every adult present.

I'll explain this.

S6.10b establishes joint liability on "regulated activity providers" in unincorporated orgs.

Sched 4, part 1, para 1, clause a says that anything listed in para 2.1 is a regulated activity.

Sched 4, part 1, para 2.1 lists "any form of care for or supervision of children". A wargames club which accepts unaccompanied children is supervising them.

So, wargames clubs which don't require an accompanying adult are a regulated activity.

The officers of the club are therefore "regulated activity providers" and require an ISA validation.

OK.

S11 p1 says: 'A regulated activity provider commits an offence if (a) he permits an individual (B) to engage in regulated activity, (b) B engages in the activity, and (c) he fails to ascertain whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to the activity.'

It then goes on to describe what constitutes ascertaining. One way is to get CRB clearance (Part 1 of Sched 5), one is to get a CRB clearance (Part 2 of sched 5) and the other is to get a CRB clearance (Part 3 of sched 5).

Now, I'm not a lawyer (although for various reasons I end up reading and having to understand a lot of legislation) but this really does look like every adult there needs at least a CRB if not an ISA registration. Otherwise the club officers are in trouble.

I'm not surprised the various government agencies can't agree an interpretation, because this is an amazingly dense bit of legislation with a lot of GOSUBs in it..

Gwydion22 Jul 2009 2:13 p.m. PST

See what ISA thinks above.

David Brown22 Jul 2009 3:47 p.m. PST

All,

I suggest we treat this law like the myriad of other bad laws introduced recently and ignore it in the main and simply carry on as we are.

A wargames club which accepts unaccompanied children is supervising them.

Not necessarily – only if you agree to do this – it is not a default position. A duty of care cannot be imposed upon anyone not wishing to adopt such a position. (Though in RMD's position this is different – the role he adopts brings within a duty of care.)

Anyway in the worst case scenario what action is the LA actually going to take against a local wargamers club that has one or more organisers that are not covered? Close the club down…how? Take wargamers to court? I hardly think so. LA's struggle to close crack houses down let alone checking out literally hundreds of clubs and societies within its area which may or may not, God forbid, have an adult within 10 feet of a child. The debate here shows just how difficult it is to define.

After all what would a well intentioned wargamer within a standard club be charged with if not covered officially…how many county court judges (or stipendiaries) would even give such a case the time of day….?
"Here is Mark Davies m'lud he was caught playing Flames of War in a wargames club that had several 15year olds present and yes my lud the defendant has not been CRB'd!" (Sorry to be so flippant in a serious matter but I need to stress the point).

Finally a CRB check actually means very little. First the CRB are like most govt agencies somewhat understaffed and struggling, secondly only UK citizens who have actually been convicted in the UK will be checked, (only enhanced CRB checks dig any further). So if you've come over from the EU or Eire or the US there is no check whatsoever, enhanced or otherwise…..

I would suggest CRBing, etc., will have only limited impact, affecting those that run a club in a school or as part of an recognised orgaisation, etc., and that's quite understandable.

DB

The Black Tower22 Jul 2009 5:12 p.m. PST

Dave, wargamers are an easy target and a lot of "hairy wimin" would jump on the band wagon for poisoning young minds with violent games!

Like speed cameras, this would be easy money

It has happened before.

The worst part of the law is that it defines a duty of care in addition to the CRB checks.

Once this has been established clubs could be liable for injuries (John cut his finger open and they were supervising him)
Or (He fell of a chair reaching for figures)

That is why many schools stoped a lot of PE games and workshop activities

Soon you will start to feel like nannys rather than having fun wargaming!

we are in a litigious society

Connard Sage22 Jul 2009 5:24 p.m. PST

Quite.

The 'if we ignore it it won't happen/will go away' attitudes would be amusing if they weren't so naively sad .

SealladhArd22 Jul 2009 9:59 p.m. PST

Having had a "quick look" at the Act, it would appear that the legislation does not apply to Scotland so it may be the case that a lot of the concerns that have been expressed above may not affect any wargames clubs in Scotland. I haven't heard of any any similar legislation being introduced by the Scottish Parliament (I'll have a look) but it looks as if we may have a situation where gamers in Scotland may not have to go through the trials that the Act will bring down South.

Having said that there is still a requirement in Scotland for "adults", where appropriate, to have CRB disclosure. As Forge Games Phil mentioned above, the GCN (Gaming Club Network) does provide clubs with a "relatively pain free" way for club officials to get the relative CRB clearance (and at no cost). Also (and slightly off topic) they can organise cheaper Public Liability Insurance for member clubs – something that perhaps a lot of clubs either don't organise (and they should if meeting in a public venue) or are paying for at an exorbitant rate.

And although the GCN are sponsored by GW they are not in anyway a part of GW so it shouldn't pose a problem for those of you who are in some way "anti-GW".

Check out their link on:-

gamingclubnetwork.org

It might be worthwhile for clubs to contact them to get their views on what clubs may be required to do to meet the requirements of the Act

Jemima Fawr23 Jul 2009 6:24 a.m. PST

Davy,

If I was caught playing Flames of War, I'd deserve everything I got… I'd rather be banged up for being a nonce!

;o)

Jemima Fawr23 Jul 2009 6:28 a.m. PST

Seal,

I'd not heard about GCN before this, but as you say, it does seem like a pain-free way of getting around all this.

I don't know the details, but my colleagues in Scotland tell me that the law is already much more stringent up there, so they don't really need this additional legislation. As mentioned above, we are already required to clear our over-18 cadets in Scotland, which is something that will not be necessary here until the new legislation comes into force.

AppleMak23 Jul 2009 7:59 a.m. PST

I think you are right about it not applying to Scotland – yet another sensible reason for independence ;-)

They have similar rules about the registration of people working with minors etc.

interestingly there is another similar thread on this

TMP link

Jemima Fawr23 Jul 2009 10:57 a.m. PST

As mentioned, the only reason this doesn't apply to Scotland, is that they already have tighter restrictions in place. I'm also not aware of Disclosure Scotland clearances being portable.

Phillip Forge23 Jul 2009 1:17 p.m. PST

Joining the GCN is not pain-free!

Just a few 'birthing' pains in making sure all your documentation is correct and formalising the club structures a wee bit.

It is worth it though!

archstanton7323 Jul 2009 2:30 p.m. PST

R Mark--you hit the nail on the head when you said earlier that local authorities recommend that it is mandatory--IE they just want to cover themselves without understanding fully the actual rules--in a similar way they have b@allsed up the whole Health and Safety issue--Basically the HSA recommends something in a gentle "watch out when…" and the Local Authority or LEA then takes this on board as THE LAW AND MUST BE OBEYED and makes kids wear goggles while playing conkers and bans science experiments!!

Jemima Fawr23 Jul 2009 6:41 p.m. PST

You're not wrong!

Guthroth24 Jul 2009 4:42 a.m. PST

KatieL, that was exactly how I read it.

In practice, I think WG clubs will be OK if the Club officers are checked, and at least one club officer is present.

Vulture24 Jul 2009 8:56 a.m. PST

Hummmm, the GCN looks interesting.

I've applied to join today.

Vulture

Guthroth25 Jul 2009 11:57 a.m. PST

I'm confused.

Does a club need to have Insurance before being eligable to join the GCN or not ?

Pages: 1 2 3 4