UKC

So here's the story, my other half emails a local climbing club enquiring about membership but advising that we have two kids (7 and 10) who are new to, but love, climbing and can deal with 4c on soft sandstone. We explained that the kids have been hillwalking their entire lives, are familiar with climbing safety and discipline and are ok to belay each other under supervision. We then enquired whether the fact that we climbed as a family would be a barrier to us (i.e. the adults) joining. We asked this because we have previously found a local kayaking club that didn't really want to know us once we suggested bringing the kids to indoor winter training sessions (despite having kids' and family taster days). The prompt response received from the local BMC affiliated mountaineering club said we couldn't really join unless we abandoned the kids because the BMC has rules regarding insurance, quote "... it's more their regulation than ours".

Is this really true? Is the BMC requiring that affiliate clubs cannot allow members to climb with their kids? If so, I'm inclined to save the subs next year and save up for fake moustaches and stubble for the kids, my daughter will not appreciate this.....

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Membership of the BMC itself is open to Under 18s as individual members, and also family membership for "up to two adults and three children (under 18) living at the same address", so it may be more an issue with the clubs indemnity insurance policy itself rather than the BMC.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I'm thinking 'informed consent', 'adventure activities licensing authority', 'child protection', DBS etc.

In reply to captain paranoia:
They are climbing with us - no such issues are relevant, nor were they raised by the club....
We did not ask, nor do we wish for members of the club to coach, train or supervise our kids - that's what we do.....

In reply to herbe_rouge:

The BMC say no such thing. They offer guidance to clubs on how to handle under 18's. They did change their policy a few years back, as a response to government advice, it used to be more difficult than now. Previously it was pretty restrictive advice that was being given.

From the BMC website "Yes, any club can decide to take under-18’s. However, in order to be covered by the Civil Liability Insurance policy in the event of a child protection issue, our insurers require that those clubs with under-18’s unaccompanied by their parent(s) adopt the BMC Child Protection Policy and have a Club Youth Co-ordinator. This is now a common insurance requirement amongst all amateur sports clubs in Britain. Clubs that take under-18’s who are always accompanied by their parent(s) do not need to meet these requirements. For more information please click here."

In reply to JDal:

Many thanks - that's very instructive and reassuring, I would have been sincerely disappointed if the BMC were behind such a move. Obviously at no point were we suggesting dumping the kids unaccompanied on the club - it was the adults that were applying for membership! Thanks for taking the time to share this.

In reply to JDal:

Insurance bollox again. What is society turning into? Does everything we now do in life have to be covered by insurance?

Insurers are a bunch of corrupt money grabbers in cahoots with the government.

W*nkers.

In reply to JDal:
The more I think about this, the more I'm wondering why any BMC affiliated club would not accept "...under 18s that were always accompanied by their parents" and why the BMC would allow them to make such a choice..... anyone from the BMC or a club that does this that would like to enlighten?

Equally, how many BMC affiliated clubs do allow under 18s accompanied by parents?

In reply to herbe_rouge:


This may also be related in some way to hut usage (if this particular club has, or uses, one for trips)?

In reply to herbe_rouge:
My club used to accept minors. Any age with accompanying parents or guardians but full individual membership from 15 unaccompanied as long as they had written permission from parents or guardians.

We changed that to 18 when the BMC brought in the requirements to adopt Sport England's Child Protection Policy, as the hassle of complying with requirements was too great for volunteer committee members to accept. Rules about sleeping arrangements on away trips were particularly onerous and unrealistic for most huts in UK.

However, there are a number of adult members with kids who bring them along to home and wall meetings. The adults are members but the kids are not.

From JDal's post above it may be that the BMC have pulled back a little from the overly-restrictive policy they originally brought in, which certainly was a hassle for clubs to follow properly. Maybe the local club isn't aware of any recent changes (I certainly aren't, but then I no longer take an active part in running the club....or, to be fair, much part in it at all these days).

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Our kids pitch their own four season tent and sleep in it, year round. Next week they'll be doing that at over 3000m, as they frequently do. We never gave any reason to believe that we wanted this club to look after our kids in any way - we just notified them that they existed! To be honest, and I hope I'm wrong, this smacks of a club that just doesn't want families in its midst. I'm not really that worried by our experience per se, but I am concerned that there may be many BMC clubs that share this Victorian approach...... Perhaps we should restrict climbing to Gentleman, accompanied by a valet who can open the canned foie gras........

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Which part of the country are you in (your profile does not say)? Perhaps then other posters could advise on local kid /family friendly clubs. (In the South West you could join 4 Points - accompanied kids welcome on meets.)

In reply to Mark Kemball:
Hi Mark,

Good point! I've amended to indicate South East. It would be great for the kids to experience more of a climbing community if possible. As I said, they don't need coaching or supervision, to be honest, one of the most important reasons to enquire about membership of the local climbing club was so the kids would be exposed to a climbing community - right now they have no friends that climb other than at birthday parties at Craggy.

Best,

Steve

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Best of luck, it's possibly not the most kid friendly of clubs all the time - (there might be too many old farts like myself), and it's national rather than local, but the Climbers' Club family Meet is really great for kids. (A bit late for this year if you're not a member, but next year perhaps...)

In reply to herbe_rouge:

You may not like it, but my 'child protection' thought was on the money, wasn't it? I note the BMC statement, and Rob's comment:

"We changed that to 18 when the BMC brought in the requirements to adopt Sport England's Child Protection Policy, as the hassle of complying with requirements was too great for volunteer committee members to accept. Rules about sleeping arrangements on away trips were particularly onerous and unrealistic for most huts in UK."

It's not the way I'd like it, but it's the way it is. The club is choosing 'an easy life', to reduce the hassle for their volunteer committee.

In reply to captain paranoia:




No, it's not 'on the money' it's just completely and utterly WRONG. There is absolutely no child protection issue involved whatsoever. Take a look at Jdal's post which includes the BMC's verbatim position - there is no issue here with child protection - the parents are present and supervising. This is about a club that does not want kids or has grossly misunderstood BMC policy.

It's time the BMC reviewed its policy and support for clubs that behave in this way. I hope that the BMC monitor this forum and, if so, I look forward to a statement from the BMC regarding the issue.

In reply to herbe_rouge:
My local club does not take under 18s as members but they are welcome to come along to meets etc if accompanied by a responsible adult and this is not unusual. Only caveat is no under 18s in huts.

The CC does allow under 18 members but don't think we have any. Again, under 18s supervised by a responsible adult are welcome but not to sleep in huts, unless it is in a separate room which is specifically booked or it's a specific family meet. Most of the huts have camping so it isn't really an issue.

In reply to Misha:

Thanks Misha, sounds entirely reasonable - wish we were local to your club!

Best,

Steve

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Calm down calm down.

It could just have been crossed wires about having children joining the club.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

It may be that the club concerned is not aware of recent changes to the Child Protection Guidelines:

If…
1. Your club does not allow under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets.

2. Your club allows under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets, but only with a parent/carer.

3. Your club allows under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets, but only with a parent/carer or an adult in loco parentis, nominated by a parent.

…then

These three situations are similar and your club is not required to adopt the BMC Child Safeguarding Policy or appoint a Youth Officer.

The previous guidelines were more restrictive than this, which was why my club changed its Constitution . If Membership Secretaries are not aware of this then they may still assume the previous guidelines are in place. There was a big discussion on this on UKC at the time the initial Child Protection Policy was brought in, with many people arguing that it would severely hamper participation of minors in climbing outside of walls and organisations run by walls.

In fact, I've just looked at the updated Policies, dated January 2014, which are significantly less proscriptive than the previous set (issued 2009), so since these have only been in force for 18 months, it's quite conceivable that some club MS's are either not yet aware of them OR haven't had either the time or inclination to call for an amendment to their club's Constitution to match it with the new requirements (may have to be done at an AGM or require calling of an EGM).

Why not politely inform the club you've been talking to that the Child Protection requirements have been significantly relaxed from the 2009 version in 2014, and ask them to re-consider? I know my club was upset when we had to raise the joining age to 18 as we'd had a number of very talented minors join the club and progress to other things. Nearly all clubs are constantly looking for new blood. Prior to the Sport England CPP requirements, club membership in all the local clubs that I knew in the SE of UK was very relaxed, not at all "Victorian". It was the introduction of initially very tough policies that made many of them wary of dealing with minors.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

The way your OP reads to me suggests that although you make it clear to the club that your children are pretty self sufficient in terms of looking after themselves (well done on your and their part btw), might it be that you didn't make it so clear to the club that you would be taking full responsibility for them during club activities? Apologies if you did do this. Just a thought.

In reply to captain paranoia:



I was a volunteer instructor in a small (non-climbing) club and we reluctantly took the same position. Accepting minors as members was just too much like hard work. It was hard enough to get people to offer to instruct at all.

In reply to Dogwatch:

Our club voted and decided that we would allow U18's but they had to be with an Over18 who was a climber and responsible for their safety i.e checking they were tying on, approving the route if they were leading of seconding. Obviously the U18's can climb with Over18's but someone just needs to take charge of them.

I'm not sure any U18's have been on a hut meet for a number of years, not sure why

In reply to Willi Crater:

We made it clear that we climb as a family and the club's website makes it clear it doesn't offer tuition. Nothing in my other half's email could have been interpreted as requiring the club to take any responsibility for our kids so there's little room for misunderstanding to be honest. I'm just pleased that this has nothing to do with BMC policy.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

You do have to remember that clubs are not faceless institutions. They are people who are trading their time to get the benefits of (in my case at least) a load of like minded people with whom they can climb. Please consider that the individuals who make up a club might not be comfortable with the liability (real or perceived) of taking under 18s, might not be comfortable with under 18s in a social pub setting etc (which is actually a large part of club activity). As a club we are happy if members bring and look after families on camping trips but not on hut trips. This is the best compromise we can reach for us.

So in wanting to join a club, what is it you want to get out of it and what can you put back into it ?

In reply to Rob Naylor:
Yes Rob, our club was like yours. The previous policy was pretty restrictive. We also had legal advice from a member who was a solicitor, who also advised the BMC on this policy, and he was pretty adamant that we should not take on under 18's. Then the BMC gave out new advice, I think after a statement from the government, and we now accept under 18's. All we require is that they are accompanied either by their parents or that we have an "In Loco Parentis" form ( http://issuu.com/thenmc/docs/nmc-under-18-policy/1 )

In reply to herbe_rouge:

its down to the club surely? they may not want kids on their meets for other reasons than insurance liability, responsibility etc...maybe they just want a quiet environment where they can get away for the weekend? Or they may have had bad experiences with different expectations of appropriate behaviour from children and adults. clubs are voluntary organisations and its really up to them. It may also be possible that the club youre talking to dont allow kids on formal club meets or hut meets but would be happy for you to bring them on less formal meets. Or alternatively maybe you could consider setting up a families oriented climbing club? If enough of you felt strongly enough to do that it might be a nice solution.

In reply to Urgles:


It isn't the insurers who are the problem. It is the solicitors and lawyers who suggest to those who come unstuck that they can sue the organisation "in charge". The result - an average Joe like you are me hanging and the club / organisation folding.

To be fair though. If your kid became severely disabled on an organised event, you would hope you could get compensation to cover the cost of ongoing treatment no?

In reply to GrahamD:


Oh, I understand that people may want to socialise and climb without kids around. I just don't think the BMC should sponsor such clubs and I don't think such clubs should try to blame the BMC for their entry restrictions which, in this case, is clearly "No kids". My concern is that if it's appropriate to say "I'm not comfortable with kids in my club", what other criteria might be regarded as acceptable for exclusion?

In reply to Rob Naylor:

This is really helpful - thanks.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

You dont think the bmc shoukd sponsir such clubs? Blimey, that's a bit prescriptive. The bmc exists to support british climbing, and climbing clubs are not public service or commercial organisations, they are just voluntary organisations of like minded people run by volunteers who give up their time for no other gain than to keep the clubs going. Its great if you climb as a family but its not reasonable to suggest that any club which doesnt work that way should lose bmc funding. Just start your own club if you find existing ones dont meet your needs!

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Theyre not excluding you, they're just saying your children (who are minors) cant be members of the club themselves or take part in official club activities.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Ding ding...

EC-regulations require a few things, and the country based child protection laws reflect that.

Mainly the thing is, that when working with minors the organisations doing it, need to validate that the persons are allowed to do this. In essence, this means that the clubs will need to see a criminal registry of the supervisors which shows that they haven't done anything that is deemed 'not kosher'... like molested a child.

And if they are teaching or supervising roped climbing, BMC or other local association might require a certain degree of competence from the personnel.

In reply to pebbles:

Here's what the BMC have to say on the issue:

"The British Mountaineering Council (BMC) aims to ensure that all people, irrespective of their age, gender, ability, race, religion, ethnic origin, creed, colour, social status or sexual orientation, have a genuine and equal opportunity to participate in climbing, hill walking and mountaineering at all levels and in all roles."

I think that's a really good thing and is clearly not commensurate with funding clubs that breach those aims.

In reply to herbe_rouge:
Instead of emailing why not have a conversation with them ideally face to face - far more scope for explanation and clarification and less scope for misunderstanding imho

In reply to herbe_rouge:

No mention thete of a specific policy on children, for very good reason. Lots of things in society children cant do, go, or take part in (like driving or drinking in pubs) which have no bearing whatsoever on adult diversity policies. I think you are maling a basic misunderstanding between the nature of public services such as government ot local authority funded bodies, and clubs run by volunteers in their spare time., and are under no obligation to change their practice to meet your own preference for family climbing. Start another club if you feel syrongly about it!

In reply to pebbles:



The thing, how ever is that the government might be giving funding to BMC for child activites (and perhaps for other non child related things), and again the club might receive some funding from BMC.

This might make things less clear-cut.

In reply to herbe_rouge:




This idea that the BMC "funds" clubs is I think a bit wide of the mark. BMC affiliation actually costs clubs money. In return clubs get services, such as insurance, from the BMC. As far as I'm aware the BMC currently allows clubs to affiliate that do "breach" one or more of the equal opportunity items - for example the Pinnacle Club has exclusively female membership. Provided it includes within its affiliates clubs that do accept all ages, genders etc then I'm not sure it's breaking its aim as expressed above.

Martin

In reply to pebbles:

I'm not confusinf public services with clubs, you're confusing clubs with BMC support. I think the clue is in the clause "... all people, irrespective of their age, ...". The BMC has an unequivocal policy to ensure that all people, regardless of age have a genuine and equal opportunity to participate in climbing. Funding clubs that exclude people on the grounds of age is therefore inconsistent with the BMC's policy. I really don't care if some people want to form a club that excludes children, however, there is clearly no case for such clubs being funded by, nor affiliated to, the BMC. Would you really feel so enthusiastic about your position if the issue were race or sexual orientation rather than age?

In reply to ByEek:


Theyre all in it to win it. I blame the americans.


Yeah if they f*cked up, but then they should pay it themselves. Its called taking responsibility.

Hi All

To try and clarify a few points...

Clubs & BMC affiliation: not all clubs are affiliated to the BMC. Clubs that wish to affiliate to the BMC apply to affiliate. More on this here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-to-affiliate-register-club-with-bmc

Under 18s: there is BMC guidance for clubs v.a.v under 18s. Essentially, if under 18s are with a parent, or an adult a parent has given loco responsibility for the child, then there are no issues about the child joining the club or attending club meets. Different from this, clubs that allow under 18s to join or attend meets without a parent, or without an adult a parent has given loco responsibility for the child, then the club is required to follow child protection guidelines. Essentially, these are 1. Adopt the BMC Child Safeguarding Policy; 2. Have a club Youth Officer to oversee child protection & safeguarding within the club. More details on this here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/Youth%20and%20Equity/BMC%20Club%20Guid...

The BMC Child Safeguarding Policy is here https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-updates-child-protection-policy

BMC Club Guidance, including Youth Officer role, is here https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-club-guidelines

Hope that helps

Thanks

In reply to Team BMC:

Thanks - very helpful and much appreciated.

I can see youre disappointed here but I really think youre setting up a straw man here. Out of curiosity, whats your objection to setting up a club ypurself which meets your preferences? An internet forum like this one would be a very good platform to gauge the potentisl interestt from...

In reply to pebbles:

Yes, I think there's good reason to look into setting something up, we're off to Luz /Ariege tonight but will scope interest upon return. In the meantime, a dedicated tab on this forum for family/kid related stuff might be generally helpful in promoting such projects (mods - any chance?) .

In reply to herbe_rouge:


The BMC do not sponsor clubs. Clubs sponsor the BMC through their membership subs.

I'm surprised anyone would blame the BMC for chosing not to admit under 18s. Surely the fact that it doesn't fit with what the people that make up the club do and are willing to do is enough ?

In reply to herbe_rouge:


you obviously missed the bit which pointed out that clubs are not funded by the BMC - they fund the BMC.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm not sure how many different ways there are to say it. Excluding people on the basis of age is a breach of the BMC's policy, therefore it is not consistent to affiliate clubs that do this. This has nothing to do with the separate question of whether it is reasonable for people to want to form a club that excludes children - that is an entirely different question.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The issue is that any affiliation of such clubs is inconsistent with BMCs EO policy. Moreover, the argument regarding funding is not clear:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/funding-for-clubs

In reply to herbe_rouge:
I reckon that would be a good constructive idea. Lots of climbers round with young families, and potential to take turns to keep an eye on kids while others climb, useful for single parents not having to wait for child free weekends to get away . You could always make it a regional club if not enough interest for a more local club

In reply to pebbles:

yep - agreed, will give it a go - thanks......

In reply to herbe_rouge:


I disagree. All the BMC can do is help clubs who's membership are willing to take on under 18s - even if their internal policy is to be entirely inclusive. Aside from the very real difference it makes to the range of possible club activities there is also a genuine worry that some smart arsed lawyer is going to decide that club (by which its members) do actually have a duty of care to under 18s.

And I can definitely say that in the case of all the clubs I've had dealings with, the issue of sponsorship is very clear - and very much in the direction of clubs to BMC. So what would the BMC gain by not affiliating such clubs ?

In reply to herbe_rouge:

The BMC is an umbrella organisation that represents individuals and clubs at a national level. For clubs it helps them with, eg, admin issues like standard constitutions, guidelines on national issues (of which minors is one) and 3rd party insurance.

It does not provide 'sponsorship' or any annual money to 'run' clubs or none that I know of. Clubs can apply for grants for one off purchases of equipment or training if funding (eg Sport England) is available. It is not a 'policing' organisation and tries its best (in my experience) to help and support clubs.

Being a club officer takes more time than you'd think and with jobs, families and life it just has to be fitted in best as possible. Heaven knows for those with huts, how they find the time on a voluntary basis, so when someone comes along and berates them, understand there is limited time to understand all the issues and then to explain them sensitively.

The U-18 issue comes up probably more than any other, but if an individual club, (not the BMC here), has a membership that doesn't want the issues that come with minors (legally U-18's are) either find another club, offer to become an officer (Youth Development?) or even start your own, you will find the BMC very supportive. See below the BMC page on Child Protection.

Best of luck in finding a club, I genuinely have sympathy with you. In 'the old days' it wasn't a problem, but we live in 'now' and sadly an issue it is.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-child-protection-training_0?s=1

In reply to GrahamD:

So what would the BMC gain by not affiliating such clubs ?

Compliance with their own EO policy.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Not accepting affiliation from the club wouldn't "ensure [...] an equal and genuine opportunity" etc. It'd just mean that clubs that weren't helping to offer an equal and genuine opportunity weren't helping to fund the BMC either.

Not to mention that "an equal and genuine opportunity" for "all ages" doesn't mean all clubs accepting children as members, it means other opportunities being available for kids who aren't able to find a club that they can go on trips with.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

What a fantastic read. Its something I have been keen to find the answers to (Although I would never direct criticism at the BMC for including or excluding kids - Their level of support for kids is amazing).

Anyhow, a lot of clear answers on here regarding the issues a club faces regarding including U18's and tbh most of it is common sense. I coached kids football for 7yrs and I had 1st aid, child protection, coaching badges & CRB checks to do before I was allowed anywhere near the club. I can understand the reluctance of clubs to be bothered and also to spend the time.

Seems the BMC have made life easier and if the parent is involved then everything is hunky dory

Thanks everyone for filling in the blanks.

In reply to Andrew Kinnersley:

I'm definitely not criticizing the BMC - in fact it was the club who blamed the BMC. I was surprised by this which is why I asked the question. CLearly the BMC is doing all it can and I do not believe that clubs should have to go extreme lengths to accommodate kids - but they don't have to as is now clear. It's just this club will not accept kids under parental supervision - that seems wrong to me and wholly out of keeping with the BMC ethos.

In reply to Urgles:


Indeed. So the average club secretary has a spare few million to provide specialist care and equipment. Sh1t like this happens. In the old days it was the injured that just had to lump it. I don't really understand why there is such resistance to putting in place procedures that help prevent accidents.

We are all ok Jack until the sh1t hits the fan. It is going to hit someone. Better hope it isn't you, but be glad that if it is you, there are measures in place to ensure you will be all right in the long run.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

You will have to point me at what the EO policy is but the BMC is supposed to represent the clubs, and lately individual members, not the other way round. All 'unaffiliating' clubs from the BMC achieves is less funding for the BMC.

In reply to GrahamD:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-equal-opportunities-policy

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Ask the BMC directly - they're friendly!

In reply to herbe_rouge:

That statement refers to people in general, not members of the BMC. The third paragraph of your link does mention members (including clubs) - but doesn't include any reference to age.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I think characterising this an an EO issue just muddies the waters. Kids clearly have different rights and responsibilities in law from adults. And there are clearly other issues around children and climbing meets. However it is a shame that its so difficult for people with young families to continue climbing, specially as people often start families just as they've built up valuable skills and experience. It would be interesting to hear how other people and clubs try to deal with this!

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Members of the BMC and members of affiliated clubs are also 'people in general'.

In reply to pebbles:

It is not reasonable, nor viable, to expect clubs to instruct kids - if parents need that then they should take their kids on a recognised training course. No one is suggesting that clubs be compelled to take on unsupervised under 18s - that is a red herring. However, that's not the situation we met, this club simply said we can't bring the kids with us - we were only welcome to join if we dumped the kids. They then claimed this was due to BMC regulations - which is clearly not correct. All I am saying is that for a club to refuse membership on that basis is not consistent with BMC EO policy, nor with the spirit of climbing in my view. It does not muddy the waters, it clarifies this particular club's position which was previously obfuscated by an incorrect assertion that the BMC were blocking kids climbing.

In reply to herbe_rouge:
arent they just saying that you are welcome to join the club as adults, but club policy is that you cant bring your kids on meets? I sympathise with your wanting to find a club where you can take your kids, but it seems to me that you are trying to force this particular club to do something its members have chosen not to do, and thats not fair either, and nor is your attempt to take the exact letter of what they have said and try to tie them up in E.O. knots.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I give up. I wish you good luck in finding a club to join. And rather less luck in trying to close down the one I'm a member of.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I think you may be missing my point, wilfully or otherwise.

There are two aspects to my 'child protection' comment:

1) whether I support the exclusion, based on the 'child protection' policy
2) whether I understand that 'child protection' is the reason the club has an exclusion policy.

You seem to have assumed that I'm fully supportive of the policy. I AM NOT. I think it's a shame.

However, I do UNDERSTAND why the club might have an exclusion policy, and that it is based on the additional administrative measures associated with child protection issues, which are clearly identified in the BMC statement.

You think that your particular circumstances and needs are such that the club's exclusion policy should not apply. However, I can UNDERSTAND that there will be difficulties for them if they have to assess every application on the specific details of each case, and whether those details may change. I can also imagine that other people will see that some children have been allowed to join, but their children have not, and start complaining on internet forums about how unfair it is that the 'fois gras munching Lord Snooty and his pals' can join, but their 'spam-eating Bash Street Kids' can not... The club may have decided that is it simply easier to have a blanket exclusion, to make life easier for the volunteers who run the club. A number of people have given examples of their clubs doing just that, due to their interpretation of BMC policy on child protection.

I'd suggest you talk to the club in more detail; whilst you think that you have stated your case clearly enough, you do seem to be failing to understand a number of points made to you here, so maybe you have not made yourself clear to the club, or have misunderstood their response. Complaining here won't do any good.

As for waiting for a revised policy from the BMC, how do you think that is going to come about? Have you contacted them with your concerns, or do you expect them to monitor The Internet for policy suggestions...? [edit: hey, look: it appears they do...!]

In reply to pebbles:

I'm not trying to force any club to do anything, if you look at the OP you'll see I was trying to get to the bottom of their assertion that the BMC regs forced them to refuse children. That is patently not true and I'm glad of that. The club refuses kids on any activity and blamed the BMC - period, I'm not trying to tie anyone up in knots, those are the facts.

In reply to herbe_rouge:


You're trying to get clubs kicked out of the BMC if they don't take kids as members

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that a blanket ban on kids is inconsistent with BMC policy.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

You said "I really don't care if some people want to form a club that excludes children, however, there is clearly no case for such clubs being funded by, nor affiliated to, the BMC"

In reply to herbe_rouge:

So despite the fact that there must be scores of kids at craggy, you were unable to find people to climb with you and then when you approached the local club, they wouldn't climb with you either, so you decided to try to get the BMC in to bully the club into playing with you?

The club seems to have dodged a bullet here, they could add precious parents to their list of unwelcome visitors too.

In reply to winhill:
Oh dear, this is a perverse distortion of events. I haven't even mentioned the club and I haven't approached the BMC. I have no intention of doing either nor did i have any wish to join the unnamed club at the time of the OP - that was out of the question the moment they replied. My observation that a blanket ban on kids is incompatible with the BMCs EO policy appears to have kindled some latent angst, I do hope your ire subsides soon.

oh, and our kids climb outdoors, not at craggy...

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

That is true but you really have read intent into the statement that wasn't there - It was never my inention to campaign for any club - including the one local to us - to be kicked out of anything. I personally think it a shame that clubs have blanket bans and it is clearly inconsistent with BMC's statement but that was it - no mens rea - just a statement of fact. If I were to embark on any campaign, it would be on weightier matters than this.....

In reply to herbe_rouge:

It's not inconsistent with the BMC's EO policy. It's just recognizing that the opportunities for children to go climbing might not be the same as opportunities for adults to go climbing.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Th E in EO is for equal, 'not the same' opportunities in this case mean no opportunity which mean unequal. Therefore it is inconsistent with the EO policy.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Do you think the BMC Youth Climbing Series is inconsistent with the EO policy because adults can't enter?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

No I don't, nor do I think the BMCs 'This girl can climb' competition violated their policy. But if they were to launch a 'Straight climbers only' series this would - it's really not rocket science.

In reply to Urgles:


Don't try living in France !!

In reply to herbe_rouge:

So other than to point out the unfortunate reality that in some clubs, the club membership feel they can only run the sort of club they want to be members of if there aren't under 18s - what are you hoping for from this thread ?

By the way you will find the BMC very supportive if you want to start a family friendly club of your own.

In reply to GrahamD:
I started the thread because we were erroneously told that the BMC regulations blocked children and I hoped the thread would establish the veracity of this assertion. I discovered that it isn't true and there is no impediment fro any club allowing children to meets with parental supervision. I have also now learned that there are some people who get very upset by the notion that they should ever have a child in their climbing club. I find this rather odd but instructive. In future I shall assume the worst.

I will look into whether there is sufficient call for a family friendly regional club when we get back from the Pyrenees if I can still muster the emotional will. I look forward to the spurious accusations of malintent that will doubtless ensue from such endeavour.

>By the way you will find the BMC very supportive if you want to start a family friendly club of your own.

I know - it's consistent with their EO policy

In reply to herbe_rouge:


Agreed

>and there is no impediment fro any club allowing children to meets with parental supervision.

Yes there are. Worries of liability for one and the fact that it alters the club social atmosphere for another.

In reply to GrahamD:



The former is ill-founded, the latter makes me curious as to exactly what social activities are being indulged in in these clubs

In reply to herbe_rouge:

in our case, social activities that involve copious amounts of swearage

In reply to herbe_rouge:

When children were allowed into my clubs huts it caused all sorts of problems with regard to sleeping arrangements and how they could be accommodated when there were a limited number of rooms available. You may not be aware of this but historically many huts had communal sleeping arrangements modelled on the alpine huts, in some cases just one or two huge bunks. Members were less relaxed because one or two parents had complained about swearing and overhearing discussions that may not have been suitable in front of children. In short the atmosphere changes in a hut when there are kids around.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

Parents really can't expect behaviour to be moderated in these circumstances, as it happens our kids sleep in their own four season tent year round so a hut is an unlikely scenario for them. Not that it would be an issue, they have heard it all before in English and French, both swearing and adult content. So what you're really saying is you've had unhappy encounters with unreasonable parents which I sympathise with because so have we. I still don't think a blanket ban is appropriate but I now see where you're coming from.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Are you a lawyer ? I'm not and I certainly wouldn't know where my duty of care as a committee member ended.

Activities ? fairly obvious isn't it ? all the meetings are in pubs.

I'm still not clear a) what you hope to get out of a club and b) what you think you can put back in if you are supervising your children all the time ?

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Has the policies of any facilities that the club in question uses been considered?

Might be the case that they use a wall that has a 'no under 18s' clause and due to that the club won't except them?

Down near me each wall has their own age restrictions for certain styles of climbing (ie: sport/bouldering)

For example one wall won't let my friends almost 18 CWA trained (but not assessed) daughter belay unsupervised as shes under 18 and therefore by their policy only allowed in as a child or a guest and can't belay. (However if she was on the youthteam it would be ok. Not sure how that works but whatever.)

In reply to herbe_rouge:


Sorry, it's just that when you said your kids climbed at Craggy, I thought you meant they climbed at Craggy, rather than they don't climb at Craggy. Perhaps don't say that they climb at Craggy if they don't climb at Craggy?

It isn't a critique of the BMCs EO policy that kids aren't able to do everything that adults can. It's just precious parent pique.

It's really your responsibility as parents to find them some friends, not the BMC's or anyone else's.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

The original child protection policy was given a lot of publicity when it was introduced and was widely discussed. For many clubs it presented too many obstacles for little benefit when only a handful of under-18s might join anyway. The simplest solution was not to accept under-18s as members. The new policy which has a much lighter touch I don't think has had the same level of publicity, and not all clubs may be aware. As has been pointed out, the BMC doesn't fund clubs, so your outrage is a red herring. It exists to promote and represent the activity at a high level and to provide services and facilities for members that would be more difficult to arrange on an individual or club basis.

For many members, clubs are an opportunity to enjoy adult company and children may not be welcome. The fact is, some children can be a nuisance, and in any event their presence can require adults to modify their behaviour. Yours may be well-behaved, but clubs must be even-handed - they can't have a policy which allows only well-behaved children.

The fact is, clubs are private members' organisations, and are entitled to decide for themselves, within the law, who can and can't join. You are coming across here as having a bit of a s=sense of entitlement, perhaps they simply didn't like your attitude and used the children's policy as an excuse.

My own club decided not to accept under-18s when the original BMC policy was introduced (we'd never actually had any wanting to join). We have seen no reason to revise our position in the light of the new policy, but children have always been welcome on camping meets. There is now a group of families who met through the club and go camping together, although they are no longer members they stay in touch and we hope will return to the fold when their circumstances permit.

All clubs are different. I suggest you try to find a club with a more flexible approach, or find or form a your own club of climbing families. However if you did that, and obtained BMC affiliation, I wonder what your attitude would be to a single male who wished to join you? Would you feel it would be wrong to refuse because of BMC's equal opportunities ethos?

In reply to Howard J:

Agree with all that, and perhaps add that the OP (and/or partner) could just join the club themselves, and they will probably get to know other members with families. Not sure why they would want to join “en masse” anyway, assume they would be just be pottering about as a family at most meets when everyone else pairs up to go climbing.

In reply to herbe_rouge:
Often UKC threads like this are difficult because as they go on opinions seem to get more entrenched rather than reaching any useful consensus; so here is a (genuinely) humble attempt at something of a middle way…

Context: I’m a parent of an 11 year old lad who’s gained a fair amount of mountain experience in UK and abroad (Alps mainly) from an early age. I’d give three (hopefully) quick examples that I base my view of how climbing clubs might accommodate as wide a range of active members as possible:

- At Fonatinbleau staying at the most popular of the campsites we were adjacent to an encampment of a UK based club. This was made up of couples, single people, families and kids – they were very welcoming and appeared to be having really nice time. The kids were off playing, adults cooking and drinking beer, some of the more “senior” members passing on hard won experience and skills. On a pleasant sunny evening this seemed like an admirable vision of what a successful club can be. I’m sure there were other “adult only” club meets on the same site and perhaps they were the ones quietly reading their bouldering guidebooks

- My other hobby is sailing and my own club has an active junior sailing section. On a summer Saturday morning there are upwards of 50 kids on the water with the associated safety and child protection practices. Approximately 25 club members have instructing and/or safety qualifications; and from the age of 15 kids then start taking instructor qualifications (also good for summer jobs and CV’s). Most sailing/yacht clubs run similar schemes and those that don’t are probably opting for their own non-existence in future. That said the administrative and practical workload for this type of activity isn’t something that most climbing and mountaineering clubs are likely to want to be involved with and is understandable.

- At a well known local bouldering spot last summer, I noticed a family of four clearly enjoying their climbing and being outdoors. I’d guess that they were relatively new to the sport as the young teenage lad was the driving force of enthusiasm with dad trying to keep up (I know the feeling). I was thinking about going up to say hello and ask whether they’d thought about joining the local area club which I happen to be a member of. I then had second thoughts as I felt that I wouldn’t be able to give any good reasons for them to join - what would I say? With the club policy then perhaps something along these lines: “Yes you Mr Husband can go on regular meets away, no you Master Teenage Lad aren’t allowed on the meets away (even though you probably climb a higher athletic standard than most of the members), you Mrs Wife can stay at home with the kids feeling (not unreasonably) resentful when Mr Husband is allowed to occasionally go on a meets by himself”. You can see why I didn’t bother and even felt that it could be unhelpful for the family

Anyway if you’ve managed to stay with me through these somewhat random anecdotes then here is what I personally conclude:

- Climbing is great but climbers can be pretty serious minded people at times and a bit of diversity by including young people and their mums too can be beneficial (BTW if that sounds gender stereotypical please also see comment below)

- I think it is a reasonable to feel that most clubs that are recognised/supported by their national sports governing body might be putting something back into the sport. Even if that just means being occasionally inclusive to young people when and where it’s possible that’s fine by me. Being a long-ago member of a University mountaineering club I remember how sketchy it was at times, people who had at some prior experience at least helped to reduce the accident rate (I think). You often see criticism of University clubs causing rescue call-outs, however if the sports body recognised clubs have blanket over 18’s rule then I feel they take some of the responsibility for why this occurs.

- The current BMC policy is quite clear – if parents or carers are supervising their kids when on club activities there are no formal requirements with regards to child protection. However meets away using huts is a genuinely difficult area as it does have implications for those attending the meet without kids. We’ve (rightly in the circumstances) had to become a very cautious society with regards to adult’s interaction with children; this means that sleeping or changing with other peoples kids around often feels uncomfortable. Also adults can quite reasonably feel inhibited with regards to language, drinking, “smoking”, socialising, etc when there are children about. To me this doesn’t require an “under no circumstances” ban on 18’s for all meets but a willingness for both families and “adults” to work around these issues: many/most meets may need to be over 18 only, some other meets where there is suitable accommodation available ought be able to be open to all as in the Fontainebleau example I saw. Also to make meets at public campsites “over 18 only” seems really quite peculiar to me (unless perhaps in a particularly serious climbing location), how do these “over 18s only” manage when confronted with non-member’s kids that are on the campsite anyway? On the other hand members with families shouldn’t object to reasonable guidelines such as kids being out of the club’s social encampment by 9:00pm etc. Maybe the BMC should draft an “Adult Protection” policy for use in these circumstances

- I feel that rigid “over 18’s only” rules are highly prejudicial to mums. In a society where women (whether formally working or not) take the main role for child care then this basically means that dads can go away climbing whilst mums stay at home with the kids. This effects the dad’s too because generally they (quite rightly) limit their weekends away on the grounds of fairness and equal responsibility; if there are times that the family could come along too that would probably mean more climbing opportunities. Mum’s going to weekend climbing meets whilst husband and family stay at home would _I think_ be relatively unusual and might even be perceived as outside of our societal norms, but maybe others could comment. Over 18’s rules when absolute are also similarly prejudicial for single dads and mums.

I’m sure I could go on but no doubt that’s enough already. Overall I feel there is a good opportunity now for clubs to explore the new child protection guidance to benefit their own long term sustainability as well as the sport in general. The comments are in no way specific to any one club but in response to the OP and the not uncommon situation he experienced.

Kind regards,

Peter

In reply to PeterBlackler:

Were the children at Font actually members of the club? My own club is very happy for members to bring families on camping meets, and besides we couldn't prevent them turning up to a public campsite even if we wished to. The children can participate in activities provided they are under parental supervision (or an adult authorised by the parents) - again, not something we could prevent. What we won't do is allow under-18s to join the club in their own right, because even with the more relaxed BMC policy that raises all sorts of complications. I suspect many, if not most, clubs work like this in practice.

Many other sports, including I suspect sailing, probably find it easier to provide separate sporting and social events for different age groups. For a number of reasons this is more difficult for climbing clubs. Hut meets in particular present problems, and camping outside the hut isn't always permissible.

Rather than demanding full family membership, parents should join a club themselves and get to know other members. They will probably find that in practice they will often be able to involve their families, and this will probably be easier once they are known and accepted. If not, they should try another club.

In reply to Howard J:

I would say we are the same as a club. We are adult only but we too often have members bring families on camping trips like Font or Pembroke

In reply to herbe_rouge:

A club is composed of likeminded people wanting to go climbing. If they decide they don't want kids around then that's up to them, bearing in mind that bringing along kids essentially adds 'paperwork' which many people wouldn't want to deal with.

Going climbing, can you really guarantee that your kids would be under your supervision 100% of the time? How about the parents going off up a multi-pitch climb, who looks after the kids? What happens if they get into an accident while the parents have nipped up a climb etc.

As others have pointed out, having minors along raises a whole host of issues which many don't want to deal with. If that bothers you so much then start a family friendly club with volunteers who are happy to fill out all the forms etc. Sniping at the BMC because you dislike child protection rules which are in place in essentially every sport (I teach swimming and you wouldn't believe the paperwork) seems pretty lame, and judging by the amount of 'dislikes' some of your posts got I think many agree.

In reply to Urgles:

It's not just insurance there are legal/child welfare issues which the BMC seems is behind the curve on this one.

In most sporting clubs, athletics, boxing and swimming I think but many others, the club must nominate a welfare officer, and they must attend training sessions. This all came about with the climbje (sp) case, amongst others and also paedophile rings in swimming clubs I think it was.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The BMC runs Child Protection Training:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-child-protection-training_0?s=1

For more information about these courses or any child protection issue, please contact:

Nick Colton
Email: nick@thebmc.co.uk
Direct line: 0161 438 3305

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I would have thought this was fairly simple. Here is how it works in our club. Anyone over the age of 18 can join the club. If they have children, then they are welcome to bring them along, but they must be present. In order words the club will not accept responsibility nor a assign someone to look after them, on club events. The parents or someone the parents nominate must be present if the kids are to attend club events.

Am I missing something here?

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

Shouldn't every club need an actual welfare officer? That's not jsut providing training, its then having a point of contact in every club. The idea was to provide a net to ensure good practice and for kids to have people to reach out to if its happening outside of the sport. I thought any sporting organisation which has child members needed one.

In most sports, I'd be amazed if climbing clubs were different, you are legally required to have a club welfare officer and a child welfare policy.

This is from the ECB:
"It is a mandatory requirement that every ECB affiliated club recruit, identify,
appoint and train a Club Welfare Officer. This is essential firstly, to provide a “first point of contact” for everyone within the club and the ECB for child safeguarding matters, and secondly, to ensure the club is adopting, and implementing, the various safeguarding activities necessary for it to demonstrate its duty of care for children"

I know its the same for almost any sport I've looked at, athletics, swimming, boxing etc.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I assume that when you say "In most sports,..., you are legally required to have a club welfare officer" you don't really mean legally as in "against the law", you mean against the rules of the governing body of that sport?

There is a difference between what the ECB say and legal necessity.

In reply to JDal:
No I thought it was actually a legal duty, as in the law. I'll see if I can find it but its a good 5 years since I was club welfare officer.

http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/sites/sportandrecreation.org.uk/files/...

There's more here, but I think it refers to the Safe Guarding Vulnerable Groups Act, and the recognized way to do that is appoint a Child Welfare Officer.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


That's the point. Climbing clubs which have child members need a welfare officer. However many clubs don't accept child members, so they don't need one. That doesn't prevent adult members from bringing their own children along, if the club has no objection.

In reply to Howard J:

>.. Climbing clubs which have child members need a welfare officer. ...

That's the nub of this discussion, it is my understanding that according to the BMC they don't NEED one. So long as a parent, or someone acting formally "In Loco Parentis", is with the child whenever engaging in club activities.

Our club accepts under 18 members and we don't have a welfare officer.

In reply to JDal:
I'm not sure that would work.. I know it's a pain in the arse but that was the old way. The idea of the welfare officer is more than being the responsible adult.

As always if nothing goes wrong then there's no issue but I think the club could be in trouble if a child was being abused and there was no reporting mechanism.

We have the same thing in the U.S. When dealing with young people as a coach, paid or not I'm a mandated reporter and so have a legal duty with the students.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

It does work. A parent is responsible for their children, it is the parent who has the duty of care and the parent is the channel of communication. And a parent has to be present. What happens in the USA is not relevant really.

But this discussion is pointless, the definitive answer is in the BMC advice, this was put together by professional legal people who are aware of their responsibility to clubs to ensure that their advice is sound.

In reply to JDal:
Of course it hasnt worked! That's why we've had the child abuse scandals because trusted adults have been the abusers.

re the US, maybe, it all changed here (in the state I work) due to the huge scandal in College football a few years back at a certain huge state university.. it actually wouldnt have changed anything but it would have in other sports.

"And a parent has to be present. " well that's OK, parents have never abused other peoples kids.... but you also say 'or someone acting 'in loco parentis'.. if that person hasn't been CRB checked and abuse happened I think the club and the BMC would be shafted, simply being a volunteer is no protection.

Great talking to you.. discussion is pointless, what a superb thing to say! I suggest you read up on how other clubs do things which the BMC could learn from..

Have you actually read the BMC advice? It talks a lot about Welfare Officers, the point of Welfare officers is they are high profile so adults and children can approach them with concerns. If there is only one in the BMC, accessible by email then that's pretty poor. It reads like the BMC are aware that clubs should have welfare officers but I wonder how many actually do. Even area welfare officers lessen the impact, a large role of the welfare officers is to provide an outlet for kids especially, and also adults, to speak to should they have concerns. Having them inaccessible up a chain won't be as effective.

You say the definitive advice is there and quite clearly have not read it.

And a mandated reporter is effectively just one of the CWO's, but your role and duties are much clearer, by law I have very clear responsibilities as a mandated reporter to pass information from youths I coach up the chain and also submit written reports. But its essentially very similar to the CWO in the UK.

In reply to herbe_rouge:


No. You have misunderstood the term "equal" by choosing to take it so literally.

"The British Mountaineering Council (BMC) aims to ensure that all people, irrespective of their age, gender, ability, race, religion, ethnic origin, creed, colour, social status or sexual orientation, have a genuine and equal opportunity to participate in climbing, hill walking and mountaineering at all levels and in all roles."

Equality of opportunity simply doesn't mean that everyone can do everything, it means that everyone has opportunities - but they may be different. In the case of the BMC they promote climbing to young people in many ways which are not open to adults - they run a youth climbing competition series and they subsidize youth climbing courses at PYB to name just two. Following your pedantic reading of "equality" you'd expect them to allow adults to enter the youth climbing competitions or attend youth courses!

Others here have outlined the practical reasons why clubs may have problems with U18's. As a parent I find it frustrating, as a club organiser (not climbing but related) I understand and respect the decisions.

In reply to csambrook:
Is it that frustrating?

CRB check those who have direct unsupervised contact with kids, create a child welfare policy (templates abound), put it on the website, nominate a CWO, get them trained (courses abound) advertise who they are.. Then come up with some safe practices and guidelines for climbing with kids which no doubt exist elsewhere..

It's really not that hard to have kids in a club. Informal arrangements like above are more dangerous and insurance won't like that, otherwise it's pretty straight forwards and sports clubs throughout the country manage fine...

Teachers use the 'insurance' or 'paper work' argument when it's not as arduous as people expect.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




You're not serious? Our club has around 50 members, with various levels of activity and involvement. Most of them work full time, many have family responsibilities (not limited to kids), and its hard enough for them to find the spare time to do the basics of club organisation and in some cases even to get out climbing, let alone the above. I imagine many other small local clubs are in the same position. "courses abound" really? gosh, I cant wait to see the queue of people that will be fighting to be first to sign up to spend a weekend on one of those

In reply to pebbles:

This ^^

In reply to herbe_rouge:

For what it's worth, my club started taking <18s in the early 2000's. The first couple we had were (and still are) super-keen and were no trouble at all. Then one lad started coming, then his brother, then two of their friends......and it all fell apart. They were keener to kick a ball around at the back of the hall where the wall was than climbing. Established adult members stopped coming to the wall. So, we had to get rid of the problem kids. We now insist parents come along with their kids (they don't have to climb or supervise, they just have to turn up) until such a time as we deem the kids 'not going to cause trouble', at which point we carry on 'in loco parentis'. This works well. However, as Pebbles said, many clubs don't have members who want the hassle of Paedo-checks and loco-parental responsibility. We're lucky in that a number of our club members are already involved in youth work and used to the whole hassle. When members complain about <18s I always remind them that a significant number of club members started as <18s, and if they want people to climb with they need to accept <18s.

In reply to pebbles:

Its not a weekend, its 1 night or was, in fact its probably online now..

But so what thousands of clubs around the country do this, and tbh it would be for those like the OP who would do it, those who want kids in the club...

How do you reckon rowing? Sailing? Running? Swimming? and the thousands of other sporting folk in clubs cope? Quite clearly its very feasible its just people like you building it up into a huge a deal with no actual knowledge of what is involved...

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/get-expert-training/child-protectio...

This will be the sort of course you'd need. £20, 3 hours, which will probably take an hour. I re-did all mine for the US and it took about 40 minutes when they say it takes 2 hours.

So again, its people like you making out its this huge deal to give up a weekend and attend a course when its a couple of hours late at night..

This is a huge part of the problem with encouraging kids and volunteering with them, there's a huge amount of ignorance about the process and people make it into a far bigger deal than it actually is.

Whilst disagreeing with me you demonstrated my point perfectly..

In reply to Toerag:


Exactly, the only ones who really need be put out are those who want to be involved with kids.. guys like the OP.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I dont think I did actually. Or did you not read the rest of the post. I can assure you that its often a struggle to find time to take on additional responsibilities to help run a club as well as work full time and get out to climb (which is the reason were all in clubs in the first place) whenever time, energy and weather permit. Theres no point getting all moralistic about it, if people like you have the time and willingness to take on the additional tasks described thats great for you and whichever club youre in, but its not the reality for all small clubs.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You list a lot of competitive sporting clubs. How are these comparable with a group of people who just want to go out walking/climbing and have regular hut meets to do so?

As for building into a huge deal without knowledge - we already struggle to find people will to serve on the committee at all. Adding anything at all to the workload is going to make it harder, particularly if it's something that most people don't particularly want.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



Thats fine. Then you dont add kids..

Plenty of clubs are non or semi-competitive. Running being an obvious example.

Horse riding
http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/working-with-the-law/safeguarding-childre...

Its not much work, I was CWO for 2-3 years, it was just one evening on child abuse training, another club sent me their document and that was that. I had under 18's attending training sessions with me so was an obvious candidate to do the role but actual work load is minimal after the first few hours. There's really no additional load unless a kid is being abused and seeks help, then unless you have a heart of ice giving up more time is not an issue at all.

Re most not wanting it. Exactly. In a club of 300 I doubt 250 even knew we had such a person, it would be only those with kids who would know, and the kids, and only those who want to work with the kids need be involved. It really is not time consuming at all.

In reply to pebbles:

No you made it like it was a weekend commitment.. its just a few hours at the very most. Editing the welfare policy for the club is literally a find and replace issue, then you are done for the most part. You just go on coaching or supervising kids as you would with any informal arrangement which currently exists..

This system wasnt just set up for fun. It was set up because of years of systemic failings in picking up on and reporting child abuse. It was the Victoria Climbje case which changed much of this, who was murdered. The local church had observed signs of abuse and did not know how to act, same the police, even the NHS.. noone reported it and she was tortured to death. So this system was put in place that anyone who works or volunteers with kids, any clubs with kids in, should have CWO's and a person who can be approached and they know what to do, and how to spot abuse.

It's a simple, easy to install system that has been done many thousands of times throughout the UK, no big deal at all.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Not going to continue with this. I disagree with you, but its an interesting thread that I'd prefer not to degenerate into a does/doesnt two person spat

In reply to Roadrunner5:


You really cannot shift the onus for this onto club volunteers who already go the extra mile to help consenting adults get into climbing. Why on earth would you expect them to give up any of their time at all to do it ? hell they might not even like kids or have joined a club to escape them.

What is actually needed is for the disgruntled parents to set up a family friendly club rather than expect others to do it for them.

Working with children from a legal standpoint really is not as trivial as you make out. I had to be security checked just to sit on the committee of my daughter's after school club - thats not even with direct contact with the children !

In reply to herbe_rouge:

Looking at the post and the references to south east, craggy and not offering tuition then I suspect I may be a member of the club in question...though not associated with the committee.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


You seem to be missing the point. The clubs we are talking about don't allow unsupervised contact with kids - the kids must be accompanied by their parents (or someone nominated by the parents). It is the parents' responsibility, not the club's, to look after their kids. It is likewise the parent's responsibility, not the club's, to satisfy themselves that their nominee is suitable.


No one is suggesting being casual about child welfare. However the way most clubs operate is that they don't take responsibility for the children, who must be with their parents. The BMC guidance is very clear. Those clubs which do allow children to participate without parental supervision do need child protection measures in place. Those which allow supervised children should nevertheless be aware of the risks (of all types) which children might face. If a club follows the BMC guidance then insurance won't be a problem.


Other sports operate in different ways. The difficulty with climbing is that the activities themselves are very informal. The examples you've given are all sports which (within a club context) operate on a less informal basis or from specific premises and provide coaching.

It is reasonable to ask whether clubs could do more to train and encourage young people. The answer is probably yes. However most clubs would argue that they are not even in a position to train adults, and that it is better to take formal instruction from qualified instructors. Most other sports can incorporate instruction and training into the club's general training programme - climbing clubs don't have organised training at any level so this doesn't work. Teaching and coaching are separate activities which most club members have neither the inclination nor the training for (but don't forget the many who do get SPA, ML and similar awards).

In reply to Howard J:

You seem to be missing the point that this was entirely the problem... You think in the past parents just left their kids with anyone? Of course they thought the person was suitable..

As I said, this system is fine for as long as there is no problem...

Just saying its up to the parents is not a suitable solution, hence why we have this whole suite of measures, courses, policies and positions.

You are also ignoring the fact that the CWO's role is to be a reportable person, its a safety net, so if a child is being abused by a relative or family friend they can report it. It's not purely to do with supervision which is the mistake you and others seem to be making. You really should read up on the Climbje findings and why such measures were proposed. Its far more than finding someone suitable to belay for a kid at a wall.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

...


It, and it's predecessors, was read and considered at great length by our committee over a few years. Eventually, after additional legal advice, we adopted the 'Parent/In Loco Parentis" option.

From the BMC document summary
"If…
1. Your club does not allow under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets

2. Your club allows under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets, but only with a parent/carer

3. Your club allows under 18s to join as members and/or attend club meets, but only with a parent/carer or an adult in loco parentis , nominated by a parent

…then

These three situations are similar and your club is not required to adopt the BMC Child Protection Policy or appoint a Youth Officer. "

Which is what I was referring to, our club is in category 3.

This discussion is liable to put clubs off adopting this approach, which is why I don't like the way the thread has drifted.

Are you saying that that the BMC advice is wrong and that clubs shouldn't adopt this approach?

In reply to JDal:

indeed, and end up concluding that its a can of worms best not opened. But what do I know, apparently "people like me" (whoever they are - a picture of a crusty mustachioed old gent sitting by a fire beating a toddler with a rolled up copy of The Sun springs to mind) are 'the problem'.
(giggles disrespectfully)

In reply to Howard J:


Again, thinking of clubs as some amorphous entity is a mistake. Most clubs are a relatively small bunch of like minded keen climbers who don't owe it to anyone to take on youngsters anymore than any random individual climber does

In reply to JDal:













Absolute alarmist nonsense.. I could turn that back and say it's because of people like you that kids being abused had nowhere to turn... Where does that get us!

The one thing about child and sexual abuse is it's not talked about enough, trying to say such things scare people off is bollox

What does scare people off is making safe approaches into a huge deal, like thinking they are weekend courses.. Or some onerous committee position..

Hopefully this thread has helped inform people how easy, and cheap and stress free putting in such safety nets is.

Again all this nominated carer actually ignores a huge issue, abusers and paedophiles often work in rings.

Even the CWOs could be part of that but having a formally nominated, CRB checked committee member lessons that risk.

I know such things don't happen in your club, they happened in nobody's swim club..

.. But they did..

In reply to pebbles:


Kiddy abuse one of those great comedy subjects... What an Arse.

Most on here have totally misunderstood the role of CWOs.. It's not just to supervise kids it's to provide a network of people around the community trained to spot and be a face/contact for kids and adults to report child abuse..

A 3 hour course and a few posters and then just being active in the club is all it actually entails. In 99.9% of cases there is nothing to do after those first 4 hours of training and editing the welfare policy for your club, maybe sort a few CRB checks..

(Giggles disrespectively at the level of ignorance shown)

Trying to steer the thread back to its original purpose:

this thread was originally about how climbers with kids can get involved with climbing clubs on a practical level - can we get back to that?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


WTF are you on about??

I'm saying that clubs can adopt BMC POLICY.

And I suggest you retract that offensive "People like me" comment which is way out of order. People like me (and my fellow committee members, past and present) responsibly follow BMC policy, policy which has been legally scrutinised. Or have you not read the document? Or are you saying it's wrong?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

>> (Giggles disrespectively at the level of ignorance shown) <<

In that case you may wish to update your understanding of Child Protection in the UK; the CRB checks you describe now come under the considerably improved process of the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks - as here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service

I would have assumed that someone who apparently is so qualified to campaign at length on this subject would have been aware of this significant change which commenced operation in December 2012

I'm rarely discourteous (and I hope never disrespectful) to anyone - however I do think you have sufficiently expressed your views on the subject; as others have said continuing to do so in the same manner will have the complete opposite effect of what I assume you wish to achieve.

The role of a Club Welfare Officer is very clearly not a requirement in the circumstances of direct parental supervision that the BMC, JDal and others have referred to on numerous occasions. Club Welfare Officers could been seen as best practice _if_ a club wanted to implement that process and perhaps particularly so with regards to "Vulnerable Adults" (and would of course be necessary if children were allowed to attend parental without supervision). Perhaps you might like to start a new thread on the subject of Club Welfare Officers?

Peter

In reply to Roadrunner5:


But why should anyone want to do that when all they came to the club for was climb ? Club members are just like any other climbers

In reply to GrahamD:


It's called being part of society... Giving something back... Why ever do anything which isn't totally in your interests?

What a horrid world you live in..

It's like asking why should I ever give to charity?

In reply to PeterBlackler:

No because I moved to Germany in December 2012...

But yes your general understanding of the role of CWOs is as poor as the others.

In reply to JDal: I'm quite clearly talking about your alarmist nonsense saying this puts people off volunteering in a club..

Look at the comment about giving up a weekend for the course ffs??

It's a 3.5 hour free (if done through the BMC) course... Which you should know about if you are so informed.

The role is for any club/leisure club, the BMC does talk about CWOs if you actually read the policy you supposedly know so much about....

Senility...

In reply to PeterBlackler:
And Jdal was talking about other informal arrangements...

In reply to PeterBlackler:

And laughing disrespectively is courteous?? I suppose you rebuked Jdal for that?

Did you f*ck..

But that's ok.. Old boys club..

In reply to GrahamD:




It really is.. As said I was CWO it's nothing, especially as many who take the roles will be teachers as they have all the checks. It's really more than supervision of kids which Jdal just cannot fathom.

If their was an incident like climbje and the kid was involved in one of the few sports without CWOs in most clubs it would look atrocious.

I'm actually surprised the BMC didn't make it a policy. I think we had 2-3 kids out of 300 at the time but faced a decision of asking the kids to leave or one of us took the training, he's actually now a pro climber..

But we fall under UKA and it's quite clear in almost every sport what is required.

In reply to PeterBlackler:
There's quite clearly a huge amount of confusion then

This is from Howard J:
"That's the point. Climbing clubs which have child members need a welfare officer. "

You say they aren't needed. In the policy if you google you find that AYC will act as Child Welfare officers...

So a kid has to find out who their AYC is and then contact them? I'd speak to someone in child protection and make it a more visible active person.. how much contact will the kid in a typical mountaineering club have with the AYC?

And its not just about parental supervision.. its having approachable, known people, in any situation with kids so the kids/other adults can approach to report concerns. So having a parental supervision rule does not negate the importance of having a designated CWO at as many clubs as can be achieved.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I already voluntarily give a lot of my time up for my club and beginners

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Our club has about 50 members. As far as I know none of them are teachers and those of us who have kids are a minority. We don't want to be responsible for someone elses kids. We are a climbing club not a creche

In reply to GrahamD:


Then well done, you aren't expected to do everything.. I dont understand why you'd ask why on earh you would do such a role when you obviously already have a desire to help others?

Clubs run on volunteers, chairman, treasurer, a CWO is hardly a big addition, in fact its probably the easiest role in a club unless they are actually needed.

All I did was run with them, be at races, I was training anyway,. So I did the course, did a find replace on another clubs policy and that was that. On my training I was working in education, another was working in security at a uni, another was a medical dr and another was a teacher so we were already cleared to work with children.

In reply to GrahamD:

This is the problem. You arent responsible. You can be but as a CWO you can have no role with the kids other than be someone who can be approached if their are concerns. The whole confusion on this thread, and it seems within the BMC, is that the welfare officer is a youth coordination officer, they often get put together but there's no actual need for the CWO not to just carry on their climbing as before.

But you also dont have to do it.. I did as I wanted there to be no barrier to participation.

OK this is from England Athletics: this is the actual role, its not as a child carer, its not as a youth coordinator.. they often get put together but in many ways it makes sense to not combine the roles tbh...

Club Welfare Officers
• The Welfare Officer’s role is to advise and support the club officers and committee to implement welfare policies and procedures and to support the club to adhere to codes of conduct and good practice.
• The Welfare Officer’s role is to ensure that all club coaches/helpers/volunteers have completed a volunteer reference form or complied with a volunteer recruitment process and assist in this process as appropriate and to ensure that all coaches/officials/volunteers have completed CRB and Independent Safeguarding Authority checks as required and assist in this process as appropriate. (N.B. The Independent Safeguarding Authority is a new government body that should start processing checks in July 2010 but checks should be managed by UKA under their current CRB procedures)
• The Welfare Officer’s role is to respond to suspected breaches of the Welfare Policies and Procedures that may be referred to them, in accordance with the Welfare Procedures and, to advise and support other club officers or committee members how to respond appropriately in accordance with the Procedures.
• The Welfare Officer should report any concerns about child abuse to local children’s social care services or police immediately. If the Welfare Officer is not available, the person with concerns should report the matter to the local children’s services or police themselves.
• The Welfare Officer should also report any concerns about child abuse to both the UKA Welfare Officer and the EA Welfare Officer and inform them what action has been taken.
• The Welfare Officer is advised to inform the EA Welfare Officer about any concerns regarding misconduct which is not child abuse.
• The Welfare Officer should have attended Safeguarding and Protecting Children Training and Time to Listen Training for Club Welfare Officers within the last 3 years. (N.B. Time to Listen is a course that is currently being developed by England Athletics and the Child Protection in Sport Unit and will be offered to all club welfare officers when available from 2010)

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Your comments make me wonder if you have ever been part of a climbing club. Climbing clubs don't have "coaches/helpers/volunteers". They just have members. There won't be anyone in particular who will deal with children (besides their parents), but all the members are equally likely to come into contact with the children. The logical conclusion from your position is that they should all be CRB checked.

Of course all responsible adults should be aware of child protection issues in all contexts, not just within a club, but if they have concerns they should speak first to the parents rather than some club official. If their concerns are about the parents themselves, then they should go to the police or social services. They shouldn't need a club policy to empower them to do this. Climbing clubs are very different in the type of activities they arrange from most other sports clubs, and on the whole they simply facilitate members getting together to climb rather than 'organising' climbing in any structured way.

The other point that you seem to be overlooking is that children's involvement is usually at peripheral events, such as camping meets on public campsites, or social events. How do you distinguish between someone camping there as part of the club and someone camping there with their family? Is a parent taking their child up a climb when there are other club members in the vicinity acting as a private individual or as part of the club?

Protection measures need to be proportionate to risks. The risks where parents are directly supervising their children (and in climbing this will mean close supervision, not merely sitting chatting at the back of a room or side of a pitch while another adult teaches the kids) are considerably less than where children are left in the care of a coach or trainer. The BMC guidelines are balanced and proportionate to the level of children's involvement and the level of direct parental supervision. In my club, one of the committee members is a professional in this area who trains other professionals and has co-authored a book on the subject, and she has expressed no concerns that the guidelines, or the club's own policy based upon them, is inadequate.

In reply to Howard J:
Your comments make me think you can't read...

It's not about f*cking supervision..

Many running clubs operate in the same way, often are mountaineering clubs too in many ways, very little formal structure, coaches are a very new thing... If you bothered to read it's about a network of people throughout society who are trained to spot abuse and be approached by kids... The rest is you spouting nonsense contradicting yourself... There need be no supervision to warrant CWOs in clubs.. It's approachable adults.. Who know how to respond.. So we don't see other kids tortured to death with visible signs of abuse..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Out of interest which climbing club do you do all this for ? I can't help feeling it sounds like a very different club to all the ones I've been closely involved with

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Out of interest which climbing club do you do all this for ? I can't help feeling it sounds like a very different club to all the ones I've been closely involved with

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Out of interest which climbing club do you do all this for ? I can't help feeling it sounds like a very different club to all the ones I've been closely involved with

In reply to Roadrunner5

DBS checks not applicable to climbing clubs, unless that club is essentially for kids only as below. Thungs you've got confused based on your experience of other clubs where this might apply.

A. Any individuals wishing to work with children or adults at risk are required to undertake a Barred List check and/or Enhanced DBS Disclosure.



A Barred List check is a legal requirement for all individuals applying to work in Regulated Activity. This check will show whether an individual is barred from working with children or adults at risk.

The Protection of Freedoms Act has amended the definition of Regulated Activity with the intention of fewer individuals being classified as in Regulated Activity and therefore fewer people legally required to be checked. The new definition of Regulated Activity is outlined below:

1. Unsupervised activities teach, train, instruct, care for or supervise children, or provide advice/guidance on well-being, or drive a vehicle only for children;

2. Work for a limited range of establishments (‘specified places’), with opportunity for contact for example, schools, children’s homes, childcare premises. Not work by supervised volunteers;

In reply to GrahamD:
I think I was quite clear it was a running club right from the very very off...

This is laughable!

Climbing mountaineering club.. Meet up to climb mid weeks.. Odd weekends away informally in climbing huts.. Climb, hike et..

Fell running club.. Meet up to run mid weeks.. Odd weekends away informally in climbing huts.. Running in the mountains, maybe a race, Climb, hike et.

Most fell running clubs operate in a very similar way..

In reply to Orgsm:

Wow you really are confusing things here..

I never said checks were required in all situations. That doesnot however negate the role of CWo..

Howard said a CWO was needed.. So are you now saying he was wrong?

This thread has been quite alarming how much people have built this as a huge issue.. Quite simply as it stands clubs are scared of having kids around hence the OP
On top of that you have all these posts saying how much of a job a CWO is...

When by what you are saying in most climbing clubs it's nothing unless a kid needs someone to talk to... A very rare event..

Like with most running clubs they are basically unstructured social clubs.. Just group trips and outings.. That doesn't mean a CWO isn't useful.

At the moment the AYC acts as the local welfare officer... Very approachable... Well known... Most kids would have no idea..

All a CWO is at the simplest form part a network of trained volunteers in any organization with kids in who is trained to implement safe practices, spot and report abuse and be approachable with concerns.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Except climbing clubs aren't organisations with kids in. They are organisations with adults in, who may have children. It is you who is confused.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I said a club which accepts unsupervised children needs one. Clubs which simply allow members to bring their own children along to participate under the parents' direct supervision do not.


It's not that clubs are scared of having kids around, but most don't want them. They are not structured to deal with children, neither are they in a position to teach them (or adults for that matter). At best they'll tolerate their presence at some activities, provided their parents take full responsibility for them. The child protection requirements are an added disincentive rather than the principle reason, but may provide a convenient excuse to tell a parent why their obnoxious brats aren't welcome.


These are not organisations with kids in, and neither do the clubs have networks of volunteers, trained or otherwise. They are organisations whose members may have kids, who they may take climbing alongside other members. The children's welfare is the responsibility of the parents, and it is not the role of a club or its officials to interfere with that (unless it is the parents themselves who are under suspicion, in which case I suggest that there are other institutions better placed to deal with that than the parents' climbing club, such as the kid's school). Clubs don't want that responsibility, and if you are saying they must nevertheless take it on then that is an even bigger reason not to include children.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Roadrunner5, Accepting kids into a club is about much more than having a Child Welfare Officer. To put what I'm about to say into context, over the years I've been a committee member of clubs for springboard/highboard diving, triathlon, fencing and currently circus, so I'm not without direct experience in what's involved. Here's how it actually goes:
1. Persuade people to join the committee. That's hard enough anyway.
2. Persuade one of those people to be CWO, committing their time (yes it does take time) and more, putting themselves in a role that is not without the danger of being at the forefront of a quite serious problem. That's a situation many people dread.
3. Get all of the committee members, all of the coaches and all of the parent helpers DBS checked. The practicality of this can be daunting, the CWO has got to get people to fill in the forms and then turn up to the same club session as them so they can check and countersign. Written down that sounds easy, in practice it's not, it involves them turning up to pretty much every session for a few weeks only to find that the person they want to meet isn't there or doesn't have the correct documents with them. Repeat this process as membership changes.
4. Lose the occasional committee member / helper because of something in their past. It doesn't need to be child related, the person who would happily help but was once caught with some weed and would rather people didn't know about that etc.
5. Deal with parents. Often the worse aspect of having kids in a club is the demands of their parents. Almost all are fine but the odd one can be truly awful.
6. Develop and police a photography policy.
7. Complicate all of your forms and record keeping.
8. Deal with the child who's not collected on time at the end of the session.

The list goes on, sometimes it feels endless.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

To get back to reality;
No, the BMC doesn't discourage children
No, most clubs don't discourage children
Each club, and each climber has a perfect right to decide how much of their time to devote to developing others, (adults or children).
Fell running isn't the same as climbing. (My kids do both).

P.S. The original post was clearly a troll.

In reply to charliesdad:

That's a poor response..

Look the response above yours and then ogsms... Both directly contradict each other.. That highlights the issues at hand perfectly.. Howard similarly contradicted others who had the same view as him yet he wasn't corrected because they supported the same general view.

There's a lot of misinformation about how hard it is and that sounds like the situation for the OP?

Maybe the BMC don't but the club seems to think it's an issue...

Just dismissing him as a troll isn't fair at all? What's he done?

Maybe most clubs want nothing to do with kids.. I can understand that view, disappointing but understandable. However it seems clear there needs to be clearer direction from the BMC on what's required and the insurance implications..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


There is clear direction from the BMC. It could probably have done more to publicise the recent changes, but it takes time to get things out to the clubs and for the clubs to consider how it affects them. Maybe it hadn't filtered down to the person the OP spoke to, perhaps that club doesn't want to involve kids but wants a convincing reason to refuse them, or perhaps they just don't want the OP's kids, or the OP.

Most clubs adopt a pragmatic approach. They avoid all the difficulties csambrook describes by not accepting children into the club and not providing children's activities, but informally and where possible they will co-operate with parent members who want to get their kids involved. The BMC guidelines allow that too. If a club follows the BMC guidelines then it's unlikely to run into any problems with insurance, especially the BMC's own.

In reply to Roadrunner5:






...........yeah because that doesn't sound like it would take a lot of time to sort out, time that is (better) spent doing other things in many peoples opinion.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



It is isn't it. Here's you without f*cking clue how the majority of climbing clubs operate telling them how they need to take on more work

In reply to Roadrunner5:


The situations we are discussing involve only kids who are there with their families. If something unwarranted should occur, the obvious and natural 'approachable adult' is their parent. If the parent is the abuser, this is then part of a much bigger and probably long-term situation and it is not the role of a climbing club to take the lead in addressing it. If a child is reluctant to report abuse to someone with whom they have a close and frequent relationship, for example a teacher, they are very unlikely to approach another adult in their parent's climbing club, who they probably don't know very well.

Of course, if club members become aware they should do something about it, and they would probably speak to someone on the club committee. In either situation the club committee will probably become involved and might then consult the BMC for guidance on a specific situation, but this doesn't warrant having a full-blown child protection system in place, just a bit of common sense.

The BMC guidelines were drawn up following NSPCC guidelines and with knowledge of the nature of the activity and the way climbing clubs are organised. What guidelines other sports give their clubs no doubt reflect the specifics of their own activities and they way they are organised. We must all take child protection seriously, but measures need to be proportionate and an over-zealous approach is likely only to discourage clubs from having anything to do with children, even with their parents present.

To be clear, I am talking here only about clubs which don't take responsibility for unaccompanied children and where children only get involved under the direct supervision of their parents.

In reply to Howard J:

I'm curious as to what you see the parents gain from being in a club if they are supervising children all the time and, more importantly, how are they then able to make their contribution to the running of the club ?

So far all I've seen is "this is what clubs should be doing for parents" not "what can parents and children offer to clubs ?"

In reply to GrahamD:
I'll add my two pen'orth

I guess what the club gains is the continued active involvement of enthusiastic members who have decided to start a family. The idea at the back of my head is that if you have a few parents in a club they can maybe support each other taking turns to supervise each othets kids on meets or informal meet while the adults swap round and climb together. Of course this only works if we assume that the majority of climbers who are parents are not lurking Jimmy Savilles and can work things out sensibly together on an informal basis ( ie not expecting the club to act as facilitators to organise this). And im not talking about the case where children have club membership - just where the parents are members and there may be cases when they bring the children on meets. For example our club does not have child members or have children on regilar meets, but parents in the club have on occasion organised additional family camping or day meets, and in general members are wrlxcome to bring their kids to camping meets because technically everyone camps completely independently- they are mot staying in club booked accomodation.

In reply to pebbles:

Our club works in a similar way to yours (and I suspect most). So families of members do turn up for camping trips to Font or social BBQs but families aren't at the club AGM in the pub or on tiny hut meets in the arse end of November. The thing is though that the parents are fully active participants of the club in their own right.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You'd do your cause a big favour if you tried to edit out the swearing and personal abuse before you posted

In reply to GrahamD:


Peebles has partly answered this from the club's point of view. From a parent's point of view it can reduce the time away from their families and make climbing possible. Especially when you have a young family, it can be difficult to take whole weekends away - my wife, bless her, has always been very tolerant but it is asking a lot, and besides it is nice to have time with the family as well as climbing.

When my kids were younger the whole family would sometimes come with me on camping trips. There would be other families there, so my wife had people to socialise with and the kids had other children to play with while I was out climbing. My absences were reduced to a few hours rather than a couple of days. We could have family time in the evenings and socialise with friends. A lot of fun for everyone. Even without one of the parents being able to get away climbing, these weekends provide an opportunity to stay in touch with the club and with friends made through it.

My kids weren't interested in the climbing or walking, but where the children are interested, especially older ones, it provides an opportunity to introduce them with other adults around to help, provided they are willing (but this should not be assumed).

The point is that these are essentially family activities, rather than club ones. They simply take place with other club members around.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

I think most adults would work out what to do in the event of a young person making a disclosure to them without the need for massive amounts of training.

I used to be in, and help with, a fencing club. It was a competitive sports club. There was a strong formal committee structure, coaching and teaching. Fees were charged, teaching was given, children were supervised. Child protection stuff was a pain but at least made some sense.

I have recently joined a mountaineering club. The entire operation of the club couldn't be more different. The club is not open to the general public. Applying the system used for competitive sports clubs to a group of like-minded individuals going climbing and sharing a hut is farcical. The club is under no responsibility to look after its members when they are off climbing, nor to teach or supervise anyone.

In reply to Chris H:

You'd think so.. You'd also think adults would spot a kid constantly coming to church having been knocked about..

Anyway even in the sports the advice changes. I see some sports just suggest passing it up your line of management but in athletics it was standard to go outside immediately because of the paedophile rings, which I think we're associated with swimming.

I thought that was the case with Sandusky, his line managers quashed rumors, including the great Joe Paterno who was basically the Alex Ferguson of US collegiate football.. So sports even differ on how it should be handled..

So no it's not actually that obvious and people still disagree on the best course of action..

And again stop making out as a 'massive amount of training'.. It's one evening...

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


If you read it was Jdal who gave the personal abuse first... The laughing disrespectfully... But no don't chide him for that..

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Actually it was me who giggled disrespectfully, in response to a rather abusive post from you in which you told me "people like me" wete the cause of "the problem", along with various other things. As Simon said, if you could phrase your posts more constructively and keep the personal abuse out of them, you might get a more positive response.

In reply to pebbles:
Ok apologies to Jdal, but how is people like you disrespectful? It's perfectly true.. That's not personal abuse at all, you took it as so...

There is huge resistance from the older generation because they did not see the system as broken when it clearly was. We are only now seeing justice for the kids abused 20-30-40 years ago because the system was so broken.

I understand why you think it wasn't but it quite clearly was. Maybe adults should have known what to do but many kids spoke up and were shushed into quiet and many if their abusers remained free from justice.

So yes the move towards a CWO network is a superb addition to child protection and the recent events on the news over the past 3-5 years demonstrate it perfectly..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

You clearly feel very strongly about this, but you are ignoring that professionals in this area, including the NSPCC on whose guidelines the BMC's are based, don't seem to share your opinion on the need for CWOs in these situations. Do you have any actual expertise in this field, or is it just that you've done the one-evening course and it's fired your enthusiasm?

Let's get specific. You've talked about running clubs, swimming clubs, even US college football. Let's tall about climbing clubs. Let's assume a hypothetical club which doesn't accept members under 18, doesn't organise children's activities, it doesn't act in loco parentis, but members may sometimes bring their children along. The committee has appointed you as its CWO. What are you actually going to do?

In reply to Howard J:
I think its fine people dont share my views..

I dislike the view it shouldnt be discussed or it being made out as a much bigger issue than it really is - hence the comments on 'loads of training' and weekend courses..

I've said exactly what you do. You do as I did in a very similar set up in a fell running club, where few kids were involved and normally with their parents. In such a situation a CWO is probably redundant, but what if it is that 1 in a 1000 cases where a kid does want to reach out?

All you do is attend the training (3.5 hours paid for by the BMC or cheap if you want to do it locally), then be active. There would be very little else to do. Its then up to people to approach you should there be issues or concerns.

If there are further activities then the job is more onerous but for the situation you describe it may well be an entirely redundant position with almost nothing to do after the initial set up work.. And that's superb. That's the best outcome isn't it? At most I've given up one evening and thats it.

Regarding my enthusiasm? I wouldnt call it enthusiasm.. but just working with youths in a very high risk area, where I work malnutrition, drugs, FAS, homelessness, violence are pretty much the norm, then coaching and before that as the CWO in the UK.

I talked about 'even US college football" because it was probably one of the biggest abuse scandals and showed how simply informing any adult did not work. We can say typical thick americans but the UK wasn't much better. Many kids have reached out and been ignored which is why when people insinuate the system doesn't need changing I disagree. Quite clearly what happened with Sandusky at penn State was actually not that different to what was happening in the UK and people like Saville, famous, powerful, connected men and noone was believing those who spoke out. You can say 'well thats a competitive sport', or 'well thats the US', but my point is that simple a child reporting to an adult hasn't been a sufficient safe guard in the past.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

People having different views is fine. However when your views fly in the face of expert opinion then you should perhaps consider taking another look at the situation.

You haven't answered my question - what would you actually do? You now admit that in the circumstances we've been discussing the position may be entirely redundant, so what does 'being active' involve in this situation?

I find it very hard to imagine a situation where a child would want to reach out to someone in their parent's climbing club, who they may only come across a few times a year and may not know very well. But if they were to, how would they know to approach you in particular? I'm interested how this could be communicated to the children, who might come along only intermittently and are only 'passing through' accompanying their parents, rather than being participants in the club in their own right.

I'm not saying that a CWO might not be able to do something useful in such circumstances, but I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that only someone who has had training will be capable of acting. These days most people are very aware of the need to take child protection issues seriously, and certainly anyone involved in running a club will have had to consider the question and decide a policy and will be aware of the issues. Frankly, to have a formal CWO position in a club of this nature seems a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

If there is very little useful you could do, can you justify taking up the BMCs training resources for what would appear to be principally your own personal development?

In reply to Howard J:

They don't.. I dont think it flys in the face at all. That would suggest we hold opposite views, I dont think we do, I'm just suggesting another level which is already there in some cases.


Being active is just going climbing/mountaineering/being high profile within the club. I answered your question to a T.


You may find it very hard to imagine. Its also hard to imagine people abusing kids but it happens. Re who to approach.. I give up now.. I was quite clear early on that you need to advertise who the CWO is.



Erm you do realise the BMC already provides these 'training resources'..

Seriously have you actually read the pages on the BMC site? They already provide free courses.. I'm not suggesting it, they are..

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-child-protection-training

I totally agree. It probably is overkill.. probably.. which means it may not be.. I don't actually think all clubs should have CWO's but they certainly be discouraged and the comments on here like 'loads of training' and weekend coruses certainly push people away from a position which in 99.9999% of cases is just ticking a box. Any with kids should seek to appoint one and look into how simple such a position is to hold.

As you say its more relevant in competitive sports through the 1 to 1 contact and also pressure kids are under, but the abuse can also happen outside the activity place like with Climbje.

In reply to Howard J:

Anyway.. Time to agree to disagree

In reply to Roadrunner5:

The BMC's guidelines, based on NSPCC advice, say a club like this doesn't need a CWO. You are saying it does. You're entitled to that view, but how is that not in the face of expert opinion?

Just going climbing/walking is simply being active in the club. How would you perform your duties as CWO? How would you advertise who the CWO is to the children? Remember, they are not regular members but simply there accompanying their parents.

Whilst we all have a duty towards fellow humans, especially children, it is not the role of a club for adults to provide such a position against the remote possibililty that a passing child may need help. Such a position is not without its downsides - human nature being what it is, a CWO is likely to want to do something, anything, to justify their appointment. That means creeping bureaucracy and more complex policies.

Climbing clubs are for adults. If parents are going to bring their children into an adult environment then the children's welfare is their responsibility.

Free training courses are free to the user, they aren't cost-free to the BMC. If you're going to use the training as CWO in a club which has children to safeguard then that is money well spent. If there are no children and your services are very unlikely to be required, then you are wasting the BMC's money.

In reply to herbe_rouge:

By roadrunners reasoning all campsites should have a CWO because kids and vulnerable adults can stay on them.