Scouting Association says future 'in the dark' .

[Mike Parsons]

Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?


http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-in-the-dark

Mike

[bill]

Post by Mike Parsons
Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-i...
Mike

Yes. It's an accident.
It could be done a thousand times without injury- we should be risk
aware not risk averse, to ,my mind.

[normanbydave]

Post by bill

Post by Mike Parsons
Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-i...
Mike

Yes. It's an accident.
It could be done a thousand times without injury- we should be risk
aware not risk averse, to ,my mind.

The problem is that some people dont seem to realise that an accident
is accidental and as such, regardless what you do, you cant prevent it
whilst still being realistic and not prevwnting people from enjoying
themselves.

David Hall
ASL 37th Bradford North Scouts

[Ewan Scott]

Post by bill

Post by Mike Parsons
Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-i...
Mike

Yes. It's an accident.
It could be done a thousand times without injury- we should be risk
aware not risk averse, to ,my mind.
The problem is that some people dont seem to realise that an accident
is accidental and as such, regardless what you do, you cant prevent it
whilst still being realistic and not prevwnting people from enjoying
themselves.

There is no such thing as an accident, there is a cause and an effect. If
you remove the cause there is no effect.

The litigious type argue that if someone is harmed, and it is because of a
wrong being done, and there is a provable link, then someone can be found
responsible and duly pursued for damages. (layman's phraseology)

The fact is, this type of incident IS avoidable. Since my son was knocked
unconscious and another lad lost his front teeth, we have not played such
games in the dark. There has been no repeat of the "accident". To allow it
to happen a second time would truly be negligent.

Ewan Scott

[SBR]

Post by Ewan Scott
The fact is, this type of incident IS avoidable. Since my son was knocked
unconscious and another lad lost his front teeth, we have not played such
games in the dark. There has been no repeat of the "accident". To allow it
to happen a second time would truly be negligent.

I agree, if there is a demonstrable problem, but where does it stop?

Do we stop doing night navigation in case somebody gets lost?

I still worry that sometimes identifying a risk makes us liable if the risk
actually happens, because we knew it could happen. If we didn't identify it
then would we have the defence that we didn't take action because we hadn't
identified it as a risk?

[Neil Williams]

Post by SBR
Do we stop doing night navigation in case somebody gets lost?

No, because "getting lost" isn't necessarily a real problem! Getting
lost and wandering onto an Army rifle range might be, as might getting
lost somewhere like Dartmoor and getting hypothermia. But not on its
own.

If you didn't have any means of finding "lost" people in place if your
risk assessment judges it appropriate, OTOH, then that *could* be a
problem.

On Ewan's point, I don't think I'd play a game that involved people
running together (high chance of collision) in the pitch black (not
able to see and avoid collision) either. It sounds to me like asking
for injuries.

Neil

[AndyW]

"Neil Williams" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:602a2bd3-6b54-4979-b329-***@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 14, 8:24 am, "SBR" <***@rainsbury.net> wrote:

On Ewan's point, I don't think I'd play a game that involved people
running together (high chance of collision) in the pitch black (not
able to see and avoid collision) either. It sounds to me like asking
for injuries.
And you also need to factor in the people involved.
When I was a Scout we played the shoe game where everyone took off one shoe
and threw it into the middle of the room. The lights went out and you had to
find your shoe.
We had a few bumps and scrapes but never a real injury in all the years we
played it.
Maybe we were tougher or more careful and less reckless but I would never
ever consider it nowadays.

Andy

[SBR]

Post by SBR
Do we stop doing night navigation in case somebody gets lost?
If you didn't have any means of finding "lost" people in place if your
risk assessment judges it appropriate, OTOH, then that *could* be a
problem.

So they all start taking locating GSP trackers? :-(

<sigh...>

[Chris Atkinson]

In message

Post by Neil Williams
oblem.
On Ewan's point, I don't think I'd play a game that involved people
running together (high chance of collision) in the pitch black (not
able to see and avoid collision) either. It sounds to me like asking
for injuries.

Just how far does one go on this tack? In winter months we used to play
'Sleeping Pirate' in the dark (inside the HQ) using a torch with a
tightly focussed beam. I confess it was never the subject of an RA.
I suppose there was always the risk that the person nipping around the
outside of the circle might have tripped over his or her feet whilst
evading the torch beam, and gone base over apex. Phew, how lucky I was
for all those years.
It seemed like good fun at the time; thank heavens we can now learn to
identify the risks inherent in this sort of hazardous activity, and
avoid it like the plague.
Chris A.
(please insert ' ;^) ' in some appropriate place)

[Neil Williams]

Post by Chris Atkinson
Just how far does one go on this tack?

Good question - this one was personal judgement not a written RA... I
guess each person's judgement is a bit different.

Neil

[Ewan Scott]

Post by SBR

Post by Ewan Scott
The fact is, this type of incident IS avoidable. Since my son was
knocked unconscious and another lad lost his front teeth, we have not
played such games in the dark. There has been no repeat of the
"accident". To allow it to happen a second time would truly be negligent.

I agree, if there is a demonstrable problem, but where does it stop?

Giving 30 kids a game to play in the dark, irrespective of a "no running"
rule almost ensures an accident, IMHO. The fact that they ran when told not
to doesn't come into it, since you could doresee that they would break that
rule anyway.

Post by SBR
Do we stop doing night navigation in case somebody gets lost?

Course not.

Post by SBR
I still worry that sometimes identifying a risk makes us liable if the
risk actually happens, because we knew it could happen. If we didn't
identify it then would we have the defence that we didn't take action
because we hadn't identified it as a risk?

Ah, there's the rub. You are damned if you do it, damned if you don't.

You do an RA and you tick all the boxes. In theory, you should have
mitigated the risk, so then if there is an incident you MUST have missed
something - you are damned.
You do an RA and you tick all the boxes, but one night you take a shortcut,
an accident happens, you are damned by your own evidence.
You do an RA, you miss some of the boxes, you have an accident, you are
damned in that you didn't see all the risks.
You don't do an RA, there is an accident, you are damned by the absence of
an RA.
Your RA is only of any benefit to you IF you tick ALL of the boxes, ALL of
the time, and NEVER get it wrong, and NEVER have any accidents.

Ewan Scott

[AndyW]

Post by Ewan Scott
You do an RA and you tick all the boxes. In theory, you should have
mitigated the risk, so then if there is an incident you MUST have missed
something - you are damned.
You do an RA and you tick all the boxes, but one night you take a
shortcut, an accident happens, you are damned by your own evidence.
You do an RA, you miss some of the boxes, you have an accident, you are
damned in that you didn't see all the risks.
You don't do an RA, there is an accident, you are damned by the absence of
an RA.
Your RA is only of any benefit to you IF you tick ALL of the boxes, ALL of
the time, and NEVER get it wrong, and NEVER have any accidents.

Or the missed option
You do an RA, decide that something is an acceptable risk and it still
happens.
Every activity will have a massive list of non-analysed risks that you
simply never considered.

Meteorite strike, being savaged by a stray dog, being hit by a speeding
mountain biker, a light fitting falls down, a large bird flies into the
windscreen of the van, the friction tape slides off the bat and it flies
into the pitcher's face.
The first one has never happened to anyone I know but all the rest have.


I spend a lot of my working life doing RA, failure mode effects and
criticality analyses etc. for everything from generators to weapons handling
systems and medical equipment.
It is always fun to have someone who has done an afternoon course talk
drivel on RAs such as telling us to eliminate all risks or don't do the
activity.
As you have hinted/mentioned before, everything you do carries a risk of
accident/death.

Andy

[SBR]

Post by Ewan Scott
Your RA is only of any benefit to you IF you tick ALL of the boxes, ALL of
the time, and NEVER get it wrong, and NEVER have any accidents.

Good init :-(

I thought this govt were going to make this all go away :-)

[bill]

Post by SBR
I still worry that sometimes identifying a risk makes us liable if the risk

actually happens, because we knew it could happen.  If we didn't identify it
then would we have the defence that we didn't take action because we hadn't
identified it as a risk?

It's a bugger, isn't it!
I had a row with a Camp Site person. One of my kids had an accident.
Said C S person, when told of this in a non-confrontation mode, said
he was aware of the problem but site insurers had advised him not to
put it on the RA as he'd be liable (read: they'd be liable) if an
incident occured once it was identified.
This is what we in the legal profession call fluent bullshit.

Equally, following Ewan's critique of the system the solution is to do
nothing involving the need for an RA.
What's the need for RA if you assiduously wrap all your scouts in
cotton wool (non-allergenic) as they enter the hall, and place them in
indivdual padded cells, I wonder.

My Hall is close to a railway line and a flightpath- (surely you see
where this is going). Sense of proportion !

[Al]

Post by Mike Parsons
Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-in-the-dark
Mike

All,


This article seems to suggest there may be a move away from risk free
activities, or at least a desire to, kind of connected to this debate.

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Childcare-and-Early-Years/1035245/Health-safety-regulations-changed-allow-children-experience-risk/


It also mentions scrapping the Adventure Activities Licensing Scheme.


Al

[MatSav]

Post by Al

Post by Mike Parsons
Could it happen at my BS / CS / S / ES meeting?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/843693-scouting-association-says-future-in-the-dark
Mike

All,
This article seems to suggest there may be a move away from
risk free activities, or at least a desire to, kind of
connected to this debate.
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Childcare-and-Early-Years/1035245/Health-safety-regulations-changed-allow-children-experience-risk/
It also mentions scrapping the Adventure Activities Licensing
Scheme.

Is there any data to support the effectiveness of the AALS? How
many fatal incidents occurred during Regulated Activities were
there, over an equal set period, before and after its
introduction? Has it worked?

[Ewan Scott]

Post by Al
It also mentions scrapping the Adventure Activities Licensing
Scheme.

Is there any data to support the effectiveness of the AALS? How many fatal
incidents occurred during Regulated Activities were there, over an equal
set period, before and after its introduction? Has it worked?

One might presume when using an AALS centre that the instructors are
qualified. They are not always NGB qualified, sometimes they have site
specific qualifications. So, if you book a centre expecting NGB qualified
staff and they don't have them for one of the activities that you use them
for....

Doubt it?

Check out the adverts for staff for "Trainee" positions. No quals required.
In fact, qualifications mean that the applicants are overqualified. How does
that work then?

Ewan Scott

[Chris Atkinson]

Post by Al
This article seems to suggest there may be a move away from risk free
activities, or at least a desire to, kind of connected to this debate.
http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Childcare-and-Early-Years/1035
245/Health-safety-regulations-changed-allow-children-experience-risk/

So, do we expect this attitude to filter thro' to our activities??
Really??
'Tablets of stone' ... and all that.
Chris A.
(Cynical ? Moi ? After xx years?)