Re: If you could....

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:30:25 GMT, wildenfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tim
Jones) wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:15:49 -0700, Steve <steviephilips@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 20 Jun, 14:59, wildenf...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tim Jones) wrote:

Quite simply the requirements are not that onerous and we should
already be complying with most of them.- Hide quoted text -

Well off you go then ....

Persuade your Group to self assess to the AALS recomendations, and can
come back and let us know how difficult it actually was.


Don't worry I'm sure it will be done. Probably not before the Autumn
once we've got a real rush of support for centenary camps and the
jamboree itself out of the way. We are a district based activity team
and having cast my eye over the document I'm sure we're nearly there
already and the document will merely highlight a few areas where we
could improve a bit. If we can use it as a means of improving on what
we are already doing it's a very useful tool in my eyes. Given that
as a self assessment we can't really get failed or lose anything I
find it hard to see the downside even if only half the document is
completed.

Now been and scanned through it. In many areas we would score highly.
Others create issues.

A2 Approved technical Advisors - If we have people qualified above
the minimum requirement, and all are equal - who becomes the technical
advisor on site? Technically it should be someone more qualified. In
reality it would be the most experienced person - but that is not what
it asks for.

A6 Clarity of responsibility - all well and good, but it requires
Contracts and contracts limit Scouting. Our contract is our Promise,
and our authorisation sets our limits. Again , not what they are
asking for.

A9 Is much the same issue as A2. Who does this when all are equal? In
Scouting we could say that our three yearly review serves this
purpose, but if we are being technical, each Group is a corporate
entity and each Group would be trying to meet this standard.. So each
Group would need this experience higher qualified monitor.

A10 Not one I have an issue with, but it suggests ongoing training,
which is fair enough, but many don't undergo ongoing training and
wont.

A11 See above

B1 Written Operational Procedures - check that one out very carefully.
You want to be tied to writing down your procedures for everything -
like putting up a tent? Okay, so you only have to do it once, but
someone has to do it, and get it approved as being THE procedure. Once
you have it, if you do it differently and something goes wrong... So,
little leeway for improvisation.

B3 See B1. Where do you draw the line on the Formal RA? Do you need an
RA for pitching a tent?

C6 Check that one out. You are the Leader, your assistant turns up
with his own climbing harness, you have no way of verifying its
provenance except his word. Do you use it? A question that perhaps we
all might consider, but to formalise it? Again, where do you draw the
line?

C7 This is the biggie, and the form even acknowledges that the issue
is less one of safety and more one of cost - go figure, a safety
measure that disposes of damaged kit, but mitigates it by the cost
-Surely if it is damaged beyond repair it is damaged beyond repair
irrespective of the cost?

C14 If you mange to pass this one, well done. They would shut us down.
I know because we have been there and gone through this one. I
wouldn't give the Local Authority Health inspectors or the HSE the
opportunity to inspect what we do. Turkeys voting for Christmas.

C15 Can you afford to take legal advice to ensure that you comply with
this? Or do you just mark yourselves down to E?

I'm not saying that any or all of these requirements are in any way
wrong, I am saying that if we were to HAVE to meet them, it would
seriously curtail our activities, it may/ would close many Groups
down.

Ewan Scott
.