Re: If you could....

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:13:16 GMT, wildenfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tim
Jones) wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:45:35 +0000, Ewan Scott
<ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

If leaders can't agree this then maybe we should all pack in right
now!

I would have thought that their quote

"In exceptional circumstances, very experienced holders of lesser
qualifications may be acceptable, but ?approval? in these cases can
only be given on an individual basis."

yeah, so the whole thing is just bollox. There is a standard, but hey
don't worry if you don't meet it, we'll accept lower standards. AALA
drives higher standards but accepts lower - ambiguous newspeak.

is reflected in the way we operate. Being a voluntary organisation
with a shortage of volunteers being able to commit the time to a full
MIA is an exceptional circumstance IMO and I feel that our permit
schemes allow for this fact.

You may think that.

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.

I would hope that we meet standard B

"All staff (including activity leaders, supervisors, assistants,
accompanying adults in
positions of responsibility, visiting teachers etc.) and all
participants are given a verbal briefing about their roles and
responsibilities at or before the start of their involvement,
supported by discussion and clarification on an on-going basis.."

Prove it.

In every activity? On every occasion? I doubt it. Many folks just get
on with doing what they normally do.

If we fail to meet standard C

"Areas of responsibility are discussed and agreed between activity
leaders,
supervisors, assistants and any accompanying adults (in positions of
responsibility) at or before the start of the activity."

there is something tragically wrong.and IMO the activity should not be
going ahead.

Really. How in depth is it required. If I run an activity with a team
we quickly break down what we are doing and go and do it. It isn't
formalised. Formalising suggests that it needs to be recorded.


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.

I really can't see the problem here.

Then you must always have a higher qualified assessor around to
monitor your activities but not take part. I'm sorry, I find that hard
to recognise.


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.

I would hope that ongoing training is offered and that a reasoinable
number of leaders take it up.

You might hope but experience says otherwise.


A11 See above

I would suggest that within our own rules we really should be at B
already.

If A10 can't be applied than neither can A11


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.

Sorry you're obviously viewing this as covering a far wider area than
I would envisage. I'm thinking of the adventurous activities,
canoeing, kayaking, climbing, archery, shooting etc

NO, it covers everything, you cannot pick and choose your standards.
If you are going to play by the book, then you play by the book. I
know of Youth leaders who cannot pitch a tent without a written RA and
Method of operation marked out for them

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?

If his harness isn't part of the system then I'd probably allow it. If
it is I'd ask him to use one of known provenance, givne that in a
single pitch climbing and abseiling environment the leaders harness
ahs no cause to be a link in the safety chain to the scout climbing
we're not risking a youngster here.

Are you sure? People do tell fibs. What if he is belaying,
demonstrating and his harness gives way. It may or may not cause an
injury to a child but it sets a very poor example.

I'd also consider his level of qualification and experience an active
SPA should know the common snese rules and I'd probably let them use
it, if they'd been climbing a few times 15 years ago and the harness
was a "vintage model" the answer would be obvious.



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?


All it says is that you have to make the decision whether to repair or
replace. It doesn't in any way imply that you should bodge things that
are damaged beyond repair!

You're reading stuff that isn't even written.

Go and read it again, it says that this is less a case of safety and
more an issue of cost. Either something is safe or it isn't cost does
not come into it at all.

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.

I would suggest that our "similar department" is the county or
regional adviser or the relevant activity.

No, we have no similar department. The HSE make up health and safety
rules as they see fit and operate as if without restrictions. If they
decide that you need to do XYand Z it can take the intervention of a
Secretary of State to bring them to order. The local health inspectors
are the same, they have authority and they like to let people know -
unless you challenge them they will walk all over you.

I've had run ins with them, it cost us about £2,000 on one occasion,
after the event I discovered that they had exceeded their powers and
all I had to do was say, No. But it takes some balls to say no to a
guy with a million pound budget and a team of lawyers to back him up.

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

Surely this is already done by headquarters and reflected in the rules
we operate under? If it isn't we have a very very big problem that is
way beyond the simple question of whether we meet AALA standards.

Okay, so you could call the legal department and get an answer, but
I'd not be convinced that we met ALL legal requirements for everything
we do. In fact, I'm pretty damned sure that we don't somewhere along
the line - such is the law.


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.

I don't think so. Look for the answers not problems.

We obviously have very different experiences of both Scouting and of
government officials.

Ewan Scott
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If you could....
    ... don't worry if you don't meet it, we'll accept lower standards. ... When we run a climbing session we define our individual roles at the ... If his harness isn't part of the system then I'd probably allow it. ... measure that disposes of damaged kit, but mitigates it by the cost ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
  • Re: US consumer products design reference - what inventors should know
    ... This standards thing has gone beyond ensuring that products are safe, ... of the overhead cost of starting company and selling an electronic ... How can it be that a private company, and a claimed non-profit organization, has managed to appoint itself as the sole arbiter of product safety, yet keep the standards themselves such a well-guarded secret? ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)
  • Re: US consumer products design reference - what inventors should know
    ... This standards thing has gone beyond ensuring that products are safe, ... and then you can look forward to the cost of the ... and safety audits, compliance testing fees, government ...
    (sci.electronics.misc)
  • Product safety: “Made in China
    ... Product safety: ?Made in China? ... To improve supply chain safety and quality standards companies should engage ... Chinese authorities to increase the capacity of regulators, ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: UL/ETL Choking the market
    ... If they mandate safety levels, it will take a LOT longer to do the tests ... due diligence and proper design analysis ... don't need to be tested, for example, I've attended Standards ... | Europe specific, but is much more sensible and there is no financial ...
    (sci.engr.lighting)