On Tuesday 10 Apr 2012 22:22:19 hantslug@??? wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 April 2012 22:08:10 Tim Brocklehurst wrote:
> > However, if the previously unsupervised youngster is in the company
> >
> > of a responsible adult (trusted by both youngster and parents), then I
> > don't think there would be a problem
>
> I think that you would find that there would. Parents running a car-pool
> seem to have to be CRB checked. :-(
>
> But I would have thought that if the child brings him or herself, and is
> not accompanied, then no adult is responsible, so no adult needs checking.
> Think of public transport. No child could travel unaccompanied because
> of all the unchecked adults that are likely to be on the
> bus/train/aeroplane, if we needed CRB checking in case child turns up.
> And does anyone know what age counts as a child?
>
> Lisi
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
I think the public transport question is treated as a special case (if at all,
as it is transient and short-duration). A car pool is a case where there will
be regular contact with children, over a long period of time, and therefore a
background check makes sense.
In the case of the LUG, I would advise that we seek further advice, from
someone with suitable knowledge. I don't think the argument that you pose Lisi
can ever stand up, just due to the definition of a child; and I doubt that many
parents would be happy with the suggestion. I certainly wouldn't be if leaving
my niece or nephew with anyone I didn't know.
Tim B.
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
