View Full Version : BSAC beaten by JFK
Tony Johnson
09-04-2003, 19:23
JFK airport by curiously forcing a mother to drink three bottles of her own breast milk has beaten the shortlisted BSAC to an award for the "Most Intrusive Security Measure" for its late policy of screening for paedophiles.
<a href="http://www.privacyinternational.org/activities/stupidsecurity" >http://www.privacyinternational.org/activities/stupidsecurity</a>
Ah well, I guess you can't win them all.
Tony
John Williams
09-04-2003, 19:55
Tony,
May I ask you why the BSAC policy aimed at supporting branches who wish to screen their membership for convicted paedophiles is in any way "intrusive"?
John Williams
BSAC Welfare Officer
<a href="mailto:welfare@bsac.com">welfare@bsac.com</a>
Adrian Kelland
09-04-2003, 20:16
Tony,
May I ask you why the BSAC policy aimed at supporting branches who wish to screen their membership for convicted paedophiles is in any way "intrusive"?
John Williams
BSAC Welfare Officer
:<a href="mailto:=welfare@bsac.com">=welfare@bsac.com</a>
John
I am not sure if Tony was saying the measure was intrusive. The linked page has BSAC nominated as intrusive.
The page is two years old (view source)
Adrian
Mike Halligan
09-04-2003, 20:31
John,
Looks to me like several people's misinterpretation of the membership application, its purpose and its use, compounding to feed a pseudo civil-rights campaign. And all you're trying to do is protect the membership. You just can't win!
Mike
John Williams
09-04-2003, 20:55
I am not sure if Tony was saying the measure was intrusive. The linked page has BSAC nominated as intrusive.
Adrian
OK...so I gave Tony the benefit of the doubt and searched the site linked again.
This time I found it
(its a good site by the way)
I guess he's referring to nomination 29.
All those who know anything about the history of this issue within the BSAC will understand that the signature required on BSAC membership and renewal forms that related to police checks was removed some years ago. So the nominaton is out-of-date and does not apply to the BSAC any more.
It is important that prospective members understand that we no longer endorse such widespread and qholesale intrusion.
There was some general public hysteria in relation to Paedophilia and the desire for criminal record checks several years ago. The BSAC responded in the way it was advised by Social Services and the NSPCC. The membership voiced their concerns at the policy and it was very soon modified.
For everyone's information the ONLY way to get a criminal record check (unless you are a senior police officer conducting an official investigation) is for the person concerned to apply for it through a registered body. No-one can have a check done on them unless they specifically request it, using the correct form, and submit it to a properly registerd organisation.
The BSAC has registered as such an organisation and so can process applications from members...but at present will only do so if that persons branch has altered its constitution at a General Meeting specifically to enable them to request criminal record checks. In this case the branch will have to inform prospective members of the requirement to undergo a check at their initial contact (even if the branch only requires instructors to undergo checks).
The BSAC has stated it has no plans to ask the general membership to undergo criminal record checks - but that it is prepared to facilitate the process for those branches whose members have decided that they would like to undergo checks.
In every case where checks are required the BSAC has insisted that the whole of the branch is included in the decision to request checks - and that even if the checks are restricted to a special class of member within the branch that ALL members are informed of the policy BEFORE they join.
If anyone requires more information see the Welfare Guidance at the link below (and if they still have questions they should contact me at <a href="mailto:welfare@bsac.com">welfare@bsac.com</a>)
John
John Williams
09-04-2003, 20:59
John,
Looks to me like several people's misinterpretation of the membership application, its purpose and its use, compounding to feed a pseudo civil-rights campaign. And all you're trying to do is protect the membership. You just can't win!
Mike
that's all it ever was Mike.
All we ever tried to do was provide a mechanism for protecting our members from the less savoury members of society.
BSAC never wanted to check anyone's record (still does not) - but this is one way of trying to keep undesirables away from our kids.
I hope that, when people read the guidance linked to below they understand that BSAC is as keen to protect its instructors and members from harm and false accusation as it is to protect the vulnerable from abuse.
However - the written word is often misinterpreted.
All the best
John
Keith Lawrence(BSAC)
09-04-2003, 21:19
At least post something current Tony. That information is two years (at least) out-of-date and the very thing it is complaining about was resolved some time ago.
So your point is...??
Keith L
Mike Halligan
09-04-2003, 21:24
I hope that, when people read the guidance linked to below they understand that BSAC is as keen to protect its instructors and members from harm and false accusation as it is to protect the vulnerable from abuse.
John,
I remember trying (as ADO) to convince a suspicious membership of just that rationale when the scheme was first mooted. Fortunately, I had interests elsewhere going through just the same trauma and so was not only well briefed by our NDO but experienced to boot.
I guess the scheme has been with us for so long now, and with DPA(v2), HRA and FoI having all hit the statute book since then, that its purpose is lost in the general fog. Thanks for making such a prompt and authoritative statement.
Regards,
Mike
Tony Johnson
10-04-2003, 15:27
At least post something current Tony. That information is two years (at least) out-of-date and the very thing it is complaining about was resolved some time ago.
So your point is...??
Keith L
The information may be out of date (fortunately) but the awards were announced yesterday:
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/30162.html" >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/30162.html</a>
I found it amusing and thought I would share it with others.
Tony
Tony Johnson
10-04-2003, 15:31
Tony,
May I ask you why the BSAC policy aimed at supporting branches who wish to screen their membership for convicted paedophiles is in any way "intrusive"?
I didn't nominate us for the award but I asume the reasoning was much the same as council's in deciding to drop the policy.
Tony
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.