Lowering the age Summary + [Archive] - BSAC Scuba Diving Forums

View Full Version : Lowering the age Summary +

TerryH

19-02-2005, 15:27

Lowering the age Summary.

Getting extremly messy down there, so thought a summary was
in order.

We basicly have 4 camps/opinion.

1) Lower the age and leave each club to decide. Safety issues
to be as now and again decided by each individual club.

2) Lower the age but in a controlled framework where clubs
must opt in and are vetted centrally by BSAC (Junior BSAC).

3) Undecided as to 1) or 2), but not ok with lowering until
it's proven that there is no harm to 12-14 year olds.

4) Dont see any advantage & many disdvantages to lowering the
age, so very much a no regardless of safeguards with 2)& 3).

Discuss
Ok, now be objective.
4) May be your position, but only 1) has the potential to
cause your club problems more by association than directly.

3) Are we ever going to get figures or a concensus?
As it's unethical and who in there right mind would give a
definate yes/no it's unlikely. So if it's going to happen,
isnt it better to have a monitored and controlled enviroment?
(which means 2).

2) Kids get to learn at 12. This allows for the age to be
lowered (pleasing 1). Each club to decide. Some of the fears
of 3) (and even 4) covered. Plus in the event of an incident
BSAC as the GB can say that thsi club was checked bi-annually
and all safety protcols were in place.

1) Simple and quick. The easiest way forward. Takes no more
than a document on WOV being sent to the DO and the club is
responsible. Ok for 1), but 2), 3) & 4) still not happy.

Sorry but doesnt matter how you look at it, IMO the only one
that compromises, allows 12> year olds in and covers all the
safety fears is 2). Junior BSAC.

TerryH

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

19-02-2005, 19:28

Thanks Terry! You missed -

5) All decisions about young divers to be vested in Council/NDC. Safety issues, limits, guidelines and procedures to be modified if required. Those procedures, policy, support and assistance (which already exist within the BSAC) to be used to assist those club who wish to in implementing the option.

It?s actually 5) that the Tameside motion is asking for Terry. I know that some members would prefer the option of a separate Junior BSAC, the concept of a Junior BSAC has by no means been ruled out. Therefore I would feel duty bound to raise the matter should the members wish Council to discuss the issue again by supporting the Tameside motion. You have my personal assurance that, should I still be a Council member, I will raise the matter of a Junior BSAC (if nobody else does) during any discussions that Council may have on this matter.

Regards

Keith Lawrence
BSAC Council Member (at the moment!)

Philip Smith

19-02-2005, 23:48

It?s actually 5) that the Tameside motion is asking for Terry.

Therefore I would feel duty bound to raise the matter should the members wish Council to discuss the issue again by supporting the Tameside motion.

Would one of the motion proposers please clarify what they expect to happen if the motion is passed. The motion is not worded as a request to Council to discuss the issue, but as a directive to reduce the age limit (depending on the interpretation of the word "should"). Perhaps the Chairman would also like to indicate what the interpretation would be. It seems important that this is known before a vote is taken.

Philip Smith

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

19-02-2005, 23:53

There have been some constitutional and procedural questions relating to this motion -just what will happen, just what the power of the AGM and the membership vote is. The following is my PERSONAL understanding, for the definitive answer I must refer you to the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd) of the BSAC who I am sure will contact me if I have any of this wrong! Having said that, here goes?

First of all let?s look at the actual words of the Tameside motion ?

?Council should use its powers under Articles 9 and 46 (A) (7) to reduce the age for Junior Diving Member to 12 years old?

Articles 9 and 46(A)(7) give Council the power to create new classes of BSAC membership, in other words Council already has the power to create a ?Young Diving Member? (or any other such name) with any age limits or restrictions that Council see fit for such a membership class. Council can also alter the requirements (such as age) for any existing classes of membership. So the request from Tameside is constitutionally sound.

But here?s the good bit, the reason that I personally prefer the 46(A)(7) route ? Council don?t HAVE to take any notice of you all at all :-) To me that is the beauty of this approach, if it were a constitutional amendment then Council would HAVE to oblige. If this were constitutional then no matter what the evidence Council would have great difficulty saying ?no? if they needed to. So motions such as the Tameside motion are NOT binding upon Council, exactly the same is true of issues raised from the floor of the AGM (I?ll come to those later). The primary reason for that is because of the danger of ?silly? motions, because not enough of you take an interest and vote it could happen.

OK, so basically it?s a request, the will of the membership as expressed by a democratic vote. If such an ordinary motion is passed one of three things could happen next ?
1. The membership are totally ignored by Council
2. The request is denied
3. The request is granted
Now, in all cases EXACLY the same options are open to all members, in the case of 1) or 2) (without adequate explanation) then I would expect members to get together, call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and propose a Motion of No Confidence (MoNC) in the Council of the BSAC. Even if 3. were the outcome then those who opposed the motion could STILL follow the EGM route if they wanted to and effectively ask all of the members again. Personally, should I be a Council member in a Council that was subject to a successful MoNC, then I would resign. We would be in uncharted constitutional waters here, but if members really object to a Council decision then they can put a motion to ALL members via an EGM.

Now, some of you are ?threatening? to come to the AGM with a few mates to raise this from the floor and get it outvoted. All other things aside ? PLEASE come! How many of you have been to an AGM recently? Not a lot of you I suspect :-( The AGM is a damn good day out, gone are the days of just a stuffy meeting. Yes, there is an AGM, but there is normally a full day of events planned with the hosting branch putting on a damn good social bash in the evening as well. Personally I think it was a great idea putting the AGM ?on the road?, we would like more of you to come along!

Can you raise things from the floor of the AGM? Yes, of course you can! It would probably be under the heading of ?any other business? (AOB) and it would be up to the Chair of the meeting whether it was accepted for discussion or not. Should a vote be called then it would have exactly the same status as ordinary motions declared in advance, i.e. it would NOT be binding upon Council.

It is for such occasions that your proxy designations become VERY important, if you cant come in person then at least save your say by appointing a proxy (normally the Chairman). Here it is the ?discretionary proxy? that comes into play, on the proxy form you can give your proxy discretion to vote on your behalf however they see fit. So if somebody did try the ?mob rule? approach by turning up at the AGM with a silly or spoiling motion then they would probably be outvoted, hopefully the chair will be sitting on several hundred discretionary proxy appointments that could be used to defeat such tactics.

That?s the way I understand it to work, it?s known as democracy in action :-)

HTH

Keith L

Edward Haynes

20-02-2005, 07:36

As a Candidate for Council I'd like to add my thoughts.

There have been some constitutional and procedural questions relating to this motion -just what will happen, just what the power of the AGM and the membership vote is. The following is my PERSONAL understanding, for the definitive answer I must refer you to the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd) of the BSAC who I am sure will contact me if I have any of this wrong! Having said that, here goes?

First of all let?s look at the actual words of the Tameside motion ?

?Council should use its powers under Articles 9 and 46 (A) (7) to reduce the age for Junior Diving Member to 12 years old?

Articles 9 and 46(A)(7) give Council the power to create new classes of BSAC membership, in other words Council already has the power to create a ?Young Diving Member? (or any other such name) with any age limits or restrictions that Council see fit for such a membership class. Council can also alter the requirements (such as age) for any existing classes of membership. So the request from Tameside is constitutionally sound.

I fail to see what relevance Article 9 has to the intended outcome of the motion, I quote:

"9. Council may from time to time register an increase in the number of members".
End quote

This acticle it (IMHO) to do with the total number of members on the books and changes every year, even monthly.

[snip]
OK, so basically it?s a request, the will of the membership as expressed by a democratic vote. If such an ordinary motion is passed one of three things could happen next ?
1. The membership are totally ignored by Council
2. The request is denied
3. The request is granted
Now, in all cases EXACLY the same options are open to all members, in the case of 1) or 2) (without adequate explanation) then I would expect members to get together, call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) and propose a Motion of No Confidence (MoNC) in the Council of the BSAC. Even if 3. were the outcome then those who opposed the motion could STILL follow the EGM route if they wanted to and effectively ask all of the members again. Personally, should I be a Council member in a Council that was subject to a successful MoNC, then I would resign. We would be in uncharted constitutional waters here, but if members really object to a Council decision then they can put a motion to ALL members via an EGM.

Now, some of you are ?threatening? to come to the AGM with a few mates to raise this from the floor and get it outvoted. All other things aside ? PLEASE come! How many of you have been to an AGM recently? Not a lot of you I suspect :-( The AGM is a damn good day out, gone are the days of just a stuffy meeting. Yes, there is an AGM, but there is normally a full day of events planned with the hosting branch putting on a damn good social bash in the evening as well. Personally I think it was a great idea putting the AGM ?on the road?, we would like more of you to come along!

In my opinion, if option 3 was not chosen Council would be (quite rightly) accused of riding roughshod over the membership's wishes. The only options open to Council (as I see it) is how the motion would be implemented.

Can you raise things from the floor of the AGM? Yes, of course you can! It would probably be under the heading of ?any other business? (AOB) and it would be up to the Chair of the meeting whether it was accepted for discussion or not. Should a vote be called then it would have exactly the same status as ordinary motions declared in advance, i.e. it would NOT be binding upon Council.

What a mess this would be. The Article which allowed Motions to be challenged was removed (I voted against) from the A of A at the last AGM. The new Chairman would have to satisfy themselves that the items raised under AOB where not items which would normally be treated as special business, I quote:

Article 36 "All business shall be deemed to be special that is transacted at an Extraordinary General Meeting and all that business (save such as is specified in Article 36 hereof) which is transacted at an Annual General Meeting."
End Quote.

The last article was not updated when the ability to challenge or amend a motion was removed, so the above Article should refer to A 35.

It is for such occasions that your proxy designations become VERY important, if you cant come in person then at least save your say by appointing a proxy (normally the Chairman). Here it is the ?discretionary proxy? that comes into play, on the proxy form you can give your proxy discretion to vote on your behalf however they see fit. So if somebody did try the ?mob rule? approach by turning up at the AGM with a silly or spoiling motion then they would probably be outvoted, hopefully the chair will be sitting on several hundred discretionary proxy appointments that could be used to defeat such tactics.

On you Proxy Form you can 'direct' your vote to the Chairman of the Meeting.

*Strike out whichever is not desired otherwise the proxy may vote as he thinks fit.

That?s the way I understand it to work, it?s known as democracy in action :-)

HTH

Keith L

That's the way I see things.

Edward

Bob Healey

20-02-2005, 10:30

:=It?s actually 5) that the Tameside motion is asking for Terry.

:=Therefore I would feel duty bound to raise the matter should the members wish Council to discuss the issue again by supporting the Tameside motion.

Would one of the motion proposers please clarify what they expect to happen if the motion is passed. The motion is not worded as a request to Council to discuss the issue, but as a directive to reduce the age limit (depending on the interpretation of the word "should"). Perhaps the Chairman would also like to indicate what the interpretation would be. It seems important that this is known before a vote is taken.

Philip Smith

As a seconder of the Motion, our Branch is asking that Council uses it's powers to reduce the age for Scuba Training to 12 for those Branches who WANT TO, our's being one of them. Despite the name we are a Scuba Branch as well. I would expect any Branch allowing 12 plus to train would observe the criteria in place for any Club in any Sport dealing with young people, Child Protection Policy, CRB checks, Instructors who are Child Friendly, etc. In fact I would expect that of any Branch who are at present training 14 plus year olds.

I see very little difference between Terry's 1 & 2.

We are asking that Council be allowed to discuss it and decide, even then it is up to Council to say Yes, No or Yes with restrictions. All we are asking is that the Membership give Council the prompt to discuss it and decide.

Yes we do want the age reducing.

Bob Healey

Philip Smith

20-02-2005, 11:59

The following is my PERSONAL understanding, for the definitive answer I must refer you to the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd) of the BSAC who I am sure will contact me if I have any of this wrong!

Thanks Keith -- that's a lucid explanation. It would be good if that interpretation could be confirmed by the Hon Sec.

Philip Smith

Philip Smith

20-02-2005, 12:01

We are asking that Council be allowed to discuss it and decide, even then it is up to Council to say Yes, No or Yes with restrictions. All we are asking is that the Membership give Council the prompt to discuss it and decide.

Thanks for the clarification Bob, though I wonder why the motion was not worded more clearly to that effect.

Philip Smith

TerryH

20-02-2005, 12:41

As a seconder of the Motion, our Branch is asking that Council uses it's powers to reduce the age for Scuba Training to 12 for those Branches who WANT TO, our's being one of them. Despite the name we are a Scuba Branch as well. I would expect any Branch allowing 12 plus to train would observe the criteria in place for any Club in any Sport dealing with young people, Child Protection Policy, CRB checks, Instructors who are Child Friendly, etc. In fact I would expect that of any Branch who are at present training 14 plus year olds.

I see very little difference between Terry's 1 & 2.

How on earth can you come to that conclusion.
1) Is self-regulatory. Get it wrong, you AND BSAC will be
pilloried.
2) Is centrally vetted/regulated. You still have the
independence to decide, but a third party (BSAC as the GB)
checks you.

Go with 1) and there will be another motion, vote, and a major
battle.
Go with 2) and you get what you want with no more additional
hassle than the odd visit from a BSAC rep.

Wouldnt YOU be happier with BSAC checking youir club and
it's potential exposure to liablity. Are you SURE that any
procedures you would adopt would be ok? NOBODY and I mean
NOBODY is immune from the odd admin etc. slipup.

No question, get it wrong and your club is finished.

TerryH

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

20-02-2005, 12:43

Thanks Edward, as you?ve stood for Hon Sec in the past I suspected that you would know more about such matters than me :-) It?s Mike T who would have the final say, but I think we?re pretty close here ? what I was trying to do was explain things in simple terms that even =I= could understand.

:=1. The membership are totally ignored by Council
:=2. The request is denied
:=3. The request is granted

In my opinion, if option 3 was not chosen Council would be (quite rightly) accused of riding roughshod over the membership's wishes. The only options open to Council (as I see it) is how the motion would be implemented.

I disagree slightly there Edward, the only one that ?rides roughshod? over the democratic wishes of the membership is option 1). If a Council tried that trick then I?d probably call for an EGM myself! As I have pointed out to the proponents the answer could be ?no? for any number of reasons just as much as it could be ?yes?, Council cannot know the answer until it has been thoroughly investigated. Provided that the reasoning for the eventual decision is properly explained and communicated then I hope that the membership would accept that. So in my opinion Edward Council DOES have options 2) and 3) as viable options.

:=Can you raise things from the floor of the AGM?

The new Chairman would have to satisfy themselves that the items raised under AOB where not items which would normally be treated as special business?

I agree Edward, but the point is the Chair has discretion. Items have been raised under AOB in the past, I am not aware of any where discussion has been denied. There is a good reason for Article 36, it?s because the AGM should be for THE WHOLE CLUB. It would not be appropriate for the floor to spring ?out-of-the-blue? motions without the full consultation of the entire membership, not just those who can attend the AGM. AOB is often used for business where people want to ask questions, here the platform will do their best to fully answer any such questions.

So if people want to come along to raise issues and questions from the floor then please do! We would love to have you there, you will be listened to and if we can your questions will be answered. The entire Council of the BSAC will probably be there (there is a meeting the day after), so as well as the formal meeting there are plenty of opportunities to have an informal chat if there are things that are not really formal AGM business.

Anyway, I hope that we?ve pretty much covered the constitutional side of things Edward. As Terry had posted a summary I though that here was a good place to bring this stuff in as well. I hope that everybody is clear (or as clear as I am) on just what is happening and what can happen.

HTH

Keith L

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

20-02-2005, 13:10

No question, get it wrong and your club is finished.

In =YOUR= opinion Terry, not backed up by any evidence that you or anybody else has produced. Please do not misrepresent your opinion as fact Terry, such scare tactics have no place in this debate.

Keith L

Bob Healey

20-02-2005, 14:15

:=No question, get it wrong and your club is finished.

In =YOUR= opinion Terry, not backed up by any evidence that you or anybody else has produced. Please do not misrepresent your opinion as fact Terry, such scare tactics have no place in this debate.

Keith L

Terry, if you have the evidence to show that it is harmful to young persons to dive then for one I would be more than happy to listen to it, having an 11 year old son who had to do his training with PADI, as I am sure that all the Pro lobby would do, unfortunately without any proof the Anti lobby are not willing to listen. Personally I've not heard of any legal litigation being brought against anyone because of age, but I have regarding poor instruction and that wasn't by children or their parents.

Just seems strange that to you all the other organisations have got it wrong, and the BSAC are the only ones who have it right by banning 12 year olds.

Bob Healey

20-02-2005, 14:18

:=We are asking that Council be allowed to discuss it and decide, even then it is up to Council to say Yes, No or Yes with restrictions. All we are asking is that the Membership give Council the prompt to discuss it and decide.

Thanks for the clarification Bob, though I wonder why the motion was not worded more clearly to that effect.

Philip Smith

We are amateurs when it comes to wording motions it being new to us, promise to buck up and improve if we ever do it again.

TerryH

20-02-2005, 19:00

Terry, if you have the evidence to show that it is harmful to young persons to dive then for one I would be more than happy to listen to it, having an 11 year old son who had to do his training with PADI, as I am sure that all the Pro lobby would do, unfortunately without any proof the Anti lobby are not willing to listen. Personally I've not heard of any legal litigation being brought against anyone because of age, but I have regarding poor instruction and that wasn't by children or their parents.

Just seems strange that to you all the other organisations have got it wrong, and the BSAC are the only ones who have it right by banning 12 year olds.

It would be nice, just once, if those proposing this move
actually spent more than a nanosecond reading the posts.
Dispite repeating ad-nauseum that many of us ARE NOT AGAINST
LOWERING THE AGE! You still insist on saying we are.

Read it again, please!
Not against lowering the age, against lowering it without
third party checks (by BSAC HQ).

Hard not to be sarcasitic or argumentative when even after
all these posts the "pro" brigade still dont get it!

TerryH

TerryH

20-02-2005, 19:14

Adrian Kelland

20-02-2005, 20:40

:=:=No question, get it wrong and your club is finished.
:=
:=In =YOUR= opinion Terry, not backed up by any evidence that you or anybody else has produced. Please do not misrepresent your opinion as fact Terry, such scare tactics have no place in this debate.
:=

Wrong Keith they have everything to do with it.

[Reference Removed : KL]

"Get it wrong and your club is finished" would seem to be a
conservative statement. In such circumstance, I wouldnt
be surprised to expect even a criminal investigation.

TerryH

Last year I spoke to our local police divers/investigation team. They mentioned how odd it is that when someone dies unexpectedly in diving, it is always seen by society as an accident. Yet in most other cases it would start as a suspicious death. They investigate as 'suspicious' until evidence otherwise.

Bob Healey

21-02-2005, 01:52

:=:=No question, get it wrong and your club is finished.
:=
:=In =YOUR= opinion Terry, not backed up by any evidence that you or anybody else has produced. Please do not misrepresent your opinion as fact Terry, such scare tactics have no place in this debate.
:=

Wrong Keith they have everything to do with it.

[Reference Removed : KL]

Now tell me that it would be anything but ten times worse
with a 12 year old child?

"Get it wrong and your club is finished" would seem to be a
conservative statement. In such circumstance, I wouldnt
be surprised to expect even a criminal investigation.

TerryH

I seem to have missed something, this senario was an adult, not a child, procedures not being followed, which is criminal, and it wasn't the BSAC involved, I do believe, if my memory serves me right, that the BSAC offered assistance to the Club afterwards so that the members were properly trained.

It goes to prove procedures and guidelines must be followed irrespective of the age of the diver, not just children.

Bob H

TerryH

21-02-2005, 04:13

:=
I seem to have missed something, this senario was an adult, not a child, procedures not being followed, which is criminal, and it wasn't the BSAC involved, I do believe, if my memory serves me right, that the BSAC offered assistance to the Club afterwards so that the members were properly trained.

It goes to prove procedures and guidelines must be followed irrespective of the age of the diver, not just children.

Missed something? That's an understatement!!!!!!!

Not a scenario, it happened! To a young adult still in her
teens (19). A newly qualified and inexperinced diver,
impressionable and easily led my the more experinced that she
had been trained by. The agency is immaterial [Reference Removed : KL]

The parallels with young <14 year olds hardly need to be
drawn!

[Reference Removed : KL]

I simply said that "get it wrong and you will be closed down".
This club did and was.

TerryH

allan j bretherton

21-02-2005, 08:46

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone actually said why they want the age limit reduced?

Allan

:=The following is my PERSONAL understanding, for the definitive answer I must refer you to the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd) of the BSAC who I am sure will contact me if I have any of this wrong!

Thanks Keith -- that's a lucid explanation. It would be good if that interpretation could be confirmed by the Hon Sec.

Philip Smith

Dave

21-02-2005, 08:51

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone actually said why they want the age limit reduced?

Hmmm...how about to allow those younger than 14 to be able to dive within clubs of BSAC, remove the anomoly of schools and branches and remain competitive with the other options for learning to dive that exist

Dave

allan j bretherton

21-02-2005, 09:35

That's the outcome, still doesn?t say why

:=Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, has anyone actually said why they want the age limit reduced?
:=

Hmmm...how about to allow those younger than 14 to be able to dive within clubs of BSAC, remove the anomoly of schools and branches and remain competitive with the other options for learning to dive that exist

Dave

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

21-02-2005, 10:10

That's the outcome, still doesn?t say why

To play devils advocate Allan ? why not? :-)

Keith L

jens hucke

21-02-2005, 10:32

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on branches offering snorkelling training to 8+ year olds?

regards
Jens Hucke

Dave

21-02-2005, 10:38

That's the outcome, still doesn?t say why

Ummm...my logic circuits may be having a day off, nut surely to attain an outcome *is* the reason for doing something.

Dave

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

21-02-2005, 10:52

Terry (and others)

It has been requested that I remove certain inappropriate and irrelevant specific references, this I have done. Please contact me privately Terry, email me for my telephone number as this public forum is not the place to discuss such matters.

Regards

Keith Lawrence
BSAC Council Member

Update : Nice to have a good long chat this evening Terry, all sorted, no problems, matter closed.

Adrian Kelland

21-02-2005, 11:03

[Comments relating to a resolved matter removed]

:=I also find it distasteful that one BSAC member should insist how another BSAC member with an opposing view backs up their argument. You may not like what Terry is saying or even how he says it. It is likely a view shared by many, irrespective of whatever you believe.
:=
:=As a result of the death of Jemma Stevens, does the SAA Branch called Lyme Bay Divers exist any more?

The article mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with young divers , only to do with a club failing to follow basic procedures when diving; this is irrelevant to the issue of young divers.

Dave

Correct Dave, in as far as it is to do with a club failing to follow basic procedures. Which has everything do do with young or old divers.

An adult died. Would it only have been allowed in our argument if a child had died?

The SAA branch was only suspended after the event. If no one had died, they would have still been training anyone (including children?) in the same way. Everyone blissful in their ignorance.

Now when a child dies in a BSAC branch, do you think a lack of monitoring of child training will look good? The press have had one good go at BSAC (which may not have worked). Do you think they won't have another go, citing the previous issue as well.

Adrian

Cats are animals, dogs are animals...Therefore neither are plants.

Adrian Kelland

21-02-2005, 11:16

:=
:=That's the outcome, still doesn?t say why

Ummm...my logic circuits may be having a day off, nut surely to attain an outcome *is* the reason for doing something.

Dave

I'm with you on that point Dave.

Adrian

allan j bretherton

21-02-2005, 11:30

Perhaps I?m being too subtle :-)

Do we want to reduce the age to 12 to get more members?

Do we want to reduce the age to 12 to get them before they go to PADI?

Do we want to reduce the age to 12 so that parents can take their kids diving ?legally? within BSAC rather than training them via another agency?

Allan

:=That's the outcome, still doesn?t say why

To play devils advocate Allan ? why not? :-)

Keith L

Bob Healey

21-02-2005, 11:36

:=:=
:=I seem to have missed something, this senario was an adult, not a child, procedures not being followed, which is criminal, and it wasn't the BSAC involved, I do believe, if my memory serves me right, that the BSAC offered assistance to the Club afterwards so that the members were properly trained.
:=
:=It goes to prove procedures and guidelines must be followed irrespective of the age of the diver, not just children.
:=

Missed something? That's an understatement!!!!!!!

Not actual missed anything, the Club was suspended, quite rightly, but this applies to all trainees, irrespective of age not just young people, you have to get it right and follow the guidelines for everyone.

At 18 you are deemed to be an adult by law by the way.

Not a scenario, it happened! To a young adult still in her
teens (19). A newly qualified and inexperinced diver,
impressionable and easily led my the more experinced that she
had been trained by. The agency is immaterial [Reference Removed : KL]

The parallels with young <14 year olds hardly need to be
drawn!

[Reference Removed : KL]

I simply said that "get it wrong and you will be closed down".
This club did and was.

TerryH

alison boler

21-02-2005, 12:23

Allan

The third one.

Allie

allan j bretherton

21-02-2005, 12:27

Thanks Allie, this was somehow being missed

Cheers.........Allan

Allan

The third one.

Allie

Tony F

21-02-2005, 15:02

We are amateurs when it comes to wording motions it being new to us, promise to buck up and improve if we ever do it again.

Really? You've done a grand job I'd say. I have to say this seemed perfectly to me to be clear from the outset, I've lost count of the number of times people have posted to that effect.

As I see it council will be asked to progress the matter, then, only then, can we have the debates about if and how......... cue Terry :)

I'll be voting yes but as I understand it that's just the begining.

Bob Healey

21-02-2005, 17:43

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on branches offering snorkelling training to 8+ year olds?

regards
Jens Hucke

I'm all in favour so long as they have properly trained Snorkel Instructors, not Scuba Instructors who think they can instruct snorkelling because they had half an hours lesson (if they were lucky) during their Scuba training. I've seen some of these instructors in action and to say they were dangerous would be putting it mildly.

Bob Healey - Snorkel Instructor Trainer.

John Williams

27-02-2005, 03:23

Not against lowering the age, against lowering it without
third party checks (by BSAC HQ).

So...you'll be voting "yes" and then entering into the debate as to how to acheive it then?

Please be consistent Terry!

I also see very little difference between your 1 and 2 - except that a "junior BSAC" will be unweildy and a nightmare to run.

Allowing those branches that choose to the freedom to accept junior members (perhaps with BSAC recommendations as to restrictions)into their membership - with whatever additional restrictions/regulations they see fit to put into place locally seems eminently sensible to me.

It also adds no additional admin load to the BSAC HQ function (except perhaps more members and more parents retained as members!)

Bob has already told you that his son has trained as a diver ...with PADI. That is money and membership lost from the BSAC. Bob clearly knows the risks, he has clearly chosen the BSAC way for himself. Why would he choose to go elsewhere for his son ...unless he was forced to?

Let's remove this compulsion for stalwart BSAC members to take their children elsewhere to teach them to dive!
(you are not going to stop them from teaching them to dive!)

John

John Williams

27-02-2005, 03:32

TerryH

27-02-2005, 04:21

You have mail.

T.

janos

27-02-2005, 23:03

There is simply NO legal implication whatsoever in lowering our age limit to 12 (because there is no legal difference between a 14 year-old and a 12 year-old)

There is something though called Gillick Competance. AIUI this is a measure of a childs understanding of the consequence of their actions. I believe that the majority (but not all) of 14 year olds are Gillick competant, but the reverse is true for 12 year olds. However this really does vary on a case by case basis.

Laters,
Janos

Andy Wade

28-02-2005, 00:41

:=There is simply NO legal implication whatsoever in lowering our age limit to 12 (because there is no legal difference between a 14 year-old and a 12 year-old)

There is something though called Gillick Competance. AIUI this is a measure of a childs understanding of the consequence of their actions. I believe that the majority (but not all) of 14 year olds are Gillick competant, but the reverse is true for 12 year olds. However this really does vary on a case by case basis.

Thanks for that.
Phewww!!!
Gillick competence.
I've just read a few web pages about children and their ability to give consent. It's mainly about medical treatment as most cases have been regarding this, and been to courts as high as the law lords.
I thought that the 12 year olds diving issue was a bit of a minefield before, I do even more so now.
From a purely layman's view on what I've just read on Gillick competence, I feel that BSAC are potentially entering into a whole new realm and that we'd better get things right from the beginning. I don't envy the working group as there's a lot to consider here.
I think it's possible to get it right though, and that we will be able to admit 12 to 14 year olds into BSAC branches but that we do need a rigid framework to protect the children, the instructors, and the BSAC.
Peacemeal 'reccomendations' just won't cut it for me.
That we have no policy to protect the anonimity of anyone accused of impropriety worries me.
In law we're innocent until _proven_ guilty.
Hell, I'm amazed that the teaching unions haven't even sorted that one out.
Someone mentioned in another thread that children _want_ to be taught diving so there's less likely to be an accusation made against a diving instructor as the children are there of their own free will.
I don't fully agree. I reckon there is a chance that there will be children who will feel coerced by their peers, or their parents to take up diving, which puts the instructor at risk of an accusation.
Even one is too many.
If we don't give the potential instructors of children an informed choice by fully appraising them of all the issues then we will have failed some of our members (and I mean the children too in this). I hope we at least end up with a course to teach instructors how to deal with all the issues, and I'm even more in favour of 'Junior BSAC'.

.

janos

28-02-2005, 12:51

Thanks for that.

Don't thank me - Someone posted it elsewhere on another forum!

will swift

28-02-2005, 13:36

Terry,

Please explain how you feel that the law differentiates between a 19-year-old, a 17-year-old, a 14-year-old and a 12-year old.

In the eyes of the law the 19-year-old is an adult....the rest are children and as such are legally treated in EXACTLY the same way.

There is no legal difference between the three younger ones (with the possible exception that more care is taken over abuses of "positions of trust" in 16-18 year-olds)

There is simply NO legal implication whatsoever in lowering our age limit to 12 (because there is no legal difference between a 14 year-old and a 12 year-old)

Of course all training procedures and diving recommendations shpould be followed regardless of age - with children OR adults.

Anyone blatantly and consistently getting it wrong and not following guidelines set out by the parent organisation and agreed with the NGB SHOULD be closed down...so what's your point (and how is it relevant anyway?)

John

The Children and Young Persons act 1933,
The Children (Protection at Work) Regulations 1998 (SI 1998 No 276),
The 1994 EC Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC),
Family Law Reform Act 1969,
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

All these acts; instruments; directives and conventions differentiate between children of different ages, I'm sure there are many more examples.

Unless you are a lawyer, statements of fact about the law should be qualified that you are NOT a lawyer less those points become 'believed fact' through repetition. There are also numerous instances in case law where the age of a child is used to determine outcome that are not explicit in any parliamentary act.

john williams

01-03-2005, 19:31

There is something though called Gillick Competance. AIUI this is a measure of a childs understanding of the consequence of their actions. I believe that the majority (but not all) of 14 year olds are Gillick competant, but the reverse is true for 12 year olds. However this really does vary on a case by case basis.

No arguement from me here - at all.

Diver Training is surely one great big exercise in measuring "Gillick Competence"...though no-one ahs ever called it that to me before (and I'd never heard of it before reading it here!)

For trainees of ALL ages a good instructor will assess the trainees competence and grasp of the theory/skill just taught before moving on to the next. (Within the lesson as well as in terms of complete lessons)

This "progression" and the "feedback loop" is an integral part of the IFC philosophy that EVERY BSAC instructor is exposed to (and it was part of the ITC for those old enough to remember!)

The formal confirmation and legal assessment of competence comes in the form of theory papers - that must be passed, and in practical assessments that must be carried out by an impartial and qualified NQI. Diver trainees of all ages are subject to this test of "Gillick Competence" - as are divers every time they hit the water.

So what if 12 year-olds are not as likely to pass as 14 year-olds....let's take them on a case by case basis.

I know many people in their 20's, 30's, 40's (and in increasingly numbers after that) who are not "Gillick Competent" to get into the water. Should we ban all septuagenarans - because some become incompetent? (Mike Todd might have something to say about that in a decade or two!)

Why should we exclude the competent 12-year-old - just because his/her mates are not up to it yet?

If those we accept prove not to be ready yet...they will falter in the training (whatever their chronological age!)

John

john williams

01-03-2005, 19:50

I have - but I'd prefer the debate to remain public - so that all can benefit from our differing perspectives.

John

john williams

01-03-2005, 20:00

In the context we are discussing here few of those are considered relevant... because they deal with a work environment.

I am not a lawyer - but I took copious advice from the NSPCC, the CPSU, Sport England, SportsCoach UK and many other relevant bodies when I wrote the BSAC Welfare of the Vulnerable Policy and received permission to append the logos of those bodies who felt it relevant to append them. Their legal departments - who are by definition specialist in this field were of the opinion that in all instances we were likley to face in an amateur sporting arena there was no significant difference in the way children under the ages of 18 would be treated (with the possible exception of the increased risk of "Abuse of Trust" in 16-18 year-olds).

The working environment issues have already been considered and BSAC schools who already provide training to under 14's seem to be doing OK with it. Other agencies who only train in a commercial (i.e. working) encironment also seem to have overcome the legal difficulties involved to a lower age. I can't see it being a problem for the BSAC as a whole to overcome them as well (even if we were compelled to do so!)

Though, of course, we should be very careful to do so whether or not we are compelled to do it.

John

will swift

02-03-2005, 10:01