Re: Transporting young people (Scouts)

Thank you all very much.
So it is probibly best I don't use them.for under 16.
,but If I had to there is no spesific rules saying I can't.

What would be my options safe seating in my 90?
What are peoples opinions/experience of the following

Fitting the centre "pervert seat"

Fitting forward facing rear seats from Exmoor Trim
(http://www.exmoortrim.co.uk/extra seats.htm)

Fitting Discovery II forward facing rear seats. (I beleive JE Engineering do
this as a interior upgrade for Defenders)
This would posibly be DIY fitting. (I have access to milling machines,
lathes and welding gear If needed)

Any other options?

Regards JJ

Gordon <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Any other options?
> >
> > Regards JJ
>
> Yes, Give up, I'm afraid. That's what our anti-everything government
> wants. What with insurance for evreything under the sun, Police CRB
> checks if you have to so much as look at a child let alone carry one
> in your car, no 4x4s in London, etc etc. Its getting so difficult to
> do voluntary servcie activities nowadays that the sooner we all stop,
> the sooner Westminster will realise that society is failing to get the
> benefits and sort out the whole mess of vountary service. It's the
> americans and their "sue everyone" attitude that everyone is so afraid
> of, and unfortunately it seems to be coming over here.
>
> Rant mode off,
>
> Gordon

Hmmm - I'm unsure as to exactly why our yp shouldn't be entitled to be
protected (as far as possible) from the attentions of pervs, paedophiles and
the like or why those of use working in the voluntary sector should be
allowed to give a lower standard of care / service to our "clients", but
perhaps the voluntary sector shouldn't have to conform to modern norms and
latest thinking. Special case, and all that. Or not!!!!!

As to alternatives for carrying Scouts in the 90 - all the forward facing
seat options you've mentioned are probably good but you'll not like the
cost! Notwithstanding what I've said before, there's no reason why you can't
use the rear seats of course (John seemed to suggest there is a ruling in
PoR - but I can't find anything and he's not responded).

It's a difficult quandary - on the one hand, those of us in (or who were in)
a Movement like Scouting usually buy something like a Landy specifically for
it's multitude of uses in Scouting and in a sense that makes sense of some
of what Gordon says - we give of our time and provide a resource that in
turn maybe doesn't fulfil the spirit of legislation intended to curb the
excesses of commercial operators who put three kids on a seat intended for 2
adults and used crew-buses as cheap transport for schools / youth groups /
whatever.

Children aren't some form of second-class citizen and are entitled to all
the protection they can be given, especially when they are at risk from the
unscrupulous of whatever form.

I wish you well with your decision.

Mike.

Mike Buckley wrote:

>
> Gordon <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> > Any other options?
>> >
>> > Regards JJ
>>
>> Yes, Give up, I'm afraid. That's what our anti-everything government
>> wants. What with insurance for evreything under the sun, Police CRB
>> checks if you have to so much as look at a child let alone carry one
>> in your car, no 4x4s in London, etc etc. Its getting so difficult to
>> do voluntary servcie activities nowadays that the sooner we all stop,
>> the sooner Westminster will realise that society is failing to get the
>> benefits and sort out the whole mess of vountary service. It's the
>> americans and their "sue everyone" attitude that everyone is so afraid
>> of, and unfortunately it seems to be coming over here.
>>
>> Rant mode off,
>>
>> Gordon
>
> Hmmm - I'm unsure as to exactly why our yp shouldn't be entitled to be
> protected (as far as possible) from the attentions of pervs, paedophiles
> and the like or why those of use working in the voluntary sector should be
> allowed to give a lower standard of care / service to our "clients", but
> perhaps the voluntary sector shouldn't have to conform to modern norms and
> latest thinking. Special case, and all that. Or not!!!!!
>
> As to alternatives for carrying Scouts in the 90 - all the forward facing
> seat options you've mentioned are probably good but you'll not like the
> cost! Notwithstanding what I've said before, there's no reason why you
> can't use the rear seats of course (John seemed to suggest there is a
> ruling in PoR - but I can't find anything and he's not responded).
>
> It's a difficult quandary - on the one hand, those of us in (or who were
> in) a Movement like Scouting usually buy something like a Landy
> specifically for it's multitude of uses in Scouting and in a sense that
> makes sense of some of what Gordon says - we give of our time and provide
> a resource that in turn maybe doesn't fulfil the spirit of legislation
> intended to curb the excesses of commercial operators who put three kids
> on a seat intended for 2 adults and used crew-buses as cheap transport for
> schools / youth groups / whatever.
>
> Children aren't some form of second-class citizen and are entitled to all
> the protection they can be given, especially when they are at risk from
> the unscrupulous of whatever form.
>
> I wish you well with your decision.
>
> Mike.
Not to comment on the specific case, but this is the sort of problem that is
always arising when we decide that "something" needs to be done to protect
against "something". The decision is easy - raise the standards. But there
are usually unintended consequences, which may well have adverse effects
that have more adverse effects than the change is intended to improve,
simply because it has not been thought through.

A good example here is that following the conviction of a volunteer
firefighter for lighting fires, all volunteer firefighters will be required
to have police checks. If actually enforced, this will require either a
substantial increase in police funding (because of the numbers involved)
and will possibly cost more than the total spent by the government on rural
firefighting. It will also result in a lot (most?) people deciding it is
not worth the hassle, so volunteering will gradually dry up. And there
will probably be no firebugs stopped from joining brigades, since very few
have police records!

Sooner or later we have to face the fact that there is no such thing as
perfect safety - and the cost of safety increases exponentiually as we get
closer to perfect safety.
JD

On or around 19 Jul 2004 05:18:34 -0700, [email protected] (Gordon)
enlightened us thusly:

>Police CRB
>checks if you have to so much as look at a child

got them bleddy things here. have to take the form, in person, with 3
(minimum) bits of ID to the office, 30 miles away. *both* of us.

feckem.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
If all be true that I do think, There are five reasons we should drink;
Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest we should be by and by;
Or any other reason why. - Henry Aldrich (1647 - 1710)

> Any other options?
>
> Regards JJ

Yes, Give up, I'm afraid. That's what our anti-everything government
wants. What with insurance for evreything under the sun, Police CRB
checks if you have to so much as look at a child let alone carry one
in your car, no 4x4s in London, etc etc. Its getting so difficult to
do voluntary servcie activities nowadays that the sooner we all stop,
the sooner Westminster will realise that society is failing to get the
benefits and sort out the whole mess of vountary service. It's the
americans and their "sue everyone" attitude that everyone is so afraid
of, and unfortunately it seems to be coming over here.

Rant mode off,

Gordon

Gordon <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Any other options?
> >
> > Regards JJ
>
> Yes, Give up, I'm afraid. That's what our anti-everything government
> wants. What with insurance for evreything under the sun, Police CRB
> checks if you have to so much as look at a child let alone carry one
> in your car, no 4x4s in London, etc etc. Its getting so difficult to
> do voluntary servcie activities nowadays that the sooner we all stop,
> the sooner Westminster will realise that society is failing to get the
> benefits and sort out the whole mess of vountary service. It's the
> americans and their "sue everyone" attitude that everyone is so afraid
> of, and unfortunately it seems to be coming over here.
>
> Rant mode off,
>
> Gordon

Hmmm - I'm unsure as to exactly why our yp shouldn't be entitled to be
protected (as far as possible) from the attentions of pervs, paedophiles and
the like or why those of use working in the voluntary sector should be
allowed to give a lower standard of care / service to our "clients", but
perhaps the voluntary sector shouldn't have to conform to modern norms and
latest thinking. Special case, and all that. Or not!!!!!

As to alternatives for carrying Scouts in the 90 - all the forward facing
seat options you've mentioned are probably good but you'll not like the
cost! Notwithstanding what I've said before, there's no reason why you can't
use the rear seats of course (John seemed to suggest there is a ruling in
PoR - but I can't find anything and he's not responded).

It's a difficult quandary - on the one hand, those of us in (or who were in)
a Movement like Scouting usually buy something like a Landy specifically for
it's multitude of uses in Scouting and in a sense that makes sense of some
of what Gordon says - we give of our time and provide a resource that in
turn maybe doesn't fulfil the spirit of legislation intended to curb the
excesses of commercial operators who put three kids on a seat intended for 2
adults and used crew-buses as cheap transport for schools / youth groups /
whatever.

Children aren't some form of second-class citizen and are entitled to all
the protection they can be given, especially when they are at risk from the
unscrupulous of whatever form.

I wish you well with your decision.

Mike.