CRB Checks (was: Trade,Ratty is it worth it)

[Kithran]

I think that if every DM (or even 1 DM per room whilst gaming is taking place) requires a CRB check and it does cost money then it will hurt a lot of conventions. Conception has an indeterminate number of rooms (due to games being run in chalets - this has to be done nowadays as the number of games goes up whilst the amount of space stays constant). Gen Con UK had 12 different rooms used for roleplaying just in the HUMSS building (a number of which only had 2 tables in them). Both conventions also have another problem - what happens with overseas DMs (off the top of my head we had Gen Con UK DMs travel from America, Germany, Holland and Australia and the countries people live in are not necessarily realted their nationality, previous Conceptions have also had DMs from even more countries).

Kithran

[Mick Red]

would it not be far easier to state any child wishing to play in any game must have a parent/guardian present? problem sorted

[Kithran]

would it not be far easier to state any child wishing to play in any game must have a parent/guardian present? problem sorted

I think the various acts speak of children as under 18s. There are plenty of congoers who are under 18 (I know I went to some one-day pbm cons when I was 16).

Kithran

[Phil Masters]

I think the various acts speak of children as under 18s.

Seems to be the implication - though some of the people here who've dug into the subject can say with more certainty. I can imagine a lot of 16-year-olds feeling a little narked to discover that they can come to a con, but they then have to have Mum or Dad along for the entire duration if they want to play the sort of D&D game that they play with their mates every weekend...

[Kithran]

Plus there are also more far reaching consequences - if you assume a DM has to be CRB checked then that would also apply to any time a demo game is run in a retail location (because as I read it a shop owner needn't be CRB checked). and that it would also probably apply for games shops running Magic or Yu-gi-oh tournaments (which are often a good source of revenue for small gamestores) etc. etc. etc.

Kithran

[pedr]

Yep, a child is someone under eighteen. It is, however, worth looking at paragraphs 3.8 to 3.12 of the government consultation document (http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/L ... dition=Web) which discusses 'merely incidental' and activity targeted at a mixed-age group where 16 and 17 year olds are part of the group, rather than activity targeted at under 18s. I do not know whether the proposals in those paragraphs have been or will be reflected in legislation - they might well form part of the legislation which brings the new scheme into force. They suggest that mixed-age teaching, instruction, or training activity which includes 16 and 17 year olds would not be 'regulated'. Activity including under 16s would be, though.

This still leaves the question of what is covered by the definition of 'regulated activity'. I've done a bit more reading, and I imagine that from the government's perspective they would probably consider anything which brought adults into contact with children in the course of providing recreational activities to be 'regulated activity' under the new Act - which appears to be set for introduction phased in from next month. I'm not convinced that interpretation is correct - I still find it hard to see any meaningful teaching, training, instruction, supervision or care in the GM's role, or in anyone's role at a games convention aside from specific child-focused events. Taking lots and lots of advice would be advisable, though!

There are some advantages to the new scheme, if/when it comes into operation: the portability problems mentioned earlier will disappear, or largely disappear, as once someone is registered with the Independent Safeguarding Agency (free for volunteers, £64 for non-volunteers, I believe) that registration will be persistent, and there will not be a charge on any employer or volunteer co-ordinator checking the registration status of someone they want to engage as an employee or volunteer. On the other hand, Kithran's concern about overseas volunteers appears well-founded - they will (mainly!) not be registered, and it will be an offence to engage in regulated activity if not registered, or to allow someone to engage in regulated activity if they aren't registered.

[Phil Masters]

Simply working out whether or not GM's should have been being CRB checked all along isn't going to change anything 'on the ground' at all. People under 18 have been attending conventions for years, playing games and running them. Surely it makes sense to ensure that the legalities are at least understood, and followed as much as possible?

Absolutely. However, I think it's also important to point out what follows from any particular conclusion. If cons start having to enforce any sort of serious CRB-checking policy, either out of excessive caution or because it turns out that the law actually says that they must, the knock-on effect may well be to drive some people away. I'd probably be one of them, but I don't think that I'd be alone.

If you've got a 'child' at your table then you'd still be RUNNING A GAME. Would you make considerations because of age? Depends on your choice and the child in question, does that constitute looking after them? No!

Personally, I completely agree. However, at least one poster here, who's apparently researched this subject with some care, has concluded that, sometimes, Yes, it does constitute looking after them. This strikes me as potentially very bad news for a lot of cons.

Oh, and are there any 18+ cons?

Yes, in fact. I can certainly name a few from past experience, and some of them are still running regularly - though I'd have to check their latest small print.

This isn't out of any particular hostility to kids; it's simply because they're smaller cons, run in buildings (hotel suites, small colleges, student unions, etc.) which happen to incorporate licensed bars, and keeping members out of those bars is either impossible or more trouble than it's worth. The licensing laws at least have the virtue of relative simplicity and clarity...

[pedr]

I don't think it's 'looking after them' ("care for or supervision of") - though I agree it's arguable. I personally don't think it's "teaching, training, or instruction" either, though clearly this is where things are more borderline. Certainly sports clubs consider what they do to require checks under the current regime, as do model flying clubs (see: http://www.manifestoclub.com/node/140 for instance)

Activity promoted specifically for children to take part in, rather than activity promoted for people of all ages, is more likely to be covered by one or both of those categories, of course. The consultation document is an interesting read on this, and has some of the better examples I've seen - though of course the extent to which its suggestions will be implemented remain to be seen.

Phil's concern about 18+ events is the worry going round all hobby activities, though - the report at manifestoclub.com discusses the vast number of model flying clubs which no longer accept members under 18 for this reason.

[Paul H]

Hi

What's this about 'Regulated Activity'? Does that mean retailers selling CCG's & toys (and Games Workshop, for that matter) all require CRB's? It could be argued that shopping is a 'Regulated Activity'. And what about 'Vulnerable Adults'? As someone on Incapacity Benefit I could be classed as 'vulnerable'. So does the 17yr old GM running my LG scenario have to be CRB checked, even though I'm 51!

Seriously, though, any child under a certain age should have a parent/guardian in the near vicinity. The debate has so far been about organisers & GM's. It doesn't cover someone wandering off alone on a very big campus. I believe that some of the organisers/event co-ordinators should have CRB checks, and be responsible just for their building/area. Other staff can then get a 'Child Aware' briefing, with regular communication with campus security.

Cheers
Paul H

[darrell]

Please don't anyone read this the wrong way, but, wouldn't it be wonderful if it could all be put down to "use common sense"?

[dpmcalister]

...Games Workshop...

GW do CRB check their staff. Or, at least, they did the last time I enquired about employment with them (around 18 months ago).

As someone on Incapacity Benefit I could be classed as 'vulnerable'. So does the 17yr old GM running my LG scenario have to be CRB checked, even though I'm 51!

I doubt it's a "simple" as what sort of benefit you may be on but, yes, if you were classed as vulnerable and your game was run as part of a club (which I know it is ), then your GM would need to be CRB checked. I believe you can't be CRB checked until you're no longer a minor though (so your 17 year old GM would be exempt that check).

These are the sorts of questions clubs need to be worrying about now though (I know this thread is about conventions but it applies equally to clubs).

[Phil Masters]

Seriously, though, any child under a certain age should have a parent/guardian in the near vicinity.

Define "a certain age". Seriously - I suspect that a lot of people would assume that, say, 15-16 year olds and above can run around conventions on their own - but so far as I can make out, the law covers everyone up to the age of 18. Which strikes me as a potential source of quite a bit of grief.

[StuartBall]

<tangent>
It's especially confusing when certain think tanks want to lower the age of voting to 16.

So you can take the Queens schilling, but you cannot run round a games convention.

S'a tad odd.

</tangent>

Daisy Doo!

Stuart

*who is booked in for ITNG Rehab after the current season ends.

[chronos]

<tangent>

You can take the queen's shilling, but your not allowed to go on active duty until your 18!

</tangent>

[dpmcalister]

<tangent>

You can take the queen's shilling, but your not allowed to go on active duty until your 18!

</tangent>

Yes, a common misconception (one that I myself had before I joined the military). You weren't even allowed, in the RAF at least, to be on armed guard at your unit if you were under 18.

Back on topic though, this is a massive can of worms and, to be perfectly honest, I'm glad I'm not a convention organiser. All it takes is one problem and the whole thing turns from a can into a minefield