You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
“the legal route taken, we now have a dangerous precedent that could easily exhaust the capacity of volunteer organisations to cover every eventuality”
I may be wrong but I would have thought because it was settled out of court no legal precedent has been set. Which may be one of the reasons why the Scout association has settled, that and the value of £40k vs legal fees potentially much much higher.
Still agree it’s a new low taking the Scouts to Court at all.
You seem to be ‘imagining’ a lot into what is a settled out of court situation.
No shit. This is STW, were you expecting an informed and well research opinion? I'm making assumptions based on the BBC article I read. God knows what the truth is. Who cares, this is trial by media.
It might not technically be a "legal precedent" but it is definitely going to make a certain type of person sit up and take notice.
>Having children with or without special needs confers responsibility, after all.
You'd think so, but not necessarily. My mother was a special needs teacher and some parents would give their kids laxative before dropping them off at school, so they didn't have to deal with the mess at home....
>It might not technically be a “legal precedent” but it is definitely going to make a certain type of person sit up and take notice.
Parents who think they can make a quick £42k from having a disabled child...
When you draw parallels with the workplace...
Surely uther Scout groups could now mitigate this by saying that reasonable adjustments will be made to accomodate kids in these scenarios, and that this reasonable adjustment is that a parent, carer or other trained individual is present. Kind of goes back to the OP but recognising the issue officially and having a conversation upfront.
There are an awful lot of wild assumptions being made on this thread. Maybe as the facts are rather thin on the ground we could stop imagining the events and motivations as well as determining guilt.
Just a thought.
^ there's also a lot of empathy and considered opinion. This thread seems more sensible than most TBH.
I've been in similar situations within cubs and scouts a few times - where a child's needs/behavior is impossible to accommodate during things like camps or excursions, without additional leaders/helpers (which are extremely thin on the ground). It was handled by having a conversation with the parents of the child, explaining that without additional parents volunteering to come along, the trip/camp would not be viable and would have to be cancelled entirely...... Perhaps they would like to volunteer?
The BBC article I read contained the disclaimer that the Scout Association disagreed with some of the facts as presented by the boys parents. I suspect this was to do with the parent's willingness to step-in and help out - for the simple reason that if the parent was willing to attend, there would be absolutely no need to "exclude" the child from any activity whatsoever.
As others have mentioned, some parents really want to be involved and enjoy sharing these experiences with their children, others literally don't get out of the car to drop-off / pick-up their kids.
There are an awful lot of wild assumptions being made on this thread. Maybe as the facts are rather thin on the ground we could stop imagining the events and motivations as well as determining guilt.
Just a thought.
Oh, grow up.
It seemed to me the disagreement centered around the Scouts saying the parents had to be there for everything and the parents arguing in other similar situations (e.g. school activities) they weren't expected to be there for every type of activity so it was unreasonable for the Scouts to impose that condition. The breakdown could have just been the Scout leader not wanting the extra hassle so refusing to discuss options with the family and sticking to the 1:1 for everything rule.
Given both parents are working maybe it was impossible to always be available for 1:1 supervision so it would have meant him missing out on a lot of the activities. Sure you could say work less etc. but that might not always be feasible.
Ofc this is all speculation, they could just be money-grabbing scum who expect everyone to bend to their wishes but they certainly have some balls going on TV etc. and making a big deal of this is that's the case as I'd have thought there's plenty of journos that would love to expose them if they were.
I assume that all Beaver, Cub and Scout leaders on here have checked their email this morning...
New guidance, or a load of paperwork needed to help them audit current practices?
New guidance, or a load of paperwork needed to help them audit current practices?
Invoking the Doomsday Protocol. That's what they've been preparing for this whole time.
I've always thought the Beavers would be the first to rise up in the battle against the Deep State.
I’ve always thought the Beavers would be the first to rise up in the battle against the Deep State.
Village of the Dammed?
>Invoking the Doomsday Protocol. That’s what they’ve been preparing for this whole time.
I'd always suspected as much....
@ perchy
Thanks. I just had it stuffed.
I assume that all Beaver, Cub and Scout leaders on here have checked their email this morning
Yup, no word from on high as yet. Though maybe as a lowly assistant leader I'm not high enough up the ladder for such info 🙂
New guidance, or a load of paperwork needed to help them audit current practices?
Dunno yet. I've not followed all of the links. Something about Autism and Inclusion.
Given both parents are working maybe it was impossible to always be available for 1:1 supervision so it would have meant him missing out on a lot of the activities. Sure you could say work less etc. but that might not always be feasible.
Scouts tends to be evenings and weekends, doubtful two lawyers would have both been working evenings and weekends. I really feel for them having to raise a child with special needs, it can be very frustrating and in some cases soul destroying. However it is not right to expect a team of volunteers to accommodate your child and when they can't, sue them.
Feel sorry for the kid having the details of this splashed across the national news. He will find it very difficult to find any clubs willing to take him and that now publicized phobia of spoons will be something that bullies can use to torment him.
Surely there must have been a point where his parents could have taken a step back from legal action and pursued this in a more constructive fashion with the senior leadership of The Scouts?
angeldust
Subscriber
Oh, grow up.
That has to be one of the least mature responses I have ever seen on STW - and I have been around a few years...
There are many people conducting a bit of a witch hunt regarding the parents on here. I’m suggesting we give them and the Scouts a bit of a break. It’s a difficult situation for both parties. They’ve agreed their positions - so what value does this add. None.
I won’t waste my time waiting for another of your nuanced and insightful responses.
>Surely there must have been a point where his parents could have taken a step back from legal action and pursued this in a more constructive fashion with the senior leadership of The Scouts?
I'm sure there were many, but being lawyers they just saw it as a chance to make some cash....
It’s a difficult situation for both parties.
Agreed. However one party is £42K better off whilst the other has a potential headache in reviewing and assessing it's procedures to make sure that all children are accommodated regardless of the impact on others.
I can't help feeling that if the parents just wanted raise awareness of the problem and spur some action from the Scout Association, then their next move should be to donate £42k + legal costs back to the local troop to help pay for the additional provision and training.
I'd echo most of the thoughts on this thread. I was a parent helper through Beavers and then into cubs. I was even dropped into 'Leader' with no training for quite some time as the existing Leader left and there wasn't anyone else to help. We had a few kids with disabilities, including my son (Type 1 but not until last year of Scouts).
As said it's all volunteers and it's sometimes way too much to expect out of them. One young lad was quite severely disabled but he had a carer that would come along as he needed 1 to 1. Even with a carer he was quite a handful, and on one camp he sprinted away, carer couldn't catch him and ran in front of a tractor.
It's very difficult getting any parents to help - we'd tried, but we were seen as a babysitting service
This is my take on it.
The inclusiveness demanded to take children that have highly dependent needs is something set by the equality laws of the land. No issue with this.
Therefore, this is where the welfare state should come in. As a country we have decided that equal access should be given to all, no matter if their needs can be provided by volunteers, and so it should be the country that supports this.
Ergo, the scouts should have be able to welcome this child with welcome arms knowing that the parents will be able provide the support that is given to them as the parents of an autistic child.
Slight caveat of this is that if it's the state that's providing this support, they should also take into account that the parents should be providing x amount of support in their roles as, well, erm, parents, and so it's not just a case of getting it every time.
What shouldn't happen is that the Scouts, in this case, form part of the welfare state and start providing extra care beyond their means therefore disadvantaging other children. It's what taxes should be for.
Slight caveat of this is that if it’s the state that’s providing this support, they should also take into account that the parents should be providing x amount of support in their roles as, well, erm, parents, and so it’s not just a case of getting it every time.
^This.
We have friends who home school as the local schools (rural, small, under-supported and funded) could not cope well with their two autistic children. They home school. Despite 'saving' the state £11k a year by doing this, there is no extra support or finances forthcoming. Mum works flexi around the kids and schooling, so reducing income even further.
That said, I wonder how many parents would see the money for the support of their child as something to donate to scouts, in order to employ a specific person to support child...?
... has a potential headache in reviewing and assessing it’s procedures to make sure that all children are accommodated regardless of the impact on others.
Several years ago I used to work with a national organisation providing training to its equivalent of Scout Leaders on the Disability Discrimination Act (as it was at the time) along with other equality legislation, ensuring that they knew the obligations and also where in the large organisation to turn to for help if they needed support to make reasonable adjustments, or to explain to service users why they could not be accommodated [there is NOT compulsion that a service must be offered if doing so would ruin it for others]. I'd be pretty surprised if the S.A. do not have a similar programme for training its staff and senior volunteers. Whilst its possible that two parents got on their high horse and saw a money making opportunity, I'd suggest its at least as likely that those who should have known better dealt with the situation badly, potentially refused some of the reasonable adjustments proposed here (such as the parent coming along - after all if the parents are PITA that may not be such a simple solution) and didn't deal with an initial complaint properly.
The parents of Type 1 children in this thread present an interesting example. I'd argue that involvement with Scouts is about developing as a young person outside of the protective envelope of your parents, particularly for those who might have extra requirements [my local group try to use parent volunteers in the other age groups so you don't have to see your children!]. Whilst its great that you've been able to accommodate your children within the Scout group by volunteering there is potential for other routes to achieving the same objective, which might actually help them get a wider / more rounded scouting experience. I know of one school where the teachers and leaders on a school "camp" were all provided some specific training by the local diabetes specialist nurse so that a child could participate as normally as possible.
It might not technically be a “legal precedent” but it is definitely going to make a certain type of person sit up and take notice.
Hopefully - all those who should have been providing an inclusive service before but avoid dealing with anyone a bit different. I doubt there are many parents of autistic children rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a complex legal battle because their child has been discriminated against - most would much rather their child got the best possible opportunities to start with.
That said, I wonder how many parents would see the money for the support of their child as something to donate to scouts, in order to employ a specific person to support child…?
Just to clarify, support given to autistic parents to help their children access activities run by voluntary organisations wouldn't be in the form of cash. They could get (arbitrary finger in the wind time), let's say, 8 hours of support a month, which would provide help for 2 hour sessions per week or a full dayer each month with a support bod in place. Would be a reasonable use of taxpayers cash I think.
It would be nice if they decided to donate the money to charitable cause. The Scouts maybe?
deleted
A US version going on at the moment to (but for different circumstances) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43469886
On the plus side they're only suing for $1 so it's to make a statement rather than extract money from a voluntary organisation. On the flip side - if Eagle scouts are performing leadership roles and guiding other scouts then I can kind of understand why it wouldn't be suitable to make him an Eagle scout in it's current form but no reason they couldn't adjust the responsibilities/entrance requirements for those with disabilities
As for the UK case - agree that if the parents don't donate their payout to charity it's going to reflect very poorly on them.