Does anyone know why specifically Laserquest is not an approved activity?
A letter came out from the COS stating that although some things weren’t included under MOD insurance (like bowling), we were still able to do them because we would be insured by the provider, so why is Laserquest so different?
Probably find it has something to do with cadets shooting at each other.
But if this is the reason why HQAC don’t just say we don’t like paintball, laserquest etc because cadets are shooting at each other, rather than the usual high-handed it’s not approved, with no explanation, then I’m sure we’d all be a lot happier about it and able to proffer a proper rarionale to those who ask.
I’d normally arrange something like this via the CWC as a social basis, where parents drop and pick, and as you say the establishment has to have insurance and so on that covers it.
Don’t suppose anyone has a copy of this letter ?
MB
Its A non educational purose it then is not covered by ATC Insurance so you can arrange the activity outside the sqn and stand it down while it happens…
I have checked and laser quest is covered by MOD indemnity for all MOD sponsored cadet forces. Whether or not your HQ will let you do it is another matter. An approved laser quest site should also have it’s own insurance.
It is worth noting that the MOD does not provide insurance per se but it does provide indemnity as it has the funds to do so it is simpler (=and probably far cheaper than getting an insurance policy through the usual suppliers.
We are allowed to do lots of things that are to all intents “non educational” that are covered. Laserquest and paintball could be regarded as opportunities to put leadership, FMS and marksmanship into action. Well more so than runniing around the woods or traning area shouting “bang”.
Actually, you can’t (well not really).
By “organising” anything you give the impression of it being a cadet activity. If I, as a member of staff, told cadets to turn up to my local paintball arena at 10am on X date and meet everyone else, they and parents will assume it is a cadet event.
My issue is that when John gets tetanus from a rusty nail on the site, he will sue the site, not the MOD. So why does having MOD indemnity matter or not?
Incidentally, we can do paintball - but only at static targets. It’s in ACP300 and everything.
Not really Paintball in the terms your average bod would understand though, it’s just another way of getting cadets shooting as such. I bet you’d still need all the bumf that goes with shooting to do it though, such is the jobsworth anality around anything shooting related.
[quote]By “organising” anything you give the impression of it being a cadet activity. If I, as a member of staff, told cadets to turn up to my local paintball arena at 10am on X date and meet everyone else, they and parents will assume it is a cadet event.
My issue is that when John gets tetanus from a rusty nail on the site, he will sue the site, not the MOD. So why does having MOD indemnity matter or not? [/quote]
Yeah I know what you mean, which is why so many have stopped doing things. As to why the ATC haven’t yet got their heads around the fact that for anywhere to run any sort of event or operate as a business, they have to have insurance in place, such that hurt yourself you can go after them, if you can be bothered. They must live in a different dimension to everyone else, seeing a claim for every chipped fingernail and paper cut. I’ve seen cadets break an arm or leg playing football and rugby and the parents just see it as part of the game.
I tell NCOs to arrange things between themselves as mates, take money and if necessary get the CWC to go to where ever and do the money. They’ve done a few things like that. The CWC record it as a social on the records, job done.
I’m surprised that when we buy pizza, “fish n chips”, burgers etc for the cadets, the plae where we do the christmas meal, or let them loose on some town we don’t need to get copies of the food hygiene certs and so on for all the possible places they may go.
I would be very very careful doing this - you involve any element of the “adult” part of the squadron, and if the funds so much as look like theyre touching the CWC or sqn account as far as anyone is concerned you’re sanctioning the activity.
If a bunch fo cadets organise it outside the squadron with no input/involvement from staff then they can do whatever they want, as mates. What you describe could cause a world of issues - I’m not commenting upon whether its justified or not, just that the issues surrounding it are real.
Who says laserquest is a banned activity?
I’m listed on an approved pipe for the very activity that took place recently. Fully approved, it was put in as a team building activity.
[quote=“Operation Dynamo” post=286]
My issue is that when John gets tetanus from a rusty nail on the site, he will sue the site, not the MOD. So why does having MOD indemnity matter or not?[/quote]
I am no expert on law, but perhaps parents could sue the MOD as well as it was an officially organised activity? Either way, it is on the list.
I would be very very careful doing this - you involve any element of the “adult” part of the squadron, and if the funds so much as look like theyre touching the CWC or sqn account as far as anyone is concerned you’re sanctioning the activity.
If a bunch fo cadets organise it outside the squadron with no input/involvement from staff then they can do whatever they want, as mates. What you describe could cause a world of issues - I’m not commenting upon whether its justified or not, just that the issues surrounding it are real.[/quote]
Well it’s happened, recorded on the accounts and no one has queried it and why should they as the CWC are doing what they should do and they know what’s happening. If they weren’t happy, my CWC would definitely say something. If HQAC or anyone queried individual items, I’d be open about it. The financial assistance, which is all that happens, is no different from the time the CWC helped a lad buy some parade shoes, long story, the implication is if the lad tripped over the laces, we’d somehow be culpable similarly as we have said what shoes to buy or if he fell over in the shop or on the way, because we said which shop to go to. You can apply this paranoia to any situation where we suggest something. Sorry but we are a youth organisation that has a remit to assist cadets and staff with the costs of things.
What you are suggesting is the sort of paranoia that has resulted in boom in the sales of safety kit (I wish I’d seen that coming), “safety training” (money for old rope) and extortion ie the rise in PLI premiums which in the last few years have rocketed unjustifiably and in conjunction with other “safety issues” adversely affected much of what goes on in the community. A village group I am on has seen PLI for £5M cover increase from £60 to £280 in 9 years and we now have to pay a £300 “premium” to the council to park cars on a playing field, just in case someone tries to sue the council for damages and provide an RA. Before that the park had been used for as long as anyone can remember, with no more than a letter to council letting them know. It has always been marked with barrier tape and stakes and people directing traffc.
As for involvement, what involvement? The cadets go and there are no staff or other adults around apart from any staff or CWC who are parents on a mum/dad taxi mission. Those parents attached to the sqn, don’t see it as a cadet activity, so why anyone else would baffles me. I wouldn’t have said the school was responsible if they arranged a trip and my kids hurt themselves while on it. But maybe I’m in an absolute minority who live with their feet on the ground can’t be bothered with ‘ambulance chasing” and there is a massive majority in cloud land looking to make a few quid.
If I was told staff had to attend cadet social activities because the CWC had part funded it, that would IMO put the kybosh on them, as I have far better things to do than supervise it. I would strongly urge staff not to either. We give up enough time as unpaid volunteer babysitters already.
GHE2 - it’s not a difficult concept to grasp, and I am speaking not just as an OC, but with my non-ATC professional hat on - if “unauthorised activities” (or indeed, authorised activities without the proper planning etc being in place) are arranged through, or administered through the CWC and things go balls up then however well intentioned the bown and sticky will hit the fan.
As soon as things start going through accounts as far as anyone is concerned it’ll be seen as being sanctioned by CWC, and therefore by you.
I’m not surprised it hasn’t been picked up by anyone - why would they? Accounts reviews in my experience generally concentrate on the bottom line figures, not each line of the accounts and whats gone in etc. But I’ll bet my ass that if an accident happened, and a complaint was raised it’d be picked up faster than a pound coin dropped on a Glasgow high street.
If you want to do it, hell, its your trainset and your ass, crack on by all means, but don’t say you haven’t been warned. Chances are nothing will ever happen, but that one time something does… (see the reports about the ACF Major involved in the boating accident, and his fine…)
I suppose I’d add, I don’t think that squadron funds should be used to assist jollies like laserquest - there’s much better things to spend the cash on.
I’d echo those comments, and for not only the reasons highlighted above, but for the additional restrictions, caveats, rules, policy and chastising briefing notes which fall down from high above when people don’t follow the policy line. Like it or not, those are the rules. You always have another option.
Which is not bother, easiest and simplest option and one I imagine many in the Corps take, because the paperchase for a couple of hours at some venue insured up to the hilt, is too much aggro to even contemplate, it’s beginning to get that way with community events. Plus as I said I’m not doing anymore babysitting than I or my staff have to. I’ve done my time worrying about teenagers running amok at ‘party venues’ with my own kids, to ever need it with cadets.
If a sidgen of commonsense came into play at HQAC then none of this would ever have been an issue, But unfortunately commonsense and HQAC are not natural bedfellows.
If a parent ever came to me after an incident they’d be pointed to the venue.
[quote=“mike bravo” post=230]Don’t suppose anyone has a copy of this letter ?
MB[/quote]
It appears attachments aren’t working…? I’ve just tried to upload the letter and can’t get it to work!
No worries, if it’s on sharepoint just point me in the right direction to find it.
Cheers
MB
[quote=“mike bravo” post=507]No worries, if it’s on sharepoint just point me in the right direction to find it.
Cheers
MB[/quote]
Here it is!