Chess Scotland Event/ PVG

[WBuchanan]

Pat: “Unless the article is completely wrong then the role and responsibility of congress/tournament directors is clear, no arbiter/controller can work with a junior unless they have up to date PVG clearance that is specific to that organisation.”

Though a bit misleading, the article doesn’t make the claim as strongly as that. The ‘incidental’ clause I linked to above means that you don’t become a criminal just because a child walks into the room. I doubt the law was meant to apply to the situation of people working with the mostly adult public, certanly not on an occasional basis. If you stretch that point just a bit more you could become a criminal just by standing still if a child came up to you – as with all laws, a bit of common sense is needed as regards when it applies (especially when you hear ‘there are no exceptions’ :\ )

[Patrick McGovern]

Walter, the article and my quotes from it specifically mention working with children so the "incidental" part is not being debated. what is also clear in the article and the quote from it is, there are no exceptions. I think this makes it clear and is not misleading.

[WBuchanan]

But Pat, how can an article “make clear” that there are no exceptions, if it’s not what the law actually says? In all the illustrative examples on the government website, ‘working with children’ means groups of children – not adults with the odd child thrown in. And it means regular.

I could still be wrong, but it looks like the CS advice that you are quoting is, despite it's unequivocal wording, stating the CS view (or policy?) not the law. And as Andy says, this (rather extreme, IMO) interpretation isn’t being followed. No reason why it should really (except for junior tournaments obviously), without a bit more explanation of the CS view. Cheers anyway, guess we'll be seeing some clarification soon :-)

[Andy Howie]

Pat,

You seem to have missed what I was getting at. You said you would be surprised. The reality is something different. There are very few tournaments that have a complete team of CS Registered arbiters

[Patrick McGovern]

then I am surprised Andy. I assumed all arbiters with the exception of one that i know about had PVG status. Given the law and the CS rule on this then organisers are taking a risk, a risk they clearly know about. I sincerely hope that nothing goes wrong or that anyone complains.
Would it not be simpler to get arbiters PVG status, after all it seems straightforward enough?

[Patrick McGovern]

Walter I agree with you, i never meant a child or an occasional child; we are discussing junior tournaments and tournaments where juniors play in, which means almost all tournaments in Scotland. The law is very clear in this case. I'm sure those responsible (Tournament organisers) will want to check this out further, given the ramifications for them personally. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/14/contents">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/14/contents</a><!-- m -->

[Andy Howie]

then I am surprised Andy. I assumed all arbiters with the exception of one that i know about had PVG status. Given the law and the CS rule on this then organisers are taking a risk, a risk they clearly know about. I sincerely hope that nothing goes wrong or that anyone complains.
Would it not be simpler to get arbiters PVG status, after all it seems straightforward enough?

Let me jog your memory

Arbiters

How many of that painfully small list do you often see at an event. There was a Junior event last weekend in Edinburgh and to my knowledge not a CS arbiter in sight!

We need more arbiters!

[WBuchanan]

Pat, Ian’s query was about the SNCL and it moved on to other events. But sorry, I’ll not intrude on your discussion about those any further, it’s mainly the statements of the law that I was querying in the magazine article, and your interpretation as applying to all tournaments. I don’t think it is the case that ‘the law is very clear’ in ‘almost all tournaments in Scotland’ as you claim, other than possibly being clear the other way. On my reading anyway, the law appears to make the very distinction between mainly children and mainly adult that you are trying to bypass (see the ‘incidental test’ below)

However it is clear that that is the policy CS would like to adopt. That’s fine (maybe it was discussed here before?) though it may not encourage new arbiters, but anyway it seems not to be the law, in fact – which means it should be no great legal worry if it’s not being adopted in what are mainly adult tournaments. So, sorry again for butting in I just think that when we are being told what the law requires us to do, what we are told should be right.
Cheers

92. The scope of regulated work is narrowed by the incidental test. Some, but not all, activities with children or protected adults are excluded from being regulated work if the activity is occurring incidentally to working with individuals who are not children or protected adults. For example, a teacher in a school is doing regulated work with
children but a college lecturer running woodwork classes in the evening aimed at adults is outside the scope of regulated work, even if one or two children attend his class. This is because the presence of children (and the teaching of children) is incidental to the main activity and purpose of the class which is to teach adults.
93. An activity is likely to be incidental when:

o open to all (characterised by where the event is held, where it is advertised, admission policy etc);
o attractive to a wide cross-section of society; or
o attendance is discretionary.
94.
An activity is unlikely to be incidental when:
o targeted at children or protected adults (characterised by where the event is held, where it is advertised, admission policy etc);
o more attractive to children or protected adults than others; or
o attendance is mandatory.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/guidance/documents/PVGGuidanceChapter2RegulatedWork_000.pdf">http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/gui ... rk_000.pdf</a><!-- m -->

[Andy Howie]

To be honest, the best two people to answer this from a Chess Scotland perspective would be Dick Heathwood or Stephen Mannion Snr. I really don't know enough about the legislation to answer this dichotomy.

[Ianbrownlee]

Ok Guys can I summarise
as long as any tournament I run as tournament director which is not a chess Scotland event, my PVG is sufficient for legal reasons , I don't need a Chess Scotland listed arbiter and any arbiter I use doesn't require a PVG as long as I have mine I can still have the games graded and I can still offer discounts to Chess Scotland members

To put another spin on it , what is the attraction of using chess Scotland listed arbiters n the first place? I'm not saying I wouldn't do this. I just need clarification as I'm sure so do others. I also believe certain Junior organisations, which currently run Junior events on behalf of chess Scotland but do not have themselves listed as CS arbiters, will not be able to run CS events in the future