Safeguarding at and around co-events

[Graeme Cole]

(I split off this and subsequent posts from "Countdowners in the news")

Looking at the date on that article (December 2020), and some of the case details given in it (which I am not repeating), what concerns me a lot is the fact he has been active on Apterous and here between then and now.

Yes, this is what makes it especially shocking. His conviction was reported in the press over two years ago and it's taken this long for us to notice. In that time he's been playing on Apterous and posting on this forum, on which he was a global moderator until today.

As Jon says, if it can be Jim, it could be anyone. Do we have to google everyone's name periodically as a matter of course now?

Which is why the apterous/co:event safeguarding conversations and actions need to happen

Strongly agree. Jim last attended an event in 2019, but what if he'd come to either COLIN since his conviction with none of us knowing about it? He's not the first member of our community to be convicted of crimes like these, and, well, you know how the second half of that sentence goes. What if next time it's someone else equally as respected and trusted, like an event organiser?

A while ago, one suggestion that got floated around was to require a Basic DBS check for all FOCAL event organisers. Then, it seemed like unnecessary extra costs and paperwork. Now it's looking more like a sensible precaution to protect FOCAL and to reassure eventgoers, especially newbies who hardly know anyone yet, that the people we trust to organise events, and to whom we can confidentially report any creepy behaviour, aren't themselves guilty of worse crimes.

Serious suggestion. A basic criminal record check costs £18. Organiser pays and prices it into the event. Organiser has to show it to FOCAL, who then decide whether or not to endorse their event. And if you wanted to extend this to anyone who helps with running events in any capacity, such as by bringing ancient monitors or fixing misbehaving tournament software, then I'd gladly get one myself.

[Matt Rutherford]

A while ago, one suggestion that got floated around was to require a Basic DBS check for all FOCAL event organisers. Then, it seemed like unnecessary extra costs and paperwork. Now it's looking more like a sensible precaution to protect FOCAL and to reassure eventgoers, especially newbies who hardly know anyone yet, that the people we trust to organise events, and to whom we can confidentially report any creepy behaviour, aren't themselves guilty of worse crimes.

Serious suggestion. A basic criminal record check costs £18. Organiser pays and prices it into the event. Organiser has to show it to FOCAL, who then decide whether or not to endorse their event. And if you wanted to extend this to anyone who helps with running events in any capacity, such as by bringing ancient monitors or fixing misbehaving tournament software, then I'd gladly get one myself.

Some have them via work-I've got three, courtesy of jobs and various voluntary things. I have a feeling more would as well?? It's not universally able to root all bad eggs out (then again, what could?), but it seems a definite decent starting point.

Just curious, if there is more than one host (i.e, Braintree 22, Rugby 23), would all hosts need to have one or would one suffice?

[Graeme Cole]

Some have them via work-I've got three, courtesy of jobs and various voluntary things. I have a feeling more would as well?? It's not universally able to root all bad eggs out (then again, what could?), but it seems a definite decent starting point.

Yes, if you've already got a basic check, or one of the more enhanced checks, then all the better.

Just curious, if there is more than one host (i.e, Braintree 22, Rugby 23), would all hosts need to have one or would one suffice?

It would have to be all hosts, or there's no point doing it. "Of the two hosts of my event, one has a clean criminal record" is not useful information.

[Fiona T]

I got my DBS check after London where they needed one if we had under 18s - thought it would save hassle in the future.

Up till a conviction, a paedophile would get a clean DBS. You could argue that someone is less dangerous after a conviction and the ones we might need to worry about are the ones we don't know about.

Q - is a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children) who has committed no offence a danger to children - how would you know?

[Graeme Cole]

Up till a conviction, a paedophile would get a clean DBS. You could argue that someone is less dangerous after a conviction and the ones we might need to worry about are the ones we don't know about.

You could argue that but I don't think it would be a good argument. What would the consequences be? That event organisers now have to prove they have a conviction first because that makes them less dangerous? Even if we don't accept that as a consequence for being too absurd, this argument only proves that a DBS check can't catch every possible danger. Of course it can't, nothing can.

Q - is a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children) who has committed no offence a danger to children - how would you know?

Possibly, yes. And you wouldn't know. The problem I'm trying to address here is the case where someone with this type of conviction works their way into a position of trust in our community, organising events that might include children, all because nobody spent £18 to do the most basic of checks. I'm worried about how FOCAL could explain that if it happened.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Forget "FOCAL" - this goes for all co-events, including non-FOCAL ones.

[Mark Deeks]

I strongly recommend splitting off such discussion into a separate thread to give it the eyes it deserves.

[Graeme Cole]

Forget "FOCAL" - this goes for all co-events, including non-FOCAL ones.

Ideally, yes. But anybody can hire a hall and call what they're doing a co-event, and we can't stop them.

[Fiona T]

Q - is a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children) who has committed no offence a danger to children - how would you know?

Possibly, yes. And you wouldn't know. The problem I'm trying to address here is the case where someone with this type of conviction works their way into a position of trust in our community, organising events that might include children, all because nobody spent £18 to do the most basic of checks. I'm worried about how FOCAL could explain that if it happened.

Yep - that's valid and I think, for £18, worth the effort.

[Graeme Cole]

I strongly recommend splitting off such discussion into a separate thread to give it the eyes it deserves.

Good idea. Done.

[Mark Deeks]

I hereby copy and paste an Apterous ticket that I wrote back at the start of the month concerning safeguarding issues in the Apterdown community.

----

Hello! Let's kick off the new year in high spirits with a discussion about safeguarding issues on, adjacent to and because of, Apterous.

Apterous is both a website and a community. Charlie is responsible for the website, but not for us. We. as a community, need to police ourselves. And we need to do it better. There have been various safeguarding issues that have arisen in the community over the years, and especially of late, and we need to have a conversation about that.

It is not exactly common for people to sign up to online communities under their real names, and I have always found it one of the better things about this place that is the norm here (especially since it is a convention rather than a requirement). The same is true of Countdown and its rare use of player's full names. It adds a personal touch, and, in a way, a sense of notoriety to the players.

However, in the internet era, it may also be somewhat dangerous to do so. Using full names makes it easier to find people, and the internet makes it waaaaayyyy easier to find people. No matter whether the intent is noble or nefarious, the opportunity is there, a hell of a lot more than it was back in 1994 or whatever. This is at the core of a lot of the safeguarding issues that have arisen.

If we are being honest with ourselves, Apterous, Countdown and online gaming in general attract many of society's outsiders. We may not all fit that description, but the Venn diagram shows considerable overlap. This, too, is broadly a good thing - society's outsiders are generally more interesting, more self-aware, and less predictable of people. 98% of the members of this community are quality people, or at least inoffensive. But that 2% can really get around, and they can do a lot of damage. And when they get around to the 98% who may not have the best social grounding, it is a combustible mix.

There are incidents both spoken and unspoken regarding safeguarding and privacy violations, usually taking place off of Apterous, but between people who first connected here. And it is time we as a community (not Charlie, this is not his responsibility) to buck our ideas up and help each other. In particular, there have also many incidents towards women.

Much of the dangerous, predatory, harassing etc behaviour alluded to above goes on in private, because of course it does. It always will. However, it is not JUST incidents of men hassling women. It is also well known that there have been numerous police incidents involving (mercifully inactive) Apterous members, including some of the worst behaviours you can imagine.

This community welcomes people of all ages, backgrounds and neurodivergences, indiscriminately. In no way were any of the details of those incidents caused by our community. But what if the next one was to be? Let's be blunt about this - this community has played home to both minors and sex offenders. What measures do we have in place beyond gossip?

If you're a new user reading this, please do not be put off. We are talking a tiny number of people out of a community of thousands over a decade and a half. This is a friendly community. It does however include a number of people with a number of problems.

In recent times, you will likely know of the fact that two former members of the community lost their lives disgustingly early in the last few months. One committed suicide, and one died through drug abuse. These are not the only two deaths of Apterous community members, merely the two most recent ones, and in most if not all cases, perhaps more could have been done.

I am absolutely not at all saying that Apterites are accountable. We aren't. But let's be mindful of who we are and where we are. Let us build a community not only of in-jokes, but of outreach, support and a desire to understand the world outside of how it affects us. Let's not just pay lip service to the idea of wishing each other well. Let's actually do it. We're fragile people brought together through fate and a weird hobby. Let's lock arms and pick up the fallen.

And if nothing else, let's put some people on notice. The married men slipping into the women's DMs. We know. We all know. Knock it off.

[Andres Sanchez]

This is some of the truest shit anyone in the Apterous community has ever said. Honestly, I love the people here and there are some people that can definitely ruin it for some; you know who you are. This place is like a family to me: a weird, Countdown-crazy community. And I'm forever grateful to have the people that dole out the same respect and appreciation that I can give to them. You lot are stellar. <3

[Marc Meakin]

Just ban children from Co events for their own safety.
DBR checks haven't stopped rogue policemen

[Marc Meakin]

Banning children from Co events for their own safety is cheaper than making everyone have DBR checks.
And do if the Met Police is anything to go by, that's not a safeguard anyway

[Adam S Latchford]

What would we class children as for clarification if the answer is not allowing children?

Ban all under 16s
Ban all under 18s
Ban all under 16s. 16 and 17 year olds allowed if accompanied by an adult.

[Fiona T]

Just ban children from Co events for their own safety.
DBR checks haven't stopped rogue policemen

No that's bollocks. That's equivalent to "women staying home to not get attacked". The problem here isn't the children.

I think insisting that u16s are accompanied by an adult might be sensible. I removed that requirement from Brighton this year after getting my DBS check, but can't currently think of any likely attendees who are children

[Adam S Latchford]

The issue I guess I have is DBS checks.

The amount of people who have DBS checks that then have been convicted of crimes against children is ridiculous. Basically all it means is they can prove is that they haven't been caught yet.

I just wanna be able to think of another solution around this. Obviously, if needed and required, I'd get a DBS for co rugby.

Definitely pro getting more safeguarding in f or events of course. The stories that keep cropping up in this community are horrific and numerous. Just wanna spend some time thinking about the best possible safeguarding things we could do + also see others ideas.

[Gavin Chipper]

Looking at the date on that article (December 2020), and some of the case details given in it (which I am not repeating), what concerns me a lot is the fact he has been active on Apterous and here between then and now.

What Jim did is terrible and I'm very shocked about this, but I'm not actually that shocked that he has been on Apterous and c4c in the meantime. Let's say we did know straight away what had happened. Would this necessarily mean a (lifetime?) ban from c4c and Apterous? I don't think that automatically follows. Because if so, should that mean an effective ban from basically all forms of society as well? I don't think that's necessarily the right way to go.

The crime, while terrible and I'm not belittling it (downloading these images is not a victimless crime - it creates demand for one thing), does not suggest that he would be of any danger to other users of Apterous and c4c. It's obviously up to communities and individuals whether they want to continue to engage with someone, and it's definitely a discussion that should be had if the individual wants to come back. But it should also be said that a certain wine bottler was allowed back onto Apterous, and while the crimes are very different, in terms of actual danger to other users, I'd suggest that the bottling offender was a higher risk. It's also worth noting that the justice system clearly did not consider him of too high a risk to society in general given that the custodial part of the sentence was suspended.

There will also be new users and users under pseudonyms, and these people won't have been researched by us before they join this forum or Apterous and I don't think it's necessary to start doing this.

But anyway, my point is that it's right that we know about this and it would be right to have a discussion about any return to the community if it came to that, but given that any conclusion is not a foregone one, I don't think it's of too much concern that he's already been around.

[Marc Meakin]

Just ban children from Co events for their own safety.
DBR checks haven't stopped rogue policemen

No that's bollocks. That's equivalent to "women staying home to not get attacked". The problem here isn't the children.

I think insisting that u16s are accompanied by an adult might be sensible. I removed that requirement from Brighton this year after getting my DBS check, but can't currently think of any likely attendees who are children

I was being flippant because let's be honest most paedophiles hide in plain sight anyway.
Priests, teachers and Policeman to name 3 professions of trust that are not above the law.
Children accompanied by an adult equally makes an assumption that that adult is responsible

[Fiona T]

Children accompanied by an adult equally makes an assumption that that adult is responsible

Well it puts the responsibility for the safety of the child with the accompanying adult/parents rather than the event organiser.

[Elliott Mellor]

I'd definitely say that it should be a requirement that event organisers undergo a full DBS check for future events - obviously it doesn't weed out the people who simply haven't been caught yet, but I'd say it's far better to do *something* than nothing.

The very blunt truth of the matter is that no check in the world is going to root out those who are able to get away with their crimes and misdemeanours. Absolutely anyone at an event could be engaging in any number of abhorrent activities behind closed doors, and if they are never found out then they could simply pass as respectable members of society and nobody would be any the wiser. I don't want the community to become a hive of distrust, but there simply isn't any way to be assured that those attending, and running, events are morally sound and it's very important to be wise to that and alert to any dangers that might be present. Any feasible protocols that can be implemented beforehand should be (DBS checks, and I think insisting children are accompanied by a parent/legal guardian is also a good idea if they are to be allowed to attend), but those attending also shoulder some of the responsibility here (how many people have seen something happen at an event that they've been a bit disgusted by, but decided not to raise with the organiser/FOCAL chair/authorities because they didn't think it was worth the effort?) You can't root out every wrong'un, but you can deter more of them by increasing stringency.

If people aren't in favour of banning children from events, then they will have to accept that there is simply always a risk present - some groomers are extremely effective and can do it in plain sight without anyone really noticing. I do think it is a notion that should be entertained instead of being completely disregarded (it doesn't really seem any more drastic than a nightclub having an age restriction, and a number of events and websites also have age restrictions for this reason).

[Rhys Benjamin]

Looking at the date on that article (December 2020), and some of the case details given in it (which I am not repeating), what concerns me a lot is the fact he has been active on Apterous and here between then and now.

What Jim did is terrible and I'm very shocked about this, but I'm not actually that shocked that he has been on Apterous and c4c in the meantime. Let's say we did know straight away what had happened. Would this necessarily mean a (lifetime?) ban from c4c and Apterous? I don't think that automatically follows. Because if so, should that mean an effective ban from basically all forms of society as well? I don't think that's necessarily the right way to go.

The crime, while terrible and I'm not belittling it (downloading these images is not a victimless crime - it creates demand for one thing), does not suggest that he would be of any danger to other users of Apterous and c4c.

I don’t agree with any of this at all.

I am not arguing for a lifetime ban, although I suspect some may do. He has been serving a suspended sentence for, essentially, using internet forums and boards, which may or may not have included this one, and thus to use C4C/Apto during a suspended sentence is not only ethically questionable, it is potentially an argument for a judge or a prosecutor to trigger such a sentence. I am not a lawyer, nor can I offer legal advice, but this is surprising to me that he wasn’t advised (or indeed ordered) to avoid places like this.

On top of this, if I read the article correctly he is on the sex offenders’ register until 2031. At the very least he should not have been on here during the suspended sentence, and arguably until his entry on the SOR expires.

The second point… I think you haven’t thought that through, that’s all. If he has sourced images from here, then those people are, by definition, abused.

[Graeme Cole]

Thanks to everyone contributing to this thread. The fact that this discussion is happening, with everyone in general agreement about the direction of travel even if not on how exactly to get there, is a win.

I'll address a few points that have been made above.


"DBS checks don't catch everything" / "They didn't stop certain police officers" / "All it proves is they haven't been caught"

You could make this argument against any safeguarding measure. There is no measure we can take that will make all events 100% safe from predators. But why use this as an argument not to introduce one of the easiest checks on those in positions of trust? You might as well say that there was no point introducing seat belts because road traffic fatalities still happen.

The problem I'm trying to address is that this week, we discovered that even a respected and trusted participant in our community could be convicted, put on the sex offenders' register, and even have that reported in the press, and we could be completely unaware. If Jim had offered to organise an event in 2022, I bet it would have gone ahead.

I'm not saying we should *only* bring in this requirement and do nothing else, as if we've found the magic silver bullet. I'm saying this is one thing we could do in conjunction with other ways to improve our community's general resistance to sex pests and creeps. The more we can do to make the community and its events carry a general air of "if you're here to perv on others or make them feel uncomfortable, you're not welcome", the better.

You can't root out every wrong'un, but you can deter more of them by increasing stringency.

Yes, basically this.


"Ban children from events"

To me this seems like a cop-out. It's one of those things that looks like a complete solution when really it's only favoured because it has the highest noise-to-effort ratio. As Fiona said, children aren't the problem, and in any case, adults want to feel safe as well.

However, I do think it's sensible to require all under-16s at events to be accompanied by a responsible adult. We can discuss whether this means "responsible" in the legal sense (parent or legal guardian) or whether it can be broader (aunt/uncle/grandparent?), but whatever is decided, I think this gives the best of both worlds between safeguarding and allowing youngsters to continue to participate.


"Just because you're a criminal, it shouldn't mean you're shut out of society"

No, but other individuals can certainly decide whether they want to associate with them, and if the crime is serious enough, they certainly shouldn't be put in positions of trust. And while they might still be allowed to post on C4C or play on Apterous, other people can decide whether or not to engage with their discussions or play a game against them.


Edit to add:

Regarding the question of whether any images could have been uploaded to C4C: unless there's a feature of phpBB I haven't noticed in 12 years, our forum doesn't have the facility to upload images to posts or private messages. You can only upload a picture as your avatar, or embed links to images which are hosted elsewhere. Some phpBB boards might have an image hosting facility, but I don't believe C4C has that enabled.

[Elliott Mellor]

Graeme raises some fantastic points here, particularly this:

The problem I'm trying to address is that this week, we discovered that even a respected and trusted participant in our community could be convicted, put on the sex offenders' register, and even have that reported in the press, and we could be completely unaware. If Jim had offered to organise an event in 2022, I bet it would have gone ahead.

It's worrying that people would probably readily have signed up for this hypothetical event in 2022, and there might well have been children sign up too. Nobody would have known, even in spite of the fact he'd been on the sex offenders register since 2020. If there was any argument against DBS checks because "they don't catch everything", they certainly would have caught this and it's one extra crisis that would have been averted. I'm even wondering whether it should be a requirement for anyone attending an event - it'd certainly raise the costs and mean fewer people might be able to attend, but it's a point that might be worthy of discussion. There are generally 40+ people at an event, and there might be two organisers. Under this system, you've still got 95+% of people that that aren't undergoing any background checks, and it only takes one "Jim" for it to be unsafe for people. Frankly, it's far more likely you'd choose to be an attendee at an event than an organiser if you had unsavoury intentions, since you could blend in a lot easier and you'd have far more opportunities to talk to people throughout the event (and might even be drawn on the same table as your "target audience" as it were). It would be pretty financially infeasible to demand that people have one before every event, but there might be scope that anyone who wishes to attend an event should be able to produce a valid check from, say, within the past year. I don't think it's a lot to ask - it's basically the cost of an apterous subscription every year, and if we're really serious about cracking down as hard as possible on potential safeguarding risks then I see no reason why this should only be a requirement for organisers.


...and this:

However, I do think it's sensible to require all under-16s at events to be accompanied by a responsible adult. We can discuss whether this means "responsible" in the legal sense (parent or legal guardian) or whether it can be broader (aunt/uncle/grandparent?), but whatever is decided, I think this gives the best of both worlds between safeguarding and allowing youngsters to continue to participate.

This is very much a valid point - I think few people would deem it unsafe for a child to be accompanied by a grandparent, but how far are we willing to extend that before it becomes a risk of its own? Should it have to be a close family member? Any family member? Anyone with authorisation from the parent/guardian?

[Rhys Benjamin]

Forget "FOCAL" - this goes for all co-events, including non-FOCAL ones.

Ideally, yes. But anybody can hire a hall and call what they're doing a co-event, and we can't stop them.

I doubt many would go to one if the organiser refuses to DBS themselves.

[Graeme Cole]

It's worrying that people would probably readily have signed up for this hypothetical event in 2022, and there might well have been children sign up too. Nobody would have known, even in spite of the fact he'd been on the sex offenders register since 2020. If there was any argument against DBS checks because "they don't catch everything", they certainly would have caught this and it's one extra crisis that would have been averted.

Exactly. If we can see this as a serious potential risk, why should we have to wait for a horse to bolt before closing the stable door?

I'm even wondering whether it should be a requirement for anyone attending an event - it'd certainly raise the costs and mean fewer people might be able to attend, but it's a point that might be worthy of discussion.

I see why you might suggest this, but I don't think it's feasible for co-events. It amounts to an extra £18 per person (renewed every year?) and a 14-day waiting period for the privilege of paying a further entry fee for each event. £18 and 14 days is not an onerous burden on someone organising an event which already takes months of preparation, but it's a significant extra barrier to entry for a new player.

The way I see it, players at events are like "customers", and the organisers are "staff". Organisations often require these checks on their staff, but not on all their customers. Organisers are in a position of trust - they're the first person a player would naturally turn to if they wanted to confide that some other player was doing something creepy. That's why I think they should be treated differently.

[Elliott Mellor]

It's worrying that people would probably readily have signed up for this hypothetical event in 2022, and there might well have been children sign up too. Nobody would have known, even in spite of the fact he'd been on the sex offenders register since 2020. If there was any argument against DBS checks because "they don't catch everything", they certainly would have caught this and it's one extra crisis that would have been averted.

Exactly. If we can see this as a serious potential risk, why should we have to wait for a horse to bolt before closing the stable door?

I'm even wondering whether it should be a requirement for anyone attending an event - it'd certainly raise the costs and mean fewer people might be able to attend, but it's a point that might be worthy of discussion.

I see why you might suggest this, but I don't think it's feasible for co-events. It amounts to an extra £18 per person (renewed every year?) and a 14-day waiting period for the privilege of paying a further entry fee for each event. £18 and 14 days is not an onerous burden on someone organising an event which already takes months of preparation, but it's a significant extra barrier to entry for a new player.

The way I see it, players at events are like "customers", and the organisers are "staff". Organisations often require these checks on their staff, but not on all their customers. Organisers are in a position of trust - they're the first person a player would naturally turn to if they wanted to confide that some other player was doing something creepy. That's why I think they should be treated differently.

A valid point, and perhaps it is, on balance, infeasible to suggest an annual DBS check for attendees. We've definitely come quite far with regards to the dealing of misconduct at events, so you'd like to hope that nothing could have happened even if Jim had attended an event last year, though there certainly needs to be rules regarding the accompaniment of children at events.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Can I just mythbust something for a moment?

I have had an enhanced DBS since 2017 as I work with children in cricket in the summer months (at least one person on this forum can corroborate this, so I am not making this up, although it feels very shitty that I even need to say that). Once it’s done, there’s zero hassle if you sign up for the auto-updates.

It is free if you are a volunteer (although we might need to establish whether “event attendee” counts). It is £13pa for the update service. That’s just over £1 per month, I am sure people can find £1 per month from somewhere.

Cost really should not be a factor here.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

Cost really should not be a factor here.

Maybe there's some truth in this if you know you're going to be a regular attendee, but for a first-timer who's considering going to an event, the cost absolutely is a factor, as is the hassle of actually having to apply for one. I think most people would honestly just decide not to go.

Besides, requiring a check for all _attendees_ of an event has absolutely no parallel in any other activity that people take part in. Where else have you ever been told you need a DBS check to turn up to something as a punter? It would be a very strange requirement.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Cost really should not be a factor here.

Maybe there's some truth in this if you know you're going to be a regular attendee, but for a first-timer who's considering going to an event, the cost absolutely is a factor, as is the hassle of actually having to apply for one. I think most people would honestly just decide not to go.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but:

It is free if you are a volunteer (although we might need to establish whether “event attendee” counts).

So this shouldn't be a barrier for first-time attendees.

[Andres Sanchez]

As a first-timer, I'd say that cost depends. According to Google, I paid about $12.38 for my ticket, which is close to the amount I pay for lunch at work or college nowadays. Travel is definitely more of a cost factor, and I'm not just saying that because we spent about 5k on a trip to London and Spain.

In terms of the volunteer bit, the only thing I did when I went to Co:Lon that was near that level was just arranging the chairs and tables. And that's only because my group actually arrived BEFORE George and Fiona did. It was good to help though; wouldn't live that down, to be honest. I definitely wouldn't say that that makes me ANY kind of volunteer though.

This is all that I can really say about this because I don't think I have any capacity to talk about what would be better to do for safeguarding an event, but seriously hope that something can be done to be fair with you all.

[Graeme Cole]

Maybe I wasn't clear, but:

It is free if you are a volunteer (although we might need to establish whether “event attendee” counts).

So this shouldn't be a barrier for first-time attendees.

In what sense does "event attendee" mean "volunteer"? Can you honestly say that players at co-events are there to undertake voluntary work? That sounds like a bit of a stretch. Would it stick if whatever government department in charge of the checks started asking questions?

Sam is right that requiring "punters" to have background checks as well as "staff" is something very unusual which doesn't have a parallel with anything else. It isn't what anyone would expect. There is perhaps one exception that's staring us in the face: applicants for TV game shows. But co-events aren't that, and even then, the production company handles that process themselves without the applicant having to pay for it or even take part in the process.

[Mark Deeks]

I'm not going to any social event that requires a DBS check in advance.

[Fiona T]

It would be very odd to require attendees to be DBS checked. I wouldn't have attended my first event if that had been a requirement, free or not

[Matt Morrison]

Yeah it's a pretty shitty look. If it were to be considered necessary, it seems hard to justify co events even existing since it would basically be akin to outwardly accepting we're a community of freaks. At that point, maybe just give up and move on?

[Marc Meakin]

It would be very odd to require attendees to be DBS checked. I wouldn't have attended my first event if that had been a requirement, free or not

Yeah it is an infringement of civil liberties so therefore isn't something I'm prepared to go through for a social event.
A job or a passport then yes

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Let's find a solution that is 100% ineffectual for a problem that doesn't exist.

He's a fucking genius. Please take at least €20 off me to help implement it.

If FOCAL insists on Garda Vetting (or whatever the UK equivalent is) for all event organisers / attendees, FOCAL should bear the financial cost of same.

[Rhys Benjamin]

To be fair, I never said we should do that, merely that cost shouldn't be a factor.

But I think it's fairly obvious that an organiser should have one - surely we're all agreed on this?

[Graeme Cole]

Let's find a solution that is 100% ineffectual for a problem that doesn't exist.

He's a fucking genius. Please take at least €20 off me to help implement it.

If FOCAL insists on Garda Vetting (or whatever the UK equivalent is) for all event organisers / attendees, FOCAL should bear the financial cost of same.

Oh good, I was wondering when you'd show up.

I'll try not to make this reply too long. I'm currently in my Travelodge room after COLIN. Normally I'd be at the pub by now but I've postponed that to lie down and be alone for a bit. (I'm an introvert. This is normal. And if anyone's reading this from the pub, stop reading C4C and get back to the darts. I'll join you later.)

This is not a problem that "doesn't exist". Even more than the (thankfully few) actual sex offenders, what's far more prevalent is the lower-level behaviour that goes on at events to make players, especially new players, feel uncomfortable. The code of conduct was a good start, and yet, it still happens. If you can't see why all this, especially what we found out this week, might justify a serious and overdue conversation about safeguarding followed by agreeing some changes then I don't think I'll ever convince you.

Long ago, co-events were informal gatherings between people who already knew each other. To some extent they still are. But they've grown a bit from that now. Even the event organisers don't necessarily know all their players well any more, and with that comes greater responsibility. At what point do we decide that what we're doing can no longer be treated the same as a group of mates meeting at the pub, and that some more formal safeguarding measures are in order?

Regarding who pays: I think the organiser should pay for their own check and price that in to the event entry fee as just another cost of the event. It's the easiest way to do it. Any and all FOCAL funds ultimately come from players' entry fees anyway, so it makes no difference. If you make FOCAL mess about reimbursing it then all you're doing is shuffling the same money around.

Finally,

To be fair, I never said we should do that, merely that cost shouldn't be a factor.

But I think it's fairly obvious that an organiser should have one - surely we're all agreed on this?

Thank you for posting this, Rhys. I was worried that the thread might get derailed by arguing about requiring all players to have background checks and we'd forget about the original proposal.

I can't see any obvious downside to FOCAL requiring all FOCAL organisers to show the committee, privately, a basic DBS check. Having all our eventgoers reassured that the people we put in positions of trust aren't themselves convicted of sex crimes, is a pretty low bar to clear. That's all I'm proposing here.

[Sam Cappleman-Lynes]

The code of conduct was a good start, and yet, it still happens.

Something peculiar about the code of conduct is the process for reporting violations - currently, it is to send an email to a FOCAL email address.

To come closer to parity with other modern conventions/meetups/events, I would like to see, at each event, a named person (could be someone on the FOCAL board, could be someone involved in the event organisation) to whom conduct violations can be reported on the day, and a pre-declared process by which violations will be dealt with by that person.

And to tie it in with what has already been discussed, it would be quite reasonable to expect that person to not provably have a history of abuse of vulnerable people.

(Aside: I haven't actually been to any FOCAL events yet - I hope my contributions are taken as intended (advice from someone with some basic safeguarding training and who has seen how events in other spaces protect their attendees) and not seen as me "sticking my oar in")

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

Oh good, I was wondering when you'd show up.

I know! It's crazy that paranoia & groupthink have been allowed dominate the conversation till now. Lucky I saw it when I did.

This is not a problem that "doesn't exist".

Provide some evidence to back up that wild assertion please.

If you can't see why all this, especially what we found out this week, might justify a serious and overdue conversation about safeguarding followed by agreeing some changes then I don't think I'll ever convince you.

I genuinely have no clue what you are on about with your "lower-level behaviour" that's so awful, Do you mean pisstaking? Do you mean people gathering in cliques?

What did we find out this week? That a man who has never molested anyone was a friend of many of you, and attended co-events where he was polite, jovial, and never molested any of the attendees or organisers. Where's the part that's supposed to make us worry?

That's all I'm proposing here.

Let's please not minimise the toxicity and anti-community nature of this proposal by using words like "that's all".

But I think it's fairly obvious that an organiser should have one - surely we're all agreed on this?

No we're not. A "DBS" does not safeguard against anything.
Co-events are 1 day events, where the organiser will be so damn busy they will not have an opportunity to molest anything no matter how hard they might want to. This is an over the top reaction by people who do not properly understand the world of vetting, because they found out their friend has some skeletons in his closet.

events in other spaces

Good Christ... spaces... yep. You've had some basic safeguarding training alright. That's exactly the sort of irritating language they like to use. I've had enough safeguarding experience to know how much contempt it deserves and how anti-humanity it is. The only people I am really interested in hearing the opinions of, are those who work with youth or vulnerable groups, and who have had training... also from people from the world of Scrabble who know how their (potentially riskier, as they run over 2 days, not 1) events are managed with regard to safeguarding.


EDITED TO INCLUDE:

I don't think I'll ever convince you.

Maybe not. I have strong views on this. But if there is something more concrete than vague suggestions that someone wasn't happy at a co-event once, or that a person with a proven track record of excellent conduct at many co-events got a few months jail time for inappropriate images on their computer... I am open to being convinced that action actually does need to be taken.

[Rhys Benjamin]

(Aside: I haven't actually been to any FOCAL events yet - I hope my contributions are taken as intended (advice from someone with some basic safeguarding training and who has seen how events in other spaces protect their attendees) and not seen as me "sticking my oar in")

Dare I say it, but I think this actually gives you more of a say than the rest of us - or at least, someone in your position (i.e. a non-attendee) who sees a lack of DBS certification / safeguarding a barrier to entry.

Unlike the dictionary (see my not infrequent rants in Apto), more somethings = better.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

(i.e. a non-attendee) who sees a lack of DBS certification / safeguarding a barrier to entry.

Sam can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're putting words in his mouth here.

[Marc Meakin]

I may have to have a word with myself, but I actually agree with Eoin here.

Its a one day social event not a sleepover.
There is far more risk at the pub afterwards surely.

[L'oisleatch McGraw]

I may have to have a word with myself, but I actually agree with Eoin here.

Its a one day social event not a sleepover.
There is far more risk at the pub afterwards surely.

Agreed.
And the pub afterwards does not come under the event organiser's remit.

As regards "DBS", that's for U18s.
I would be as happy to let the parent of any (unlikely) U18 considering attending, know that there is no specific DBS requirement for anyone involved in the event, and then let each family weigh up the risk/reward ratio for themselves and make an informed decision (i.e. in the majority of cases, if the person wants to go, they'll go, possibly dragging a parent or someone along too.)

[Thomas Cappleman]

If you extend DBS check to also include "and has not broken the FOCAL code of conduct" (or whatever strength of that statement is suitable), you've got as strong a position as you're likely to get for there being nothing wrong that is known about.

You could apply that to the organisers, and take Sam's suggestion of having a designated code of conduct person on the day (who may be the organiser) who also meets the requirement. Then FOCAL is signing off on the organiser being someone being "safe", and there being a "safe" contact if something does happen.

Clearly you're not going to catch anyone this way who's not done anything yet. And this doesn't ensure that the designated contact is any good at handling issues. But it's at least a start.

A couple of other points:
- I'm not sure if the code of conduct generally applies to the social side associated with the events, but it at least should for event organisers/contacts (i.e. it's no good your organiser being fine during the day if they have a record of harassing people in the pub afterwards)
- The code of conduct already specifies accompanying adults for minors, as of last year

[Graeme Cole]

The code of conduct was a good start, and yet, it still happens.

Something peculiar about the code of conduct is the process for reporting violations - currently, it is to send an email to a FOCAL email address.

To come closer to parity with other modern conventions/meetups/events, I would like to see, at each event, a named person (could be someone on the FOCAL board, could be someone involved in the event organisation) to whom conduct violations can be reported on the day, and a pre-declared process by which violations will be dealt with by that person.

And to tie it in with what has already been discussed, it would be quite reasonable to expect that person to not provably have a history of abuse of vulnerable people.

(Aside: I haven't actually been to any FOCAL events yet - I hope my contributions are taken as intended (advice from someone with some basic safeguarding training and who has seen how events in other spaces protect their attendees) and not seen as me "sticking my oar in")

You're making a welcome contribution to a conversation we all need to have. This is especially true if you've had experience with safeguarding training and how other events address it. I mentioned this thread to Callum (current holder of the FOCAL chair hat) today so he'll see your suggestion soon.

[Graeme Cole]

This is not a problem that "doesn't exist".

Provide some evidence to back up that wild assertion please.

There are at least five people I can think of who have contributed to C4C, played on Apterous and attended events (in some combination or other) who were later put on the sex offenders' register, all for crimes which either directly involved minors or involved photographs of minors. And that doesn't even count the former series winner who tracked down a teenager and smashed a bottle over their head.

There are some nasty people in the world. Some of these nasty people overlap with communities like ours and there are several examples of this. So far we've been lucky that the worst kind of crimes, of the kind these people got convicted for, haven't happened to any of us at events. But having seen the horses in the stable and identified the risk, how about installing some sort of door rather than dismissively pointing at the as-yet 0% horse-bolting rate?

If you can't see why all this, especially what we found out this week, might justify a serious and overdue conversation about safeguarding followed by agreeing some changes then I don't think I'll ever convince you.

I genuinely have no clue what you are on about with your "lower-level behaviour" that's so awful, Do you mean pisstaking? Do you mean people gathering in cliques?

I think you know I don't mean things like that. I mean actions that might fall short of unambiguously criminal activity, but which are still a bit creepy, discourage people from coming to events, and reflect badly on the whole community. Refer to section 2 of the FOCAL code of conduct for some examples.

These things have happened at events and post-events, including after the introduction of the Code of Conduct. I am not going to name names or give specific examples - reports are usually made in private but sometimes I hear about them by chance.

What did we find out this week? That a man who has never molested anyone was a friend of many of you, and attended co-events where he was polite, jovial, and never molested any of the attendees or organisers. Where's the part that's supposed to make us worry?

But I think it's fairly obvious that an organiser should have one - surely we're all agreed on this?

No we're not. A "DBS" does not safeguard against anything.
Co-events are 1 day events, where the organiser will be so damn busy they will not have an opportunity to molest anything no matter how hard they might want to. This is an over the top reaction by people who do not properly understand the world of vetting, because they found out their friend has some skeletons in his closet.

What really worries me, since you ask, is that from the above two comments, it sounds like you'd have been perfectly happy with FOCAL putting its name to an event run by someone they know is a convicted paedophile, on the grounds that he'd be too busy with scores and conundrum admin to do any paedoing.

I may have misunderstood. I hope I have, in which case please clarify what you meant. I would like to believe that "none of our events should be run by convicted sex offenders" was something even you and I could agree on.

events in other spaces

The only people I am really interested in hearing the opinions of, are those who work with youth or vulnerable groups, and who have had training... also from people from the world of Scrabble who know how their (potentially riskier, as they run over 2 days, not 1) events are managed with regard to safeguarding.

Finally, we find some common ground. I'm interested in hearing from those people as well, and I'm grateful for Sam's contribution above. Also, not that it's the main point of the discussion, but COLIN is a two-day event.

[Mark Deeks]

"So far we've been lucky that the worst kind of crimes, of the kind these people got convicted for, haven't happened to any of us at events."

That we know of.

And going beyond the paedophilia stuff that this discussion hitherto has focused on, there have definitely been crimes committed against women at events

[Graeme Cole]

I may have to have a word with myself, but I actually agree with Eoin here.

Its a one day social event not a sleepover.
There is far more risk at the pub afterwards surely.

Agreed.
And the pub afterwards does not come under the event organiser's remit.

Of course it doesn't, but if an eventgoer does something creepy or inappropriate to a new player at the pub afterwards, who's the first person that newbie might think to report it to? The event organiser. That's why organisers need to be held to higher standards. Alternatively, our hypothetical newbie might just never come to events again and we'd never hear about it. If you go to your first event and there are 40 people, of whom 39 are friendly, welcoming folk and one person pesters you all night with inappropriate personal questions or whatever, you're going to remember the one, not the 39. I wonder how many times that's happened?

As regards "DBS", that's for U18s.

This is not true, at least for the check we're talking about. Anyone can get a Basic DBS check, regardless of whether they work with under-18s. There are more detailed checks (the Standard, Enhanced, and Enhanced with Barred Lists checks), some of which are intended for people who work with children or vulnerable adults, and which individuals can't apply for themselves.

Source (see "A Basic DBS check is for any purpose"): https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... vice/about

[Marc Meakin]

"So far we've been lucky that the worst kind of crimes, of the kind these people got convicted for, haven't happened to any of us at events."

That we know of.

And going beyond the paedophilia stuff that this discussion hitherto has focused on, there have definitely been crimes committed against women at events

This I appalling, surely not during an event?
In a pub afterwards when people are drunk I would suspect.
In countless scrabble tournaments (well II tried to count but it has to be over a hundred.)
There have been cases of verbal abuse but no criminal activity.
Scrabble has an ABSP database for players.
Maybe some sort of database should be used for Co events to at least mean that people can be made accountable

[FOCAL Countdown]

Hi folks,

I've just caught up on this thread after being advised to do so by several people at COLIN this weekend. I really appreciate the thought and effort many of you have put in to trying to improve the safety of event organisers. This care for one another's wellbeing is the best thing about our community.

I'll have a think on this and see what we can feasibly do to improve the state of our safety policies at the moment. There may be practical limitations as, contrary to some preconceptions, FOCAL is not a big or powerful organisation with lots of structure or money. It's not really an organisation at all to be honest; just an umbrella for event organisers. There isn't really a "board" or "committee", just the event organisers working on their events, a treasurer holding and tracking our funds, a social media manager updating our Facebook and Twitter, and me doing the rest. All of us are volunteers who have all the usual other stuff in our lives (full-time work, family, etc, etc.) so sometimes we are limited in the scope and speed of our actions. But I agree that more should be done, so if needs be I will try to facilitate the structural changes to FOCAL that will make this possible.

I'll commit as much of my spare time as I can over the coming weeks to getting FOCAL up to date on several issues, but primarily this one. This thread will probably be my go-to resource for monitoring community feeling and suggestions so please continue contributing if any of you have further ideas. Just a note on two of the main ideas suggested in this thread:

1) Attendance of minors - The Code of Conduct was updated last year to state that under 16s must be accompanied by a responsible adult throughout the day. I thought I'd discussed this publically somewhere at the time but looking now I can't find it anywhere so clearly this wasn't communicated very well so I apologise for that, as subsequently most of you were unaware of this. The timing of the change probably gives away what the impetus to make that change was.

2) DBS checks for organisers - I sort of get why the concept of DBS checks for attendees was raised as it's dangerous people attending an event that is a concern. Whether they're playing or hosting doesn't really make much difference. But I can't think of a good argument against the suggestion of DBS checks for organisers so I'll look into this. I don't really know anything about DBS checks so will need to educate myself on this topic first.

Thanks again for your ideas and your concern for one another. I'm sorry I've been slow to respond at times. I'm trying, but I promise I will make steps in the coming weeks to improve the robustness of the FOCAL team so that we can deal with this and other issues more quickly.

Much love,
Callum

[Mark Deeks]

This I appalling, surely not during an event?
In a pub afterwards when people are drunk I would suspect.

Of those that I know, yes. I don't however think the delineation between event and the rest of the day matters too much - I appreciate it might to organisers and FOCAL people, but, to the attendees, it's all kinda the same day, the same trip, the same weekend. It all mashes together. I am concerned with what we as a community can and should do about safeguarding issues amongst ourselves.

[Marc Meakin]

This I appalling, surely not during an event?
In a pub afterwards when people are drunk I would suspect.

Of those that I know, yes. I don't however think the delineation between event and the rest of the day matters too much - I appreciate it might to organisers and FOCAL people, but, to the attendees, it's all kinda the same day, the same trip, the same weekend. It all mashes together. I am concerned with what we as a community can and should do about safeguarding issues amongst ourselves.

Maybe going off to the pub afterwards is the bigger issue.
Going to a restaurant maybe a little less risky.
I still think that a Focal database should be considered so that everyone attending is accountable to some extent.

[Fiona T]

Arguably, if the event organiser organises a meal/pub meal then that comes under the banner of 'the event'.

But I agree that it's a pointless distinction - we're not talking arse-covering legal responsibilities, we're talking about the safety of event attendees.

If something untoward happens in the pub after an event I've organised, then I see it as part of my event organiser responsibility to address it.

Basically if people are gathering with other event attendees for the purpose of attending an event, then that should be covered by the focal code of conduct.

But (to quote someone else from the weekend) we're not the behaviour police. If someone (as a completely fictitious made up example!) is running up and down hotel corridors at 3am in their pants shouting "I'm too sexy for my shirt" and setting off fire alarms, that isn't a breach of the code of conduct, although of course event organisers should have the right to refuse anyone entry to their future events.

[Graeme Cole]

In countless scrabble tournaments (well II tried to count but it has to be over a hundred.)
There have been cases of verbal abuse but no criminal activity.
Scrabble has an ABSP database for players.
Maybe some sort of database should be used for Co events to at least mean that people can be made accountable

I still think that a Focal database should be considered so that everyone attending is accountable to some extent.

What kind of information is in this ABSP database? FOCAL keeps records of event finishing positions in a spreadsheet so that the end-of-year standings can be calculated, but I guess this ABSP database contains more information about each player such as code of conduct violations?

We need to be careful about storing personal data about people in a database, because it comes with various legal requirements. Among other things, anyone would have a right to access the data held about them, so you wouldn't put anything on a player's record which you wouldn't be prepared to show them.

Currently, FOCAL only keeps records which are already in the public domain (event results, standings, etc), so in my (non-lawyer) opinion it's unlikely any data protection issue could arise at the moment. But when an organisation starts storing privileged information that should be kept confidential (X made a harassment report, three different reports have been made against Y for pervy behaviour, ...) they need to be mindful of data protection rules. That's not to say it couldn't happen, just that it isn't as easy as creating a Google Sheet and that's it.

A database like this would make sense if event organisers didn't always know each other, which may be the case in the Scrabble world (no idea). But as I understand it, all organisers of FOCAL events are already members of a private organisers' subforum on C4C (someone will correct me if my information is out of date), so any specific concerns about attendees could be shared there, and possibly already are. In some ways this is preferable to a formal database which people would forget to update and check. If information like this is shared in a forum which already exists and is already frequented by organisers, anyone who needs to see information about players will see it.

Related: this kind of informal information-sharing between organisers, assuming it happens, is great, but it's no good if the information isn't used. When organisers open their events for entries, I'd like them to feel confident in telling a player "no, not this year" if there have already been multiple code of conduct violations by that player. Let's not go back to giving a harasser yet another "one more chance" leaving the harassee feeling like they're the one who has to stop coming to events.

[Rhys Benjamin]

We need to be careful about storing personal data about people in a database, because it comes with various legal requirements. Among other things, anyone would have a right to access the data held about them, so you wouldn't put anything on a player's record which you wouldn't be prepared to show them.

I get what you are saying here but there are ways around this. In the event of a Subject Access Request, which I have had to deal with in my job as a Caseworker, we had to seek guidance from the ICO, and although I can't say too much as all of our casework is confidential, they were very clear once we spoke to them about what we had to release back to the constituent and what we had the right to retain.

In a hypothetical case where FOCAL receives a complaint and it is decided to refer them to the police, FOCAL does not, in my interpretation of this guidance, have to release their report to the individual concerned until all judicial proceedings are completed.

You cannot request personal data that forms part of a judicial decision or in documents relating to an investigation or proceedings which have been created by or on behalf of a court of other judicial authority. This is because there are other access routes through which you can obtain this information – the Criminal Procedure Rules - which govern the disclosure of material for cases going through the court process.

You are, however, 100% correct that nobody else should be able to see anything.

[Marc Meakin]

Graeme, you may have misunderstood me.
(though more likely I wasn't clear or accurate)
The ABSP is just a scrabble organisation where you are exempt from a ratings Levy if you join so email addresses are required but no personal information beyond that and it encourages a sense of community but agreed its not a safeguard per se.
Yes players have been banned from tournaments but that's for cheating
So to clarify it's just a membership with committees, treasurers and AGMs etc
If Focal did that it might be a good thing.
Maybe players might be more, willing to pay an annual fee if it goes, towards DRB costs for organisers and sundry costs for ratings, equipment etc

[Rhys Benjamin]

Cut and paste from the other thread.

As far as I can see he's not been on apto, or co-events, so in terms of our community a non-concern. Basically he's just a guy who lost (badly) on countdown.

I appreciate the Willie Whitelaw argument here (cross that bridge...), but this surely goes some way for an organiser to at least Google their attendees?

[Fiona T]

Cut and paste from the other thread.

As far as I can see he's not been on apto, or co-events, so in terms of our community a non-concern. Basically he's just a guy who lost (badly) on countdown.

I appreciate the Willie Whitelaw argument here (cross that bridge...), but this surely goes some way for an organiser to at least Google their attendees?

So I google attendee John Smith and find he's committed multiple murders, tax evasion, 1076 speeding tickets, a twenty stretch for dealing cocaine and he stole money from the Christmas club.

Some attendees don't use real names which is entirely their prerogative!