concern for child

seamus

MarkR wrote: »

If the person is on premises, they should be vetted. I don't care if it's a man or woman, random people shouldn't be hanging around.

Being "on the premises" isn't good enough.

The act is quite clear about where vetting is required.

jlm29 wrote: »

But he is involved. He helps her with setting up and moving equipment.

That is not an activity "which mainly consist(s) of them having access to, or contact with, children".

The counter-argument here is that if his involvement extends primarily to setting up and breaking down (i.e. when the kids are usually gone), then the activity doesn't count.

But ultimately what he is doing is exempted by the act. This is a private arrangement between the teacher and this man for the benefit of the teacher, which is explicitly exempted from vetting.

purplestar77 wrote: »

Yes they should be

If they're actively supervising, but not if they're observing.

mitresize5

This is madness,

The issue here is why is the child uncomfortable with an adult male in the room.

Either the child has been 'taught' to view adult males as a threat or something has happened that she see's adult males as a threat... or maybe the child is shy. Either way there are going to be big bad men in the childs life (teachers, bosses etc ...) that the child is going to have to cope with.

If there was an issue with the man behaviour then he wouldn't be in the room as the daughter wouldnt have been the first one to note it and the class would be empty.

Absolutely bonkers to think that man can't sit in a room on his phone now without been perceived as some form of pest.

The world has gone mad

ldy4mxonucwsq6

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where is that a quote from please?

Potentially it means that if a child has a parent who wouldn't pass vetting, that parent cannot attend events with their child. And that the moment a young person turns 18, they need to be vetted before they can hang out with their 17 year old friends again.

The National Vetting Bureau (Children
and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, goes into it in depth:

3.— (1) This Act shall not apply to any of the following, namely:

(a) any relevant work or activities undertaken in the course of a family relationship

(b) any relevant work or activities undertaken—

(i) in the course of a personal relationship, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

(c) the giving of assistance by an individual—

(i) on an occasional basis, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

at a school, sports or community event or activity, other than where such
assistance includes the coaching, mentoring, counselling, teaching or training
of children.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t agree. If he has the right to be there, then he should be vetted.

Who says he isn't?
For all we know he's a 1st aid practitioner and the class isn't allowed to take place without him being there. All this rubbish about him having no place when nobody has the foggiest idea of what his role is.

victor8600

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What kind of lesson does that teach the child? Working on the assumption that he has done nothing wrong and that the child only doesn't like the look of him, are we really suggesting that the right course of action is telling this guy to hide? Will mammy be able to always get the men the child doesn't like the look of to go and hide?

Look, the girl is there to learn dancing. If, and it's a stretch assumption, it is only the presence of that guy that makes her uncomfortable, it is reasonable to ask the teacher if the presence of this guy is needed. Not because the guy is doing anything wrong. But he is not contributing to the class by sitting in that particular place, is he? So for the sake of a shy child, yes, he can be asked to move to another place.

SusieBlue

victor8600 wrote: »

Look, the girl is there to learn dancing. If, and it's a stretch assumption, it is only the presence of that guy that makes her uncomfortable, it is reasonable to ask the teacher if the presence of this guy is needed. Not because the guy is doing anything wrong. But he is not contributing to the class by sitting in that particular place, is he? So for the sake of a shy child, yes, he can be asked to move to another place.

Mollycoddling of the highest order.
If we are in agreement that the man has done nothing wrong & isn’t a threat, then it’s absolutely absurd to suggest he be the one to leave.

It’s just so unreasonable.
If she’s that shy she will have to learn how to deal with it or remove herself from the class. Her problem, her issue to deal with, not his.
Taking away the trigger is not the solution, not to mention how insulting it would be to the poor innocent man in question, who again, has done nothing wrong.

TheBoyConor

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why is that? Do you have the same issue with male teachers?

Of course. But then that is their main role, they are not lurking down the back of the room making pupils uncomfortable.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Absolute hyperbole.
Attitudes like this is why men are reluctant to volunteer in any activities involving children. Its actually so damaging and dangerous.
You are assuming he's some sort of predator up to no good based off pretty much nothing.

I guarantee there would be none of this talk if the partner in question was female.

It is for his own good as well as for the benefit of the children. Removing him from the room takes away the risk of suggestions of allegations of a potential impropriety.

mitresize5 wrote: »

This is madness,

The issue here is why is the child uncomfortable with an adult male in the room.

Either the child has been 'taught' to view adult males as a threat or something has happened that she see's adult males as a threat... or maybe the child is shy. Either way there are going to be big bad men in the childs life (teachers, bosses etc ...) that the child is going to have to cope with.

If there was an issue with the man behaviour then he wouldn't be in the room as the daughter wouldnt have been the first one to note it and the class would be empty.

Absolutely bonkers to think that man can't sit in a room on his phone now without been perceived as some form of pest.

The world has gone mad

As I said, if the man is setting up and taking down. That is his role and he should do it out of sight and when no minors are present. As it stands he is just twiddling his thumbs during the class. His presence is not necessary and thus it is not appropriate for him to be present.

TheBoyConor

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

AulWan

You can ask the class instructor if her partner is vetted or can he stay elsewhere, but I wouldn't be holding out for a very friendly response.

Garda vetting means very little anyway. All it means is someone has never been caught doing something wrong, not that they've never done anything wrong.

I'd be more concerned about why my child is so uneasy around men.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

What is she the victim of?

TheBoyConor

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man. But we don't know the full story. It is quite possible that she has been abused or raped in the past and this is the reason for her nervousness. It would be wrong and victim blaming if she were asked to leave.

kippy

This is an interesting one. Purely from the aspect of this person's role within the organisation.

EG. There are many parents who sit by on their phone while their child and other children train or play a multitude of sports: GAA, Soccer, Basketball, athletics etc -should they all be Garda vetted at a minimum?

At what point and who in the organisation needs to be vetted at a minimum?


I think parents have a right to be concerned and query those who are in contact with kids.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man. But we don't know the full story. It is quite possible that she has been abused or raped in the past and this is the reason for her nervousness. It would be wrong and victim blaming if she were asked to leave.

Or it's quite possible she doesn't fancy dancing or hasn't had any exposure to men at all or any number of other reasons? You can't assume someone in a room is guilty based on nothing.

AulWan

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I'm sorry bu you cannot ask a young girl doing a dance class to leave because a man who has no active role in the class is watching on making her nervous. That is just victim blaming of the highest order. What if something had happened? Would you be telling her to leave because she is the problem in that case?

Victim blaming?

There is no VICTIM here.

TheBoyConor

I am involved with a professional organisation and the larger national organisation runs a week to educate and encourage kids to get involved in that field as a career. Every year a good number of people would volunteer to give a hand at a couple of open days and family days and such. Last year the national organisation decided that all volunteers had to be garda vetted. Given all the hassle of doing that just for the sake or one or two afternoons, 95% of the volunteers diecided it was too much effort for what it was worth and didn't bother volunteering. All was left was a few of the more dedicated members. Vetting kills off the occasional volunteer.

AulWan

hots wrote: »

What is she the victim of?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Being made to feel uncomfortable by a man.

Are you actually for real?

TheBoyConor

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

AulWan

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

No, its is not. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man who is guilty of absolutely nothing (other then the fact that he is male), should have to leave because of this.

Totally hysterial over-reaction.

is_that_so

Not much more to offer here other than talk to the child, maybe the OP can take a look at the set-up themselves. I do think the route of hinting or suggesting impropriety will end badly all round. The only real option then if they are so uncomfortable would be to withdraw the child.

ldy4mxonucwsq6

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I am involved with a professional organisation and the larger national organisation runs a week to educate and encourage kids to get involved in that field as a career. Every year a good number of people would volunteer to give a hand at a couple of open days and family days and such. Last year the national organisation decided that all volunteers had to be garda vetted. Given all the hassle of doing that just for the sake or one or two afternoons, 95% of the volunteers diecided it was too much effort for what it was worth and didn't bother volunteering. All was left was a few of the more dedicated members. Vetting kills off the occasional volunteer.

At most it's filling out a form and giving a copy of ID and proof of address, take all of 5 minutes in this day and age. I've done it plenty of times myself, what's the issue?

Anyone who doesn't bother because of mandatory vetting wasn't arsed in the first place and is only looking for a reason to get out of volunteering.

is_that_so

AulWan wrote: »

No, its is not. It is ridiculous to suggest that a man who is guilty of absolutely nothing (other then the fact that he is male), should have to leave because of this.

Totally hysterial over-reaction.

One ad I see fairly regularly and like is the Lidl one encouraging you to be a good adult. Helping out is being a good adult.

hots

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

I hope you're never anywhere without a specific purpose, or would be happy to leave because of your implied potential to be a criminal of some flavour, despite I assume you not being anything of the sort.

Dravokivich

MOD

Folks, this is starting to stretch a bit, from the query the OP had.

Can we please move away from all this conjecture? This is just meant to be an advisory/support forum.

MrMusician18

Jaelyn Melodic Armadillo wrote: »

At most it's filling out a form and giving a copy of ID and proof of address, take all of 5 minutes in this day and age. I've done it plenty of times myself, what's the issue?

Anyone who doesn't bother because of mandatory vetting wasn't arsed in the first place and is only looking for a reason to get out of volunteering.

There's a bit more to it than that, especially if you've lived abroad for a period of time. I had to be vetted for my employer on the off chance there would be children around the office. Didn't think it was particularly easy.

Mrs OBumble

farmchoice wrote: »

ya there is a strong argument for always having another adult present. i'm a sports coach and if i ever dont another vetted coach with me ill try and have another non vetted adult present watching,usually a parent.

I run a music group for teens. Under our standard operating policies if there's not a 2nd adult present, then either I have to leave the room or the kids have to. Usually that 2nd adult is sitting there twiddling their thumbs. Only one of us is required to be vetted - but that person is responsible for what goes on.

JustAThought

Jaelyn Melodic Armadillo wrote: »

The National Vetting Bureau (Children
and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, goes into it in depth:

3.— (1) This Act shall not apply to any of the following, namely:

(a) any relevant work or activities undertaken in the course of a family relationship

(b) any relevant work or activities undertaken—

(i) in the course of a personal relationship, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

(c) the giving of assistance by an individual—

(i) on an occasional basis, and
(ii) for no commercial consideration

at a school, sports or community event or activity, other than where such
assistance includes the coaching, mentoring, counselling, teaching or training
of children.

you seem to have deliberately left out the immediately next section that specifically says that private arrangements for the benefit of the child or individual are EXEMPT.

it is exactly this kind of hysterical and snowflake nonsense that has clubs closing all over the country because they cannot get volunteers and men walking away from being volunteers in their droves because of fear of being called paedophiles or predators by hysterical loons.

by all means challenge someone if you see them doing something untoward but be prepared to legal up and dig deep - we have harsh lws against defamation in this country - your unjust allefation could cost you 70k.

perhaps the OP is passing on her issues to her daughter - it would seem the most sensible thing woild be to ask her why and if there is either a tangiable reason address it with the owner/ gf and if not listen to your child and dont make her go to classes she dislikes and does not enjoy if you cannot logic the issue away. That poor man.He’ll be branded a pardophile and his partners business ruined just because of nothing. If he was gay or black you’d be afraid to say anything.When did it become free for all hunting season on men?

ldy4mxonucwsq6

JustAThought wrote: »

you seem to have deliberately left out the immediately next section that specifically says that private arrangements for the benefit of the child or individual are EXEMPT.

Read it again, that's exactly what my post said the act DOES NOT apply in the listed situations.

JustAThought

Jaelyn Melodic Armadillo wrote: »

At most it's filling out a form and giving a copy of ID and proof of address, take all of 5 minutes in this day and age. I've done it plenty of times myself, what's the issue?

Anyone who doesn't bother because of mandatory vetting wasn't arsed in the first place and is only looking for a reason to get out of volunteering.

As someone who has been vetted if you have lived abroad ever as an adult you have to give that address and for the jurisdiction get the appropriate police station for that address or jurisdictional authority to sign off on you -which is joy the doddle it is here in Ireland and requires a lot of registered letters, declarations and police paperwork. It is definately not a doddle. As for garda vetting here - the dirty little secret is that now that criminal records are being expunged after x number of years and crime forgiveness brought in to protect the criminals human rights let alone people willingness to give past fake addresses which the garda take at face value - I would be very concerned about the value of that piece of paper nowadays.Its not as though you can’t hide reporting of your crimes on google searches at your own request, and its not as though vetting is done every year or up to date.

SusieBlue

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I didn't say anyone was guilty. And that girl is not guilty so why should she leave. But the man has no reason to be there during the class. And there is always the potential. He is making the girl uncomfortable anyway, that should be reason enough to have him leave.

Well, why shouldn’t she leave?
Logically, if neither of them haven’t done anything wrong and yet SHE still feels uncomfortable, she should be the one to leave.
As per the OP he lifts props/equipment which helps the instructor, so yes he does have need to be there.

Removing the trigger is not the solution.
Dealing with why the child was triggered in the first place is the solution.
If that means removing the child from the situation, then so be it.
Part of parenting is helping children deal with and overcome situations they find uncomfortable and things they don’t want to do.
That’s part of growing up. If that’s too difficult, she can find another class to go to.
Again, all this is said with the understanding thar the man has done nothing wrong.

rainbowtrout

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If I was running a class and a parent approached me with a seemingly unfounded concern (he hasn't done anything, correct? The child is just uneasy?) regarding my partner helper and was looking for a child protection statement I would not be permitting that child to attend.

There is enough grief dealing with children and parents. Whatever about being paid for these services I cannot understand why anyone would volunteer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

You could write a letter to the garda vetting authorities and express a concern that you are worried that there is a potentially unvetted adult male with access to children.

reaslistically, he has no business in there while there are children there. He should be waiting somewhere else and move the gear in and out when there is no-one in the room before and after the class. It is unacceptable that he would be there looking on when there is no need for him to be. Can't be too careful these days.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

As opposed to what days??

It is the above posters attitude that will ensure that sports clubs cannot find volunteers to be involved with children and there will never be TY or work experience students in our office.

Letter to the guards?? It's definitely not worth the grief to get involved with providing services for children.

Deleted User wrote: »

Who says he isn't?
For all we know he's a 1st aid practitioner and the class isn't allowed to take place without him being there. All this rubbish about him having no place when nobody has the foggiest idea of what his role is.

First off the OP should be asking her daughter why she feels uncomfortable to see if there's more to it than meets the eye, or that she just feels awkward, or as another poster suggested that she was acting the maggot during a class/ or just doesn't like dancing and is trying to find a way to get out of it.

After that the OP can ask the dance instructor casually who the guy is, or even ask one of the other parents when they are dropping off/collecting the child. Easy enough to find out.

A lot of people are saying that all the requirements for garda vetting etc are ridiculous and killing off volunteers, but that's the way it's gone. Everyone that comes into my school to do a workshop has to have garda vetting and a teacher has to stay in the classroom to supervise, and I'm in a second level school. Also any of our TYs going on work experience (16 year olds), if they are going to a creche, nursing home, primary school must be garda vetted. Many of our students went back to their old primary school where they were under the supervision of a class teacher all day and had to be vetted. No vetting, no placement.

To be honest for any instructor offering any after school classes they'd be mad not to have garda vetting / child safety statement/ child safety training done for whoever is involved, when this is the new norm.