"Reef Safe" Vendors

[Bleigh]

People at retail stores interact with children more than vendors at conventions. Or working at Home Depot. Or working at the movie theaters.

Is your personal opinion to ban anyone with a criminal history from working in an honest field?

I think his proposition of doing background checks on only people at a station for lost children is a good proactive plan.

I did like the idea of asking fire safety or something like that to come volunteer is a great idea. I've seen them do child safe kits and such at events. They were also the point of contact should there be an issue. These kinds of people are trained to deal with crisis events, and would be a better person to be serving in this role than a volunteer, imo.

 

[Shep]

If we don’t move the finish line on things how will anything ever improve ? Cures? Technology? Crime? Education?

False equivalent, the things you listed have lots of problems that people are working on and really have nothing to do with this. This is more like "Well no one has ever broken a toe at the office but just to be safe, I am now going to require steel toed boots be worn by all staff, just to be on the safe side."

 

[Silver14SS]

If we don’t move the finish line on things how will anything ever improve ? Cures? Technology? Crime? Education?

By evaluating what risks are likely to happen and mitigating them. If the local group has no incidences, no reason to believe any incidences will occur, and the whole thing is a reaction to an unwanted individual being there, what has improved? The feeling of safety?

With this particular topic I believe the stats are something like 90% + of incidences occur with a family member or acquaintance. Making plans to address the other 10% may feel like doing something, but I don't know if it actually would. Then there's the difficulty of measuring things that didn't happen, I don't know how to measure assaults prevented.

Might as well do the whole show as a webcast to make sure nobody gets hurt on the way there or while in attendance.

 

[TheHarold]

I think his proposition of doing background checks on only people at a station for lost children is a good proactive plan.

I did like the idea of asking fire safety or something like that to come volunteer is a great idea. I've seen them do child safe kits and such at events. They were also the point of contact should there be an issue. These kinds of people are trained to deal with crisis events, and would be a better person to be serving in this role than a volunteer, imo.

I would not disagree with that. Sure, to work at the “Lost child station”, you need a background check. Great. Or even better, we could have an official security guard there.

I would passionately disagree with any attempt to filter who attends conventions. It is just archaic.

 

[motortrendz]

I tho k you.need to step.away from the background check. It's not a churches children's ministry volunteer. It's a retail vendor. And again, you wouldnt need that if you have law enforcement volunteers and or ems volunteers. All have gone through extensive background checks and vetting. And wouldn't need to be rechecked.

 

[User1]

For sure! To the first part, maybe we get a discount due to the volume of background checks from churches in our denomination. I'm not sure on that one.

With all due respect the last place I would be having doing any back ground checks is a church.

 

[tripdad]

To Helen, at this point I suggest you make a new post with the "evolved" idea/plan. This way we, the R2R members, can see where you are at now and possibly we can stop hammering resolved issues.

 

[TheHarold]

With all due respect the last place I would be having doing any back ground checks is a church.

Erm, I don’t think that’s accurate though. We have seen a RIDICULOUS amount of child abuse in churches come to light I n the recent years....it’s insane. Possibly the most abuse in any profession out there. I think religious leaders near children in particular need to have background checks .

Edit: I misread, we are in agreement

 

[Bleigh]

By evaluating what risks are likely to happen and mitigating them. If the local group has no incidences, no reason to believe any incidences will occur, and the whole thing is a reaction to an unwanted individual being there, what has improved? The feeling of safety?

Might as well do the whole show as a webcast to make sure nobody gets hurt on the way there or while in attendance.

Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with being proactive. How often do children die in school fires, but how much precaution goes into making sure it doesn't happen? Last I checked there's not been a single death due to a fire in a school in decades.

Now the methods of going about precaution, I may question a bit (I wouldn't do background checks of vendors at a reefing event), but I do not think it hurts to consider risks and how they may be ameliorated.

 

[Silver14SS]

Erm, I don’t think that’s accurate. We have seen a RIDICULOUS amount of child abuse in churches come to light I n the recent years....it’s insane. I think religious leaders near children in particular need to have background checks .

Psst, read it again, he's saying they are not the shining example to use

 

[Bleigh]

To Helen, at this point I suggest you make a new post with the "evolved" idea/plan. This way we, the R2R members, can see where you are at now and possibly we can stop hammering resolved issues.

Good idea.... perhaps even add an edit the first post to reflect where you are now. I'd love to know how the plan is evolving! And I seriously think you for considering this issue!

 

[Quietman]

As a bit of a thought experiment....isn't there an implied sign at every park, store, arcade..."this is not child safe". I think there is....it's how I've always treated the world. I've been in lots a places designed for children's entertainment and never trusted the people enough to not keep one parent eye on my child or grandchild at all times. Parents know what I mean here and Grandparents really know what I mean. Just not sure what zones are trying to accomplish when I think about it. Sure you might make vendors safer maybe...depending...I guess..but these are still busy, crowded places with lots of potential danger.

Focusing on bands (child ID) and response (Amber alerts) is critical and a very workable idea. Plus if advertised and posted would likely be an excellent deterrent.

 

[TheHarold]

Psst, read it again, he's saying they are not the shining example to use

I don’t think so. He is saying the last place that needs background checks is the church/religious people. Or at least that was my understanding.

 

[Bleigh]

As a bit of a thought experiment....isn't there an implied sign at every park, store, arcade..."this is not child safe". I think there is....it's how I've always treated the world. I've been in lots a places designed for children's entertainment and never trusted the people enough to not keep one parent eye on my child or grandchild at all times. Parents know what I mean here and Grandparents really know what I mean. Just not sure what zones are trying to accomplish when I think about it. Sure you might make vendors safer maybe...depending...I guess..but these are still busy, crowded places with lots of potential danger.

Focusing on bands (child ID) and response (Amber alerts) is critical and a very workable idea. Plus if advertised and posted would likely be an excellent deterrent.

Agreed. Assume there will be dangers. The liability of telling people that a place IS safe is just a lot to take on, IMO.

 

[jayala12]

False equivalent, the things you listed have lots of problems that people are working on and really have nothing to do with this. This is more like "Well no one has ever broken a toe at the office but just to be safe, I am now going to require steel toed boots be worn by all staff, just to be on the safe side."

That’s being excessive. Steel toed boots no, but not allowing staff to wear sandals sure. What I’m saying is. Just cuz something has not happened doesn’t mean we can’t get ahead of the curve and prevent something that could occur. Or Atleast try and improve something. Saying nothing has happened or it’s perfect may stop progress. There is ALWAYS something that can improve a situation. Nothing is perfect

 

[CubsFan]

I don’t think so. He is saying the last place that needs background checks is the church/religious people. Or at least that was my understanding.

I also read it as not being sure we can trust the people who say they’re doing background checks for a church. There are several examples of cover ups or looking the other way.

 

[User1]

Erm, I don’t think that’s accurate though. We have seen a RIDICULOUS amount of child abuse in churches come to light I n the recent years....it’s insane. Possibly the most abuse in any profession out there. I think religious leaders near children in particular need to have background checks .

It maybe wasn't delivered properly but what I was saying is that the church "should not be the one doing" said background check. Law enforcement or otherwise sanctioned entity.

I agree with you but just screwed up saying it...

 

[TheHarold]

It maybe wasn't delivered properly but what I was saying is that the church "should not be the one doing" said background check. Law enforcement or otherwise sanctioned entity.

I agree with you but just screwed up saying it...

Ahh I see now. We are in agreement on that

 

[Silver14SS]

I don’t think so. He is saying the last place that needs background checks is the church/religious people. Or at least that was my understanding.

I read it as him saying that churches shouldn't be performing them, not that they don't need them

 

[TheHarold]

I read it as him saying that churches shouldn't be performing them, not that they don't need them

I misinterpreted, my bad!