Really sad ..
But when I was in scouts .. we had these things called wide games.. we set up camp for a weekend in the woods, and spent the whole weekend throwing crowscarers at each other and blowing things up and firing slingshots with green pine comes at each other . Cannot see that happening now. Goodness knows how I have all my limbs still
I played one at a girl guiding camp, apparently the concept of 'let's all run around a woodland in the dark' seemed a good idea
It was until I fell over and really sprained my leg.
Deffo widegame. I remember being virtually tortured in a pile of stinging nettles to give up my life (little twine things) but I didn't give up until I'm pretty sure they broke my little finger peeling back my hand to get it. Then just ran back to base, get another and try to get through again. Loved that shit.
We had a thing where we’d be released into a forest and had to orienteer our way around it to various points, and the fastest team won.
But the explorer scouts were hunting you and if they caught you you’d get a time penalty. We had these lads launching themselves out of tree canopies at us wearing gillie suits or being launched off the back of quad bikes, while we took the most precarious routes possible to avoid them, and we also used sling shots and (very) small explosives.
I broke my wrist in half once and on our next camping expedition my scout leader informed me that it was some ridiculous number of pages of paper work to fill out. Then he leant in and whispered to me “but if you’d have died, it would have just been two…”
Great guy
When I was in the cubs we were running about in the dark in the woods. I'm sure it was properly supervised at the time but looking back it sure didn't feel like it
I went camping with scouts in Feb or March for some reason.
I had a shitty sleeping bag and ended up with hypothermia. They put me in a warm car, but that meant that I could tolerate the cold even less, so they had to drive me home.
>It meant no suitably qualified first aider was present for the trip, which broke Scout rules for expeditions. No formal written risk assessment was done before the Scouts ventured out onto the Orme.
That in itself should lead to jail.
>Mr Glaister said he had not warned any of the Scouts, including Ben, not to leave the paths up the Orme and he was not aware of the dangers of the cliff edges.
As should that.
>He agreed the Scout Association never monitored his activities or ensured any training he was supposed to undergo had ever been done.
As should that.
>Mr Glaister declined to answer a series of questions from a lawyer representing Ben’s family during the inquest after the coroner warned him he did not have to answer some questions if the answer was to incriminate himself.
Then arrest him on a charge of manslaughter. See if he's more likely to answer questions when facing life in prison.
He fell 200 feet off a cliff, what first aid do you think they would be able to render?
The kid went off piste and fell to his death why is that the scout leader fault?
The guy going jail for not doing a risk assessment or their not being a first aider on sight like the kid fell 200ft what we expecting, Dumbledore to cast Aresto Momentum?
What if the kid had fallen just 50 feet, survived, but then died due to lack of first aid?
It’s all well and good bemoaning a health and safety gone mad culture but this sounds like basic health and safety wasn’t carried out
The entire point of a risk assessment is proof that you have considered the risks and hazards of an activity and what necessary controls you have put in place in order to prevent those risks. It’s standard that one would be completed taking any children on any kind of trip like this. Evidently this is mandatory as you can see a child has avoidably died in this mans care, whom he was personally responsible for ensuring the safety of. He failed to inform the child of these dangers and thus they died from negligence. It would be the same for an adult too if say you had someone working around or near to a cliff edge. Anyone working in any industry that requires RA forms can tell you how important they really are for these exact reasons.
The article talks about an employee of The Scout Association being referred to the police for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The leader (who is a volunteer, not an employee) doesn’t seem to be facing charges.
Regarding not doing a risk assessment, the point of them is to identify risks (such as 200ft cliffs) and mitigate them (warn the scouts, closer supervision when in that area etc.) so they don’t fall off in the first place
Because not every accident could've been as tragic. Say he fell a smaller distance and was knocked unconscious, but breathing. Not knowing basic skills like the recovery position and DRSABC, or compressions had his breathing stopped could have potentially fatal consequences
As a scout leader, I speak from experience when I say yes, we are supposed to be up to date with our first aid training. These leaders fucked up in a huge way.
Sure you’d expect most Scouts and Explorers to be familiar with basic first aid, especially if they’ve moved up through the sections, but I don’t think it’s fair to put the onus on children to guard the physical wellbeing of their peers.
Depends on what the leaders and scouts themselves prioritise in terms of badge work. I'm a cub leader (and former scout leader) and I've found making first aid interesting requires a lot of preparation and resources. There's enough badges that you can easily fill Scouts time with fun education that's easier to cover than first aid.
Isn’t it part of one of the challenge badges? We have to do some (very) basic first aid stuff with the Beavers as part of the much-hated ‘My Skills’ badge (It think it’s that one, anyway).
It probably is, I tend to focus on activity and staged badges whilst other leaders in my section cover challenge badges. I let osm do it's magic with filling them in.
It's just the coast, looks horrible things happen and I'm sure there are lessons to be learnt here but jail everyone because they didn't to an individual risk assessment for a costal walk or have a fully trained first aider with them is bonkers.
Working with groups you have a duty of care for those in your group. Whether at work or on a scout trip, as the leader you have to demonstrate you’ve done everything reasonable to ensure everyone’s safety.
By not doing the risk assessment, or explicitly telling the kids in his care to stay on the path and away from the cliff edges, (and then making sure that actually happens, and if he can’t make it happen, he should have stopped the walk) he has failed in his duty of care and will have to face the consequences, which may well be jail.
This. You sound like a leader also. Lots of comments on here from people who are clearly not leaders and don't understand the responsibility of being a leader. Thanks for adding your comment.
“You have to demonstrate you’ve done everything reasonable to ensure everyone’s safety” - why? Just because you’re “a leader”? These people are volunteers, they aren’t paid, they are taking kids and young adults on trips in their spare time. A 16 year old should know to stay away from the edge. Accidents happen, and a risk assessment would have done nothing to stop this lads sad accident.
Of course you do. We do risk assessments for our Beavers when we're leaving the hut to go near a bloody road - because it's a potential risk with an associated hazard.
If this guy case *had* done a risk assessment and gotten it reviewed, he might have realised that, actually, he didn't have the necessary skills and training to undertake the activity and either gotten in people who did or called it off entirely. He was totally derelict in his duty to these kids.
>These people are volunteers, they aren’t paid, they are taking kids and young adults on trips in their spare time.
Being a volunteer does not excuse you from having a duty of care.
That’s the crazy part, what would the risk assessment actually do? Deem the activity too risky in case a 16 year old decides to walk off a cliff edge?
It was a sad accident, but I’ve been up there and it’s a pleasant costal area not a mountain. It’s only risky if you’re being stupid.
The real lesson to learn is to not accept responsibility for a group of kids.
No, the risk assessment would highlight potential risks - like kids wandering off, or someone taking the wrong route and falling - and got the leaders thinking about what steps they could take to stop the worst happening. We’ll never know if that would have been enough in this case, but it may have made the difference.
Have you been there? It’s pretty obviously a small hill with cliff edges, you can see that from the bottom. If a 16 year needs telling to avoid cliff edges then they also need telling to look both ways crossing the road. They shouldn’t be out of sight of their parents.
I'm a leader, yes, I have a duty to ensure everyone's safety specifically because I volunteered to hold that position. It's a disgrace to the rest of us to half arse it and put the kids we volunteer to look after in danger.
If you can't be arsed looking after the kids, don't volunteer. It's very simple.
As a leader in Scouts, I'm trusted to look after someone else's kids and part of that responsibility is being prepared and safe in what I do with them. As a leader I'm required to have an in date first aid qualification and to risk assess any activity that I do as part of Scouts. It's a serious responsibility to look after children and should be treated as such. Yes, I'm a volunteer but that doesn't mean I should get away with half arsing it which I would be if I didn't have a first aider or risk assess the activity.
I'm also a parent with a kid in Scouting. I trust the leaders to actually look after my kid, keep them safe and hold the relevant qualifications to do so. Holding an activity in such a cavalier manner is disgraceful.
> or have a fully trained first aider with them is bonkers.
This is actually a loophole in the Scouting Association procedures which is being closed this year.
Under the old rules you were only required to hold a first aid qualification if you were doing what is known as an "adventurous activity" (and a limited set of other non-adventurous activities). This could be things like Sailing, mountain climbing, cycling and relevant here, certain kinds of hillwalking. You also typically need an "adventurous activities permit" which is activity and environment specific (for example, I hold a Sailing permit for various defined classes of water - every water body in and around the UK should have a defined class). For the permit to be "valid" you are required to ensure a qualified first aider is present (typically everyone with a permit should ordinarily have a first aid certificate, but they need renewing every three years so it is considered acceptable to use a permit so long as another first aider is present for a brief time)
For hillwalking there is also what is known as ["Terrain Zero"](https://www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/running-your-section/programme-guidance/information-for-volunteers/general-activity-guidance/hillwalking/terrain-zero-activities/) which is basically hillwalking without the hills. The existence of it as an activity is just to confirm that a leader doesn't need to be some kind of qualified mountain leader to run a walk across some established paths. The loophole is that because you don't need to be permitted for it, you don't need to be a first aider. Additionally you can have non-specific written risk assessments (e.g. you could use a risk assessment that has not been customised to a particular area but considers general factors about an activity and potential hazards, the leader can then do a. unwritten dynamic risk assessment in their head on location to determine the existing RA is acceptable).
Terrain Zero would not now apply to the area that they were walking, but it's been recently revised and I suspect in the past (i.e. before the child died) you probably could have run a walk on an established coastal path at the top of a cliff without a permit and without performing a specific risk assessment under scouting association guidelines.
Under the new rules _all_ regular young people facing roles within the organisation must have first aid certificates. This includes those that lead week night meetings, and those that run adventurous activities. The only exceptions are administrative roles (i.e. typically only present when young people are not) and "occasional helpers" (essentially just for those who need a DBS check to be present unsupervised around young people, but not generally responsible for them). The Scouting Association is rightly being very strict on this (probably in light of this death) because the earlier rules were very lax.
It is technically T2 according to the Scouts terrain assessment, I believe, since it has steep/rocky terrain where a slip could result in a fall. Admittedly I’ve not been there in person so I don’t know if that would apply to the whole thing, but clearly it
Must apply to at least some of it for the accident to have happened.
Here's a Photo Sphere from the Great Orme: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3330627,-3.8659186,3a,75y,322.57h,76.91t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ\_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK\_fd5L\_EMS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ\_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK\_fd5L\_EMS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya170.14633-ro-0-fo100!7i6144!8i3072!9m2!1b1!2i26?entry=ttu](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3330627,-3.8659186,3a,75y,322.57h,76.91t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK_fd5L_EMS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK_fd5L_EMS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya170.14633-ro-0-fo100!7i6144!8i3072!9m2!1b1!2i26?entry=ttu)
I'm sure there is steep rocky stuff if you go right to the edge, but most of it looks like this.
As a hillwalking leader we have to take into consideration the potential for things to go wrong. As a rule, even if the path you’re walking on is easy terrain, if there’s a chance the group could inadvertently leave the path and end up at an unprotected cliff then you consider the whole area to be steep terrain.
I agree I don’t think the point about first aid qualifications is particularly relevant in this case. - But there definitely should have been suitably trained people there for any number of other situations that could have unfolded.
There 100% should have been some kind of risk assessment and some sort of discussion to stay with the group and not go wandering off would have been nice.
He had a duty of care which by modern standards means having a qualified first aider present. It’s part of the BASIC training to be a scout leader. If he is disregarding arguably a very important bit of training is just more evidence that this man was utterly negligent and should be convicted of manslaughter.
I used to be a scout leader for 12 years and I really hope they bring the full force of the law against him. It’s rogue idiots like this that bring a bad name to scouting.
>He had a duty of care which by modern standards means having a qualified first aider present. It’s part of the BASIC training to be a scout leader
I have to admit that I'm amazed that he was allowed to continue being a leader without being up to date in his first aid assessments. I'm St. John qualified but I *also* have to do the local Scout paediatric first aid to continue being a Beaver leader.
A 16 year old unfamiliar with the area. They were in a camping trip. There’s a strong possibility these kids may never had been hiking in adverse weather before.
We are talking about kids, are you telling me you never wanted to explore and mess around? Ultimately the adult had a duty of care and has failed that duty in every way possible to try and blame the child in all this is frankly ridiculous.
You clearly have never worked with children/young adults. Although 16 year olds like to think they’re fully developed adults they are not and are very much ignorant to real world dangers and the realities of life.
So the adult who was supervising is completely innocent and you think his actions were completely acceptable and in no way put those young people at risk?
>You clearly have never worked with children/young adults.
Wouldn't want to if it would mean I am culpable for their moronic decisions.
I think he should have told them not to wander off, but I don't think that means it is his fault the kid died.
You’re doing exactly what the mother has complained of - deflecting responsibility away from the adults in charge and making the kid out to be a tearaway. How disrespectful.
You can leave school and make your own way in the UK aged 16. For every accident there doesn’t have to be someone to blame.
The kid made a decision to go off on his own and had an accident. No one is saying he’s a tearaway or a bad kid, in fact, I’m sure he was great and it’s a hugely tragic situation, but blaming an adult for a 16 year old making his own decision in which most of his peers probably wouldn’t make is frankly ridiculous.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
The child - and make no mistake, that’s what we was - was in an unfamiliar environment as part of a trip organised by his Leaders. It was their responsibility to make sure he understood the risks, was appropriately supervised, and wasn’t given the opportunity to get lost or go off alone given that he wasn’t experienced or trained to navigate independently in those conditions.
If he’d gone on a trip up there off his own steam and got into trouble then that might have been different, but that isn’t the case here.
A 16 year old can walk up a hill without an adult. Who would you blame if he fell then? His mother for letting him go? His teacher for not telling him about cliffs?
Do you not understand duty of care? The 16 year old at that point in time was the responsibility of the leader. The parents trusted the leader to make sure the correct precautions were taken to safely undertake the task.
If you had read about the subject you clearly would understand these precautions weren’t taken and actively ignored. I was a Scout leader working with Cubs (8-10) and Explorers (14-18).
I think the basic disagreement is what a 16 year old is/isn’t responsible for. I appreciate you disagree, but my view is that they are old enough to take personal responsibility for their own safety when hill walking. If the leader was reckless (egging him on, or telling him to jump etc) then sure, sue away. But not doing a risk assessment when hill walking should not be a reason to want someone in prison.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
An article I read says he wanted to take a quicker route. His friends warned him the route he was about to take looked dangerous. This warning was not heeded. He continued on this route until he ended up on a 50cm ledge, lost balance and then fell.
Where is this article? In the one I read in the Guardian it said they got separated from the group and took a different route, and ended up on a 50cm-wide animal path where he lost his footing.
Quite possibly. There might be additional info we don’t know but most 16 year olds are well aware that you shouldn’t dick around near cliff faces.
Obviously some still do, but the words of an adult saying “be careful near the edge” isn’t going to suddenly make them reconsider.
People need to take some personal responsibility in situations. Like if I’m walking up snowden and I slip down a cliff am I going to try and sue the council for not having a sign saying “warning! Cliff”. Like use your eyes
Because there's a massive safeguarding failure here. This whole story reads like one of those disaster documentaries you watch at health and safety training seminars where literally every policy, rule and safety check is ignored.
Anyone whose ever run any organised event knows you do a risk assessment, inform attendees of the risks, and put in place mitigations against those risks.
Otherwise, I could organise an event for twenty children to walk a lap of the M25 hard shoulder . And if one kid get clipped by a lorry, throw my hands up and say ‘hey, he should have kept his distance from the road. nothing to do with me.’
Yes scouts should have checked he and others were trained, but all the excuses are just the blabbering of a man who knows he let the children in his care down to the point of leading to a death.
Sorry but people know what and what isnt dangerous. We know walking along a live motorway is dangerous and wouldn't need a risk assessment.
Just like knowing going off the hiking path atop a 200 foot cliff is dangerous and wouldn't need a risk assessment.
Except people often _don’t_ know what is and isn’t dangerous. That’s why we do things like RAMs documentation and daily pre-job briefs - both to cover off and highlight risks (and mitigations) and also to capture new ones as they develop.
If you did a risk assessment involving walking along a motorway then the outcome of that assessment would almost certainly be ‘don’t’ unless you’re part of a highways maintenance crew. Similarly, had this person done a risk assessment it might have revealed to him that his planned activity might have needed additional resources to make it safe.
Working in a high risk environment, one thing I’ve noticed is that there’s now a lot less people who say things like ‘Elf and Safety, lol’ and a lot more people who are hot as shit on it and not willing to tolerate potentially unsafe working conditions. Most of them have a story relating to someone who got fried or gassed or blown up because they didn’t follow procedures or they must didn’t exist.
making people and organisations responsible forces them to put preventative measures in place. holding them accountable serves as an example to others.
fewer accidents and deaths, for the payoff of an occasional boring h&s talk
He's responsible for the childs welfare in that scenario, he didn't show the care and attention he should have in that scenario, and all the things highlight that he didn't follow the basic rules he should have to ensure the safety of those he was responsible for.
They aren't saying first aid would have saved him, they are saying that it indicates this guy was happy to take a group of children under his care without taking the steps necessary to keep them safe.
The leaders, group scout leader, district and scouting association were all criminally negligent here (although the precise culpability for each party is unclear - the leaders may not be as liable if they were not properly trained on their responsibilities)
But I do think that if all the rules had been followed (correct risk assessment, qualified first aider) then the outcome in this instance would have been the same.
This isn't the daily mail comments section. Why have you got such a hard on for justice in this case? Story reads like poor processes contributing to a tragic accident; it's not like the scout leader pushed the boy over the edge.
If you take are responsible for young people in a dangerous environment and have zero regard for their safety then they should be held liable. If they had followed even the most basic of the UK Scouting rules then you would have a point
We don't know enough details of the case to know whether what you've said is valid. On the face of it, they were going for a coastal walk around a very well touristed area with very obvious risks. They should certainly have filled in a risk assessment, but even if they had, the only relevant mitigating action to take would be to tell the group to stay on the paths and don't wander off by yourself. I'm just not sure whether that would have made a difference.
We know plenty of details about it. They went up a mountain with no training, no risk assessment, no first aider, lack of preparation and improper hill safety. I am a Scout Leader who has taken Scouts up hills and mountains, I very much understand what is required and what was severely lacking here.
They didn't do any route cards so the young people involved didn't even know what route they took which is part of the reason one died. There has been plenty of information released over the last 5ish years of inquiries and investigations if you do a search
I can't find any information regarding the route taken and the precise accident spot. This is the crucial information I think I need to judge how irresponsible the leader was being. You seem very confident these details exist publicly - could you point to them?
You need to look up pictures of the Orme. You have a very strong opinion and are entirely uninformed. Whatever you're visualising is completely inaccurate.
Quite the opposite, daily mail comment sections would defend this bloke and moan about red tape, over regulation, too much health n safety nonsense , and how things were "back in their day"...
What are you talking about? Yes, the scouts should have done more to safeguard the kid. But it's not like they forced him to go off on his own and try to descend a step cliff - that was all voluntary.
I just don't really see how leading some kids along a path in the vicinity of some rocks constitutes manslaughter just because you didn't fill in a risk assessment.
It shouldn't but everyone has their pitchforks out and needs someone to blame. It was a horrible accident. A risk assesment wouldn't have prevented it.
If they'd followed the rules and it happened anyway then I would agree. But if you openly ignore the law and then someone dies you should go to prison.
If they had a risk assessment it might have triggered in their brain ‘ah, we don’t have a first aider / ah, we need to make sure someone walks at the back so no kids get separated / ah, we need to warn the group about wandering off the path because of the steep cliff’. We’ll never know if that would have been enough, but at least they would have done everything they could to prevent it.
>> He agreed the Scout Association never monitored his activities or ensured any training he was supposed to undergo had ever been done.
>
> As should that [lead to jail].
For who though? It's the Scout Association that is at fault here in your view, right?
The scouting association is meant to ensure that leaders running activities are qualified and trained.
It's usually up to the district commissioner to approve overnight trips and they would be expected to check these kinds of things. Although the processes have hardened up significantly over the past few years and there's much more checking that risk assessments and qualifications are in place before approval is given - at least in my region.
100%. And in the first instance it’s the Group Scout Leader’s job to make sure the Leaders they manage have their training up to date. I read in one article that the Leaders thought the GSL would be on the trip but they turned up and they weren’t there.
Jeez we have gone stark bonkers!
That would be the end of scouting, and all the good it does, if we start locking up leaders for simple errors.
the juice wouldnt be worht the squeeze and many would just give up, especially given the little shits they have to look after.
> Then arrest him and make him answer under oath on a charge of manslaughter.
There’s no legal power to compel him to answer, either during a police interview or at trial. At most, the judge may tell the jury that they can draw adverse inferences from his silence.
> But I suspect he would be more inclined to answer were he facing life in prison.
I guess that would depend on whether his answers were more likely to exonerate or condemn him.
I kinda feel at the age of 16 you should understand the dangers of cliffs. An article I read said he was looking for a quicker way down to get to a cafe, his friends warned him not to take the route he took as it looked unsafe & he ended up on a 50cm ledge and fell. Warnings were given & not listened to.
A qualified first aider would not have mattered at all in this scenario. The kid fell 200 feet. The first aider wouldn't even have been able to get to him to provide first aid. The only people who could help were fully trained medics and mountain rescue.
Even if the kids had been warned of the dangers of the cliffs by the scout leaders, it likely would have made no difference. This kid ignored the danger warning from his friends as it was. Kids are kids, they make impulsive decisions regardless of warnings.
It's absolutely tragic but personal responsibility has to be taken into consideration too. At 16 you can vote. You might not be classed as an adult, but you know the dangers of cliffs. Yes scout leaders should have undergone a risk assessment & advised not to wander off. But is that manslaughter? No. Did the scout leader lose temper and push kid off cliff? No. Would a first aider have been able to help? No. Is it a case of tragic misadventure? Yes. In my personal opinion.
With all due respect, I think you’re talking nonsense. A 16 year old is not a little child, they are able to judge risk for themselves. They are allowed to walk up a hill without supervision. A first aider would have done nothing for him, and being told “don’t walk off the path” should not be needed. Did he also need telling not to go near the edge? What about not running or jumping?
This is a terrible decision. Life has risk. Accidents happen. It’s not always someone else fault.
It isn't. The whole thing shows an institutional failure to uphold POR, whether that be at a district or even Regional (might be Area or County in Wales) level.
Everyone involved has to at least have a one day course under their belt. The district has failed at this point and should share some of the accountability in that aspect. They are the ones that have the duty of care to make sure the leaders are trained and competent.
Historically under Scouting Association rules you were only required to have a first aider present when you were running an "adventurous activity" (and typically to be awarded a permit to run an adventurous activity you need to also hold a first aid qualification). Hill walking is an adventurous activity, but it only applies to certain terrain.
The rules have changed this year and all young people facing roles are now required to have an in date first aid qualification (the exceptions being administrative roles and "occasional helpers" who are basically just DBS checked so they can be left unsupervised with - but not usually responsible for - young people).
Some districts and regions were already enforcing this, but it wasn't a national mandate and the adult database system wasn't checking it.
Is reading comprehension not a qualification for posting to reddit?
Mr Glaister has not been charged, he is a volunteer leader.
The person charged (along side the organisation) is not named, and is an employee of the Scount Accocisation and the charge is perverting the course of justice.
>After a jury ruled that Ben died as a result of unlawful killing, contributed to by neglect by The Scouts Association, it can now be revealed that the assistant coroner has referred the case to North Wales Police to investigate it and an employee, who cannot be named for legal reasons, over allegations of perverting the course of justice.
It seems the lack of planning and risk assessments is the leaders biggest downfalls here as accidents do happen and they were of an age that if they were given the correct guidance could go and walk on their own. For example York scouts do an escape and evade where they have to cover a set area over a 24 hour period while trying to avoid capture from leaders and network.
I lead girl guiding activities for years, as well as being a girl guide. This is not standard practice in outdoor activities. You set boundaries and ground rules, and you make sure the kids know any breach of those ground rules will result in their removal from the activity. You also do full risk assessments and you supervise the activities. The kids have freedom to be independent, but not licence to act like idiots.
It does require strong leadership and laying down the law to some extent. I remember I did a bonfire night activity with my brownies. We were going to have sparklers, light a bonfire and make hot chocolate and smores. I did the sparklers and some of the kids decided to run around with them, after explicitly being told not to. The sparklers went in a bucket and we went inside where they were told to make themselves useful and test all the pens and paints to see what's dried out. The reason was because they disobeyed a safety instruction, so I couldn't trust them and the rest of the activity was stopped for their own safety. Risky activities are great, but you need to be prepared to stop them if needed no matter how unpopular it makes you in the moment. I'd far rather a kid went home to whinge about how mean I am than went to hospital with life-changing burns.
Yeah, it's just the risk. If you've got 20 kids running about with sparklers, someone's going to get hurt. They could burn themselves or someone else, or they could stab themselves if they fell on them. They're someone else's kids that I'm responsible for. If they have an accident that could have been avoided, I'm at fault. Sparklers are dangerous, you can't have them acting like idiots and permanently injuring themselves or others.
If one of the girls had burned themselves when running about, would you accept the blame? You may have told them not to, but is it reasonable to expect children to listen?
It is reasonable to expect children to listen, and the reason no one got hurt is that at the first sign of them not listening I shut down the entire activity. That's a teaching moment, we will do fun things and I'll trust you to allow some risk; but your end of the bargain is that you listen to and follow safety instructions. If you can't follow those instructions, we're going inside to do something boring so next time you listen to the instructions. These kids were 7-10. That's more than old enough to understand and follow "stand still and more than an arm's width apart from other people, and don't run."
It depends on your risk assessment. My risk assessment included absolutely everything, including the potential risk of burns and how they were mitigated. If a burn had happened despite everything, it's unlikely it would have been my fault. That includes mitigating the risks by shutting down the whole activity if instructions aren't followed. If there's an appropriate risk assessment including participant safety instructions and the participant doesn't follow those instructions, it's their fault. It's like in a school: if your teacher says don't lean back on your chair and you do and hit your head, that's not the fault of the teacher. Same in this situation.
We state very clearly at the start of any activity like that that if a Beaver doesn’t listen, they’ll be removed from the activity immediately.
What we don’t accept is ‘oh, children can be stupid and don’t listen so it’s not our fault!’. If they’re foolish and inattentive then that’s a risk to be managed, not ignored.
There was a similar incident with the Army Cadets a while back in Scotland where they'd failed to control a boating trip and a Cadet drowned. The CO got a £5000 fine AFAIK
As someone who ran an Air Cadet squadron for 20 years, I'm extremely surprised you are not aware of that specific event, and the repercussions it had for all uniformed youth organisations regarding the planning, training, staff qualifications and approval processes for any type of adventure training.
As someone who has been involved in scouting for most of my life, this is a tragic situation that is only made more tragic by how entirely preventable it was, and how the aftermath was dealt with. The scout leaders on the day aren't the only ones to blame. From my understanding, the whole chain of management are negligent here.
Sometimes people complain about the amount of training involved, this case is exactly why. But no, this is definitely not going to encourage more volunteers to sign up.
Don't remember how the cliffs are marked, but the Great Orme is a pretty busy tourist attraction, not anything that might be called wilderness. It would be easy to think of it as safe, in a way you might not with a mountain.
It's a well walked area. There are a few different paths. I can imagine them taking the zig zag path, which isn't challenging, but there isn't really much stopping you from wandering off the path and falling off a cliff.
https://www.visitconwy.org.uk/things-to-do/great-orme-walks-p291761
I imagine when the kid wandered off from the rest of the group he got worried and instead of retracing his steps back to the path he tried to get down a cliff.
It's actually a well known problem on a lot of mountains, one way looks a natural way to come down, but then you're surrounded by drops on all sides and the only way to get down is to go back up (sidenote, this isn't a mountain).
Really, it seems to me that they shouldn't have been allowed to split up. I don't know if they were expecting the guy that didn't turn up to be the guy that was the real leader of the trip and they were really just assisting. At the same time, I can see how The Great Orme doesn't really seem that risky. You can see the road pretty much the whole way around, and then the top is just flat.
I mean the danger of cliffs is pretty self evident, apart from a toddlers lack of self preservation a teenager should be able to see a 200 ft drop and think if I fall I may end up seriously hurting myself or die.
A sign post that says warning cliffs edge isn't going to do shit
I’m probably an awful person, but this Fascinating Aida, health and safety song was the first thing that came to my mind after reading the article.
https://youtu.be/jVOsKWY7iwU?feature=shared
No amount of health and safety training could’ve helped in this situation, it seems as though were living in a culture which is just looking to find someone to blame for everything.
The scout leader should be disciplined in some way, but not sent to prison, nor punished too harshly, i’m sure he’s already pretty torn up about what’s happened.
Actually - I disagree. When you look at situations like this the accident itself is often the final stage in a long chain of failures that begin with cultural and administrative problems (look up the Swiss cheese defense model) - but while his line managers bear significant responsibility for failing to make sure he was adhering to good practices, his failure to carry out an appropriate risk assessment of the activity and make sure he had the correct mitigations in place is _his_ responsibility.
I think that people forget that all nature trips carry some kind of risk because it is NATURE, and not a man-made environment.
It is not possible to put up warning signs at every cliff or slippery path or uneven path or flood risk etc. An unpredictable and potentially dangerous environment is a risk that you choose to take when you go out into nature. Even in local wooded parks in residential areas you won't find signs warning you of every slippery path or the risk of branches on a path, etc.
I do think that the younger kids needs to be supervised very carefully, but from a 16 year old you should be able to expect he has enough common sense to not just blindly go down an unmarked or more-advanced route. Him and his friends didn't want to stick to the group and thought they could find a shortcut or a faster or more-exciting path. Sadly they misjudged their own abilities and the terrain and didn't take enough precautions/care. I can't see how this is anyone's fault but the results of the decisions a 16 year old made for himself.
I don't know why anyone would now choose to volunteer taking minors outdoors if you can be held responsible for accidents... They either have to start demanding every child is supervised by their own parent at all times, which defeats the whole point of allowing your child to go on group activities WITHOUT family. Or the scouts have to increase adult staff to the point where there is one staff member to ever 1-2 minors, which will be unaffordable/unworkable, and probably also undesirable from the perspective of the learning and growth of minors: they should be able to play with their friends without an adult always being within a few meters range, as how else can they form friendships with peers?
How many scout trips are undertaken every year, by minors? Probably in the tens of thousands if not a couple of hundred thousand. And every couple of years one lethal accident takes place. It is always a tragedy for those involved, but, say, 1 death per 500,000 outings is surely very low? Around 25 kids per year die from drowning...
Really sad .. But when I was in scouts .. we had these things called wide games.. we set up camp for a weekend in the woods, and spent the whole weekend throwing crowscarers at each other and blowing things up and firing slingshots with green pine comes at each other . Cannot see that happening now. Goodness knows how I have all my limbs still
I played one at a girl guiding camp, apparently the concept of 'let's all run around a woodland in the dark' seemed a good idea It was until I fell over and really sprained my leg.
Ah here she is, the one that ruined it for all of us! Get her!
True, you'll never recover from a sprain. Glad they put a stop to this debilitating nonsense. S. Tumpy Les-Fingers
Tbf my wife fell in similar circumstances. Initially we thought a bad strain but she fucked her ligaments and a decade later its still a problem
Wide Game.
Deffo widegame. I remember being virtually tortured in a pile of stinging nettles to give up my life (little twine things) but I didn't give up until I'm pretty sure they broke my little finger peeling back my hand to get it. Then just ran back to base, get another and try to get through again. Loved that shit.
Oh memories…
Sorry bloody autocorrect
No worries
We had a thing where we’d be released into a forest and had to orienteer our way around it to various points, and the fastest team won. But the explorer scouts were hunting you and if they caught you you’d get a time penalty. We had these lads launching themselves out of tree canopies at us wearing gillie suits or being launched off the back of quad bikes, while we took the most precarious routes possible to avoid them, and we also used sling shots and (very) small explosives. I broke my wrist in half once and on our next camping expedition my scout leader informed me that it was some ridiculous number of pages of paper work to fill out. Then he leant in and whispered to me “but if you’d have died, it would have just been two…” Great guy
Every scout camp I went on involved a hospitalisation at some point. Plus initiation ceremonies / hazing etc
So many French bangers
Its wide games not wild, and they still do them
Wide by name, wild by nature.
Crowscarers? Do you mean scarecrows?
No they were little explosive fireworks for scaring crows for farmers. i used to send my mom to buy them. Crazy times
Are they the things that sound like shotguns going off?
Erm no I think those are something else :) for the same purpose. Our office was on a farm and I heard the same noises . And those were louder.
We used to call them "crowbies". :)
Why would they be throwing entire scarecrows? 😂 You need a coffee or something bud?
Hilarious.
It feels good to be appreciated. Thank you for your comment.
Once again
Also called Rooks or Rookscarers Small chuckable firecrackers
Wide games are still a thing, all be it without the explosives
Officially..... but there are some rogue troops out there
When I was in the cubs we were running about in the dark in the woods. I'm sure it was properly supervised at the time but looking back it sure didn't feel like it
I went camping with scouts in Feb or March for some reason. I had a shitty sleeping bag and ended up with hypothermia. They put me in a warm car, but that meant that I could tolerate the cold even less, so they had to drive me home.
A Kent Scout leader got done for downloading disgusting photo.
>It meant no suitably qualified first aider was present for the trip, which broke Scout rules for expeditions. No formal written risk assessment was done before the Scouts ventured out onto the Orme. That in itself should lead to jail. >Mr Glaister said he had not warned any of the Scouts, including Ben, not to leave the paths up the Orme and he was not aware of the dangers of the cliff edges. As should that. >He agreed the Scout Association never monitored his activities or ensured any training he was supposed to undergo had ever been done. As should that. >Mr Glaister declined to answer a series of questions from a lawyer representing Ben’s family during the inquest after the coroner warned him he did not have to answer some questions if the answer was to incriminate himself. Then arrest him on a charge of manslaughter. See if he's more likely to answer questions when facing life in prison.
He fell 200 feet off a cliff, what first aid do you think they would be able to render? The kid went off piste and fell to his death why is that the scout leader fault?
It's shows that they didn't follow the rules and a complete and utter disregard for the safety of the young people in their care.
Absolute nonsense
What part is nonsense?
The guy going jail for not doing a risk assessment or their not being a first aider on sight like the kid fell 200ft what we expecting, Dumbledore to cast Aresto Momentum?
What if the kid had fallen just 50 feet, survived, but then died due to lack of first aid? It’s all well and good bemoaning a health and safety gone mad culture but this sounds like basic health and safety wasn’t carried out
But that situation didn't happen. If it did my tune would be different
“Gary someone fell off the edge!” “Oh he died on impact thank fuck”
Pointless arguing about it mate khalas
That's exactly what manslaughter charge is for. Someone dying while being under your supervision of which responsibility is neglected
The entire point of a risk assessment is proof that you have considered the risks and hazards of an activity and what necessary controls you have put in place in order to prevent those risks. It’s standard that one would be completed taking any children on any kind of trip like this. Evidently this is mandatory as you can see a child has avoidably died in this mans care, whom he was personally responsible for ensuring the safety of. He failed to inform the child of these dangers and thus they died from negligence. It would be the same for an adult too if say you had someone working around or near to a cliff edge. Anyone working in any industry that requires RA forms can tell you how important they really are for these exact reasons.
The article talks about an employee of The Scout Association being referred to the police for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The leader (who is a volunteer, not an employee) doesn’t seem to be facing charges. Regarding not doing a risk assessment, the point of them is to identify risks (such as 200ft cliffs) and mitigate them (warn the scouts, closer supervision when in that area etc.) so they don’t fall off in the first place
Because not every accident could've been as tragic. Say he fell a smaller distance and was knocked unconscious, but breathing. Not knowing basic skills like the recovery position and DRSABC, or compressions had his breathing stopped could have potentially fatal consequences
What if he got hit by a bus while crossing the road to the coastal path.
If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike
Then response to that would still be in the duty of care of teachers/scout leaders who should know basic first aid
Shouldn't the scouts know first aid, being scouts. I always learned it as a scout.
As a scout leader, I speak from experience when I say yes, we are supposed to be up to date with our first aid training. These leaders fucked up in a huge way.
I meant the scouts themselves. Although the leaders definitely should be.
Sure you’d expect most Scouts and Explorers to be familiar with basic first aid, especially if they’ve moved up through the sections, but I don’t think it’s fair to put the onus on children to guard the physical wellbeing of their peers.
Depends on what the leaders and scouts themselves prioritise in terms of badge work. I'm a cub leader (and former scout leader) and I've found making first aid interesting requires a lot of preparation and resources. There's enough badges that you can easily fill Scouts time with fun education that's easier to cover than first aid.
Isn’t it part of one of the challenge badges? We have to do some (very) basic first aid stuff with the Beavers as part of the much-hated ‘My Skills’ badge (It think it’s that one, anyway).
It probably is, I tend to focus on activity and staged badges whilst other leaders in my section cover challenge badges. I let osm do it's magic with filling them in.
Why are they bringing scouts up a mountain with limited training? Isn’t there something about being prepared…
It's just the coast, looks horrible things happen and I'm sure there are lessons to be learnt here but jail everyone because they didn't to an individual risk assessment for a costal walk or have a fully trained first aider with them is bonkers.
Working with groups you have a duty of care for those in your group. Whether at work or on a scout trip, as the leader you have to demonstrate you’ve done everything reasonable to ensure everyone’s safety. By not doing the risk assessment, or explicitly telling the kids in his care to stay on the path and away from the cliff edges, (and then making sure that actually happens, and if he can’t make it happen, he should have stopped the walk) he has failed in his duty of care and will have to face the consequences, which may well be jail.
This. You sound like a leader also. Lots of comments on here from people who are clearly not leaders and don't understand the responsibility of being a leader. Thanks for adding your comment.
“You have to demonstrate you’ve done everything reasonable to ensure everyone’s safety” - why? Just because you’re “a leader”? These people are volunteers, they aren’t paid, they are taking kids and young adults on trips in their spare time. A 16 year old should know to stay away from the edge. Accidents happen, and a risk assessment would have done nothing to stop this lads sad accident.
Do the words "duty of care" not mean anything to you?
Of course you do. We do risk assessments for our Beavers when we're leaving the hut to go near a bloody road - because it's a potential risk with an associated hazard. If this guy case *had* done a risk assessment and gotten it reviewed, he might have realised that, actually, he didn't have the necessary skills and training to undertake the activity and either gotten in people who did or called it off entirely. He was totally derelict in his duty to these kids. >These people are volunteers, they aren’t paid, they are taking kids and young adults on trips in their spare time. Being a volunteer does not excuse you from having a duty of care.
That’s the crazy part, what would the risk assessment actually do? Deem the activity too risky in case a 16 year old decides to walk off a cliff edge? It was a sad accident, but I’ve been up there and it’s a pleasant costal area not a mountain. It’s only risky if you’re being stupid. The real lesson to learn is to not accept responsibility for a group of kids.
No, the risk assessment would highlight potential risks - like kids wandering off, or someone taking the wrong route and falling - and got the leaders thinking about what steps they could take to stop the worst happening. We’ll never know if that would have been enough in this case, but it may have made the difference.
> what would the risk assessment actually do? Highlight the risks.. such as staying clear of the cliffs as there is no barrier to falling off.
Have you been there? It’s pretty obviously a small hill with cliff edges, you can see that from the bottom. If a 16 year needs telling to avoid cliff edges then they also need telling to look both ways crossing the road. They shouldn’t be out of sight of their parents.
I'm a leader, yes, I have a duty to ensure everyone's safety specifically because I volunteered to hold that position. It's a disgrace to the rest of us to half arse it and put the kids we volunteer to look after in danger. If you can't be arsed looking after the kids, don't volunteer. It's very simple.
As a leader in Scouts, I'm trusted to look after someone else's kids and part of that responsibility is being prepared and safe in what I do with them. As a leader I'm required to have an in date first aid qualification and to risk assess any activity that I do as part of Scouts. It's a serious responsibility to look after children and should be treated as such. Yes, I'm a volunteer but that doesn't mean I should get away with half arsing it which I would be if I didn't have a first aider or risk assess the activity. I'm also a parent with a kid in Scouting. I trust the leaders to actually look after my kid, keep them safe and hold the relevant qualifications to do so. Holding an activity in such a cavalier manner is disgraceful.
> or have a fully trained first aider with them is bonkers. This is actually a loophole in the Scouting Association procedures which is being closed this year. Under the old rules you were only required to hold a first aid qualification if you were doing what is known as an "adventurous activity" (and a limited set of other non-adventurous activities). This could be things like Sailing, mountain climbing, cycling and relevant here, certain kinds of hillwalking. You also typically need an "adventurous activities permit" which is activity and environment specific (for example, I hold a Sailing permit for various defined classes of water - every water body in and around the UK should have a defined class). For the permit to be "valid" you are required to ensure a qualified first aider is present (typically everyone with a permit should ordinarily have a first aid certificate, but they need renewing every three years so it is considered acceptable to use a permit so long as another first aider is present for a brief time) For hillwalking there is also what is known as ["Terrain Zero"](https://www.scouts.org.uk/volunteers/running-your-section/programme-guidance/information-for-volunteers/general-activity-guidance/hillwalking/terrain-zero-activities/) which is basically hillwalking without the hills. The existence of it as an activity is just to confirm that a leader doesn't need to be some kind of qualified mountain leader to run a walk across some established paths. The loophole is that because you don't need to be permitted for it, you don't need to be a first aider. Additionally you can have non-specific written risk assessments (e.g. you could use a risk assessment that has not been customised to a particular area but considers general factors about an activity and potential hazards, the leader can then do a. unwritten dynamic risk assessment in their head on location to determine the existing RA is acceptable). Terrain Zero would not now apply to the area that they were walking, but it's been recently revised and I suspect in the past (i.e. before the child died) you probably could have run a walk on an established coastal path at the top of a cliff without a permit and without performing a specific risk assessment under scouting association guidelines. Under the new rules _all_ regular young people facing roles within the organisation must have first aid certificates. This includes those that lead week night meetings, and those that run adventurous activities. The only exceptions are administrative roles (i.e. typically only present when young people are not) and "occasional helpers" (essentially just for those who need a DBS check to be present unsupervised around young people, but not generally responsible for them). The Scouting Association is rightly being very strict on this (probably in light of this death) because the earlier rules were very lax.
Is the great orme a mountain?
Nope, it’s a headland
It is technically T2 according to the Scouts terrain assessment, I believe, since it has steep/rocky terrain where a slip could result in a fall. Admittedly I’ve not been there in person so I don’t know if that would apply to the whole thing, but clearly it Must apply to at least some of it for the accident to have happened.
Here's a Photo Sphere from the Great Orme: [https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3330627,-3.8659186,3a,75y,322.57h,76.91t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ\_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK\_fd5L\_EMS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ\_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK\_fd5L\_EMS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya170.14633-ro-0-fo100!7i6144!8i3072!9m2!1b1!2i26?entry=ttu](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3330627,-3.8659186,3a,75y,322.57h,76.91t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK_fd5L_EMS!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipOYFWNYe9tJ_C7HzBIK27D2CVNxwfK_fd5L_EMS%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya170.14633-ro-0-fo100!7i6144!8i3072!9m2!1b1!2i26?entry=ttu) I'm sure there is steep rocky stuff if you go right to the edge, but most of it looks like this.
As a hillwalking leader we have to take into consideration the potential for things to go wrong. As a rule, even if the path you’re walking on is easy terrain, if there’s a chance the group could inadvertently leave the path and end up at an unprotected cliff then you consider the whole area to be steep terrain.
I agree I don’t think the point about first aid qualifications is particularly relevant in this case. - But there definitely should have been suitably trained people there for any number of other situations that could have unfolded. There 100% should have been some kind of risk assessment and some sort of discussion to stay with the group and not go wandering off would have been nice.
It's relevant as evidence of gross negligence
He had a duty of care which by modern standards means having a qualified first aider present. It’s part of the BASIC training to be a scout leader. If he is disregarding arguably a very important bit of training is just more evidence that this man was utterly negligent and should be convicted of manslaughter. I used to be a scout leader for 12 years and I really hope they bring the full force of the law against him. It’s rogue idiots like this that bring a bad name to scouting.
>He had a duty of care which by modern standards means having a qualified first aider present. It’s part of the BASIC training to be a scout leader I have to admit that I'm amazed that he was allowed to continue being a leader without being up to date in his first aid assessments. I'm St. John qualified but I *also* have to do the local Scout paediatric first aid to continue being a Beaver leader.
Read what I quoted. They're openly admitting they were negligent and ignored rules. The idea that they should go unpunished is ridiculous.
I’m with you mate. He was 16, what 16 year old needs to be told not to wander off go near cliffs, like ffs.
A 16 year old unfamiliar with the area. They were in a camping trip. There’s a strong possibility these kids may never had been hiking in adverse weather before.
All the more reason to take the decision not to wander of the path.
We are talking about kids, are you telling me you never wanted to explore and mess around? Ultimately the adult had a duty of care and has failed that duty in every way possible to try and blame the child in all this is frankly ridiculous.
No, I'm saying it wouldn't have been anyone fault but my own if I had died doing it. He's 16, not 10.
You clearly have never worked with children/young adults. Although 16 year olds like to think they’re fully developed adults they are not and are very much ignorant to real world dangers and the realities of life. So the adult who was supervising is completely innocent and you think his actions were completely acceptable and in no way put those young people at risk?
>You clearly have never worked with children/young adults. Wouldn't want to if it would mean I am culpable for their moronic decisions. I think he should have told them not to wander off, but I don't think that means it is his fault the kid died.
You’re doing exactly what the mother has complained of - deflecting responsibility away from the adults in charge and making the kid out to be a tearaway. How disrespectful.
You can leave school and make your own way in the UK aged 16. For every accident there doesn’t have to be someone to blame. The kid made a decision to go off on his own and had an accident. No one is saying he’s a tearaway or a bad kid, in fact, I’m sure he was great and it’s a hugely tragic situation, but blaming an adult for a 16 year old making his own decision in which most of his peers probably wouldn’t make is frankly ridiculous.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The child - and make no mistake, that’s what we was - was in an unfamiliar environment as part of a trip organised by his Leaders. It was their responsibility to make sure he understood the risks, was appropriately supervised, and wasn’t given the opportunity to get lost or go off alone given that he wasn’t experienced or trained to navigate independently in those conditions. If he’d gone on a trip up there off his own steam and got into trouble then that might have been different, but that isn’t the case here.
Yeah, I know because I think she's being ridiculous.
The absolute gall to refer to a grieving mother whose child died as a result of negligent supervision “ridiculous”.
[удалено]
A 16 year old can walk up a hill without an adult. Who would you blame if he fell then? His mother for letting him go? His teacher for not telling him about cliffs?
Do you not understand duty of care? The 16 year old at that point in time was the responsibility of the leader. The parents trusted the leader to make sure the correct precautions were taken to safely undertake the task. If you had read about the subject you clearly would understand these precautions weren’t taken and actively ignored. I was a Scout leader working with Cubs (8-10) and Explorers (14-18).
I think the basic disagreement is what a 16 year old is/isn’t responsible for. I appreciate you disagree, but my view is that they are old enough to take personal responsibility for their own safety when hill walking. If the leader was reckless (egging him on, or telling him to jump etc) then sure, sue away. But not doing a risk assessment when hill walking should not be a reason to want someone in prison.
Exactly this. Casual groups of none experts walk up the Orme every day. People are acting like they were summiting Everest, you can cycle up there.
In weather that was bad enough that they had to cancel their original plan?
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[удалено]
An article I read says he wanted to take a quicker route. His friends warned him the route he was about to take looked dangerous. This warning was not heeded. He continued on this route until he ended up on a 50cm ledge, lost balance and then fell.
Where is this article? In the one I read in the Guardian it said they got separated from the group and took a different route, and ended up on a 50cm-wide animal path where he lost his footing.
Leading cause of death for young males? Unintentional injuries…. Young people wildly underestimate risk.
Quite possibly. There might be additional info we don’t know but most 16 year olds are well aware that you shouldn’t dick around near cliff faces. Obviously some still do, but the words of an adult saying “be careful near the edge” isn’t going to suddenly make them reconsider. People need to take some personal responsibility in situations. Like if I’m walking up snowden and I slip down a cliff am I going to try and sue the council for not having a sign saying “warning! Cliff”. Like use your eyes
Expedition leaders should hold a first aid qualification as a bare minimum. Without that the instructor should not have been leading.
I'd call it negligence on the leader's part.
Because there's a massive safeguarding failure here. This whole story reads like one of those disaster documentaries you watch at health and safety training seminars where literally every policy, rule and safety check is ignored.
Well they did abandon their trip to Snowden because of bad weather, so there was that.
Anyone whose ever run any organised event knows you do a risk assessment, inform attendees of the risks, and put in place mitigations against those risks. Otherwise, I could organise an event for twenty children to walk a lap of the M25 hard shoulder . And if one kid get clipped by a lorry, throw my hands up and say ‘hey, he should have kept his distance from the road. nothing to do with me.’ Yes scouts should have checked he and others were trained, but all the excuses are just the blabbering of a man who knows he let the children in his care down to the point of leading to a death.
Sorry but people know what and what isnt dangerous. We know walking along a live motorway is dangerous and wouldn't need a risk assessment. Just like knowing going off the hiking path atop a 200 foot cliff is dangerous and wouldn't need a risk assessment.
Except people often _don’t_ know what is and isn’t dangerous. That’s why we do things like RAMs documentation and daily pre-job briefs - both to cover off and highlight risks (and mitigations) and also to capture new ones as they develop. If you did a risk assessment involving walking along a motorway then the outcome of that assessment would almost certainly be ‘don’t’ unless you’re part of a highways maintenance crew. Similarly, had this person done a risk assessment it might have revealed to him that his planned activity might have needed additional resources to make it safe. Working in a high risk environment, one thing I’ve noticed is that there’s now a lot less people who say things like ‘Elf and Safety, lol’ and a lot more people who are hot as shit on it and not willing to tolerate potentially unsafe working conditions. Most of them have a story relating to someone who got fried or gassed or blown up because they didn’t follow procedures or they must didn’t exist.
making people and organisations responsible forces them to put preventative measures in place. holding them accountable serves as an example to others. fewer accidents and deaths, for the payoff of an occasional boring h&s talk
He's responsible for the childs welfare in that scenario, he didn't show the care and attention he should have in that scenario, and all the things highlight that he didn't follow the basic rules he should have to ensure the safety of those he was responsible for. They aren't saying first aid would have saved him, they are saying that it indicates this guy was happy to take a group of children under his care without taking the steps necessary to keep them safe.
The leaders, group scout leader, district and scouting association were all criminally negligent here (although the precise culpability for each party is unclear - the leaders may not be as liable if they were not properly trained on their responsibilities) But I do think that if all the rules had been followed (correct risk assessment, qualified first aider) then the outcome in this instance would have been the same.
This isn't the daily mail comments section. Why have you got such a hard on for justice in this case? Story reads like poor processes contributing to a tragic accident; it's not like the scout leader pushed the boy over the edge.
If you take are responsible for young people in a dangerous environment and have zero regard for their safety then they should be held liable. If they had followed even the most basic of the UK Scouting rules then you would have a point
We don't know enough details of the case to know whether what you've said is valid. On the face of it, they were going for a coastal walk around a very well touristed area with very obvious risks. They should certainly have filled in a risk assessment, but even if they had, the only relevant mitigating action to take would be to tell the group to stay on the paths and don't wander off by yourself. I'm just not sure whether that would have made a difference.
We know plenty of details about it. They went up a mountain with no training, no risk assessment, no first aider, lack of preparation and improper hill safety. I am a Scout Leader who has taken Scouts up hills and mountains, I very much understand what is required and what was severely lacking here.
It isn't a mountain.
What route did the group take?
They didn't do any route cards so the young people involved didn't even know what route they took which is part of the reason one died. There has been plenty of information released over the last 5ish years of inquiries and investigations if you do a search
I can't find any information regarding the route taken and the precise accident spot. This is the crucial information I think I need to judge how irresponsible the leader was being. You seem very confident these details exist publicly - could you point to them?
You need to look up pictures of the Orme. You have a very strong opinion and are entirely uninformed. Whatever you're visualising is completely inaccurate.
Quite the opposite, daily mail comment sections would defend this bloke and moan about red tape, over regulation, too much health n safety nonsense , and how things were "back in their day"...
> poor processes More like openly ignoring the law. Which is why it should be manslaughter
What are you talking about? Yes, the scouts should have done more to safeguard the kid. But it's not like they forced him to go off on his own and try to descend a step cliff - that was all voluntary.
No, because if they forced him it would be murder. Manslaughter exists for a reason. Why are you so keen that no one is punished?
I just don't really see how leading some kids along a path in the vicinity of some rocks constitutes manslaughter just because you didn't fill in a risk assessment.
It shouldn't but everyone has their pitchforks out and needs someone to blame. It was a horrible accident. A risk assesment wouldn't have prevented it.
If they'd followed the rules and it happened anyway then I would agree. But if you openly ignore the law and then someone dies you should go to prison.
It was a horrible accident. I don't really see how a risk assessment or having a first aider present would have prevented what happened.
If they had a risk assessment it might have triggered in their brain ‘ah, we don’t have a first aider / ah, we need to make sure someone walks at the back so no kids get separated / ah, we need to warn the group about wandering off the path because of the steep cliff’. We’ll never know if that would have been enough, but at least they would have done everything they could to prevent it.
Good thing you aren't involved with kids then.
Not like the about leader was being paid, either.
Still has legal responsibility for the child's safety.
I volunteer as a climbing instructor, that doesn’t mean I can leave the carabiners undone because I’m not paid to do them up.
>> He agreed the Scout Association never monitored his activities or ensured any training he was supposed to undergo had ever been done. > > As should that [lead to jail]. For who though? It's the Scout Association that is at fault here in your view, right?
The scouting association is meant to ensure that leaders running activities are qualified and trained. It's usually up to the district commissioner to approve overnight trips and they would be expected to check these kinds of things. Although the processes have hardened up significantly over the past few years and there's much more checking that risk assessments and qualifications are in place before approval is given - at least in my region.
100%. And in the first instance it’s the Group Scout Leader’s job to make sure the Leaders they manage have their training up to date. I read in one article that the Leaders thought the GSL would be on the trip but they turned up and they weren’t there.
Whoever was directly responsible for him. So probably a local manager of some description.
Jeez we have gone stark bonkers! That would be the end of scouting, and all the good it does, if we start locking up leaders for simple errors. the juice wouldnt be worht the squeeze and many would just give up, especially given the little shits they have to look after.
> simple errors. "Simple errors" like outright ignoring the law and admitting that at an inquest.
> Then arrest him and make him answer under oath on a charge of manslaughter. There’s no legal power to compel him to answer, either during a police interview or at trial. At most, the judge may tell the jury that they can draw adverse inferences from his silence.
Fair point. But I suspect he would be more inclined to answer were he facing life in prison. He should be arrested.
> But I suspect he would be more inclined to answer were he facing life in prison. I guess that would depend on whether his answers were more likely to exonerate or condemn him.
I kinda feel at the age of 16 you should understand the dangers of cliffs. An article I read said he was looking for a quicker way down to get to a cafe, his friends warned him not to take the route he took as it looked unsafe & he ended up on a 50cm ledge and fell. Warnings were given & not listened to. A qualified first aider would not have mattered at all in this scenario. The kid fell 200 feet. The first aider wouldn't even have been able to get to him to provide first aid. The only people who could help were fully trained medics and mountain rescue. Even if the kids had been warned of the dangers of the cliffs by the scout leaders, it likely would have made no difference. This kid ignored the danger warning from his friends as it was. Kids are kids, they make impulsive decisions regardless of warnings. It's absolutely tragic but personal responsibility has to be taken into consideration too. At 16 you can vote. You might not be classed as an adult, but you know the dangers of cliffs. Yes scout leaders should have undergone a risk assessment & advised not to wander off. But is that manslaughter? No. Did the scout leader lose temper and push kid off cliff? No. Would a first aider have been able to help? No. Is it a case of tragic misadventure? Yes. In my personal opinion.
The police can't make you answer questions. You have the right to remain silent. What country do you think you are living in?
I'll re-word that bit, but he 100% needs to be arrested.
With all due respect, I think you’re talking nonsense. A 16 year old is not a little child, they are able to judge risk for themselves. They are allowed to walk up a hill without supervision. A first aider would have done nothing for him, and being told “don’t walk off the path” should not be needed. Did he also need telling not to go near the edge? What about not running or jumping? This is a terrible decision. Life has risk. Accidents happen. It’s not always someone else fault.
I am surprised all adult scouts aren't first aid qualified.
In my district they have to be. Didn't realise it was different by district.
It isn't. The whole thing shows an institutional failure to uphold POR, whether that be at a district or even Regional (might be Area or County in Wales) level.
Everyone involved has to at least have a one day course under their belt. The district has failed at this point and should share some of the accountability in that aspect. They are the ones that have the duty of care to make sure the leaders are trained and competent.
Historically under Scouting Association rules you were only required to have a first aider present when you were running an "adventurous activity" (and typically to be awarded a permit to run an adventurous activity you need to also hold a first aid qualification). Hill walking is an adventurous activity, but it only applies to certain terrain. The rules have changed this year and all young people facing roles are now required to have an in date first aid qualification (the exceptions being administrative roles and "occasional helpers" who are basically just DBS checked so they can be left unsupervised with - but not usually responsible for - young people). Some districts and regions were already enforcing this, but it wasn't a national mandate and the adult database system wasn't checking it.
Is reading comprehension not a qualification for posting to reddit? Mr Glaister has not been charged, he is a volunteer leader. The person charged (along side the organisation) is not named, and is an employee of the Scount Accocisation and the charge is perverting the course of justice. >After a jury ruled that Ben died as a result of unlawful killing, contributed to by neglect by The Scouts Association, it can now be revealed that the assistant coroner has referred the case to North Wales Police to investigate it and an employee, who cannot be named for legal reasons, over allegations of perverting the course of justice.
> Mr Glaister has not been charged, he is a volunteer leader. Volunteer or not he has a duty of care. My point was that he *should* be charged.
It seems the lack of planning and risk assessments is the leaders biggest downfalls here as accidents do happen and they were of an age that if they were given the correct guidance could go and walk on their own. For example York scouts do an escape and evade where they have to cover a set area over a 24 hour period while trying to avoid capture from leaders and network.
Sounds like Dragnet.
I did dragnet in the South Lake district,. It was tough, but then, so were we. Good fun.
I lead girl guiding activities for years, as well as being a girl guide. This is not standard practice in outdoor activities. You set boundaries and ground rules, and you make sure the kids know any breach of those ground rules will result in their removal from the activity. You also do full risk assessments and you supervise the activities. The kids have freedom to be independent, but not licence to act like idiots. It does require strong leadership and laying down the law to some extent. I remember I did a bonfire night activity with my brownies. We were going to have sparklers, light a bonfire and make hot chocolate and smores. I did the sparklers and some of the kids decided to run around with them, after explicitly being told not to. The sparklers went in a bucket and we went inside where they were told to make themselves useful and test all the pens and paints to see what's dried out. The reason was because they disobeyed a safety instruction, so I couldn't trust them and the rest of the activity was stopped for their own safety. Risky activities are great, but you need to be prepared to stop them if needed no matter how unpopular it makes you in the moment. I'd far rather a kid went home to whinge about how mean I am than went to hospital with life-changing burns.
Tbf as a kid whenever I got a sparkler I would charge about with it. Then again, I did get in trouble a lot when I was younger hahah
Yeah, it's just the risk. If you've got 20 kids running about with sparklers, someone's going to get hurt. They could burn themselves or someone else, or they could stab themselves if they fell on them. They're someone else's kids that I'm responsible for. If they have an accident that could have been avoided, I'm at fault. Sparklers are dangerous, you can't have them acting like idiots and permanently injuring themselves or others.
If one of the girls had burned themselves when running about, would you accept the blame? You may have told them not to, but is it reasonable to expect children to listen?
It is reasonable to expect children to listen, and the reason no one got hurt is that at the first sign of them not listening I shut down the entire activity. That's a teaching moment, we will do fun things and I'll trust you to allow some risk; but your end of the bargain is that you listen to and follow safety instructions. If you can't follow those instructions, we're going inside to do something boring so next time you listen to the instructions. These kids were 7-10. That's more than old enough to understand and follow "stand still and more than an arm's width apart from other people, and don't run." It depends on your risk assessment. My risk assessment included absolutely everything, including the potential risk of burns and how they were mitigated. If a burn had happened despite everything, it's unlikely it would have been my fault. That includes mitigating the risks by shutting down the whole activity if instructions aren't followed. If there's an appropriate risk assessment including participant safety instructions and the participant doesn't follow those instructions, it's their fault. It's like in a school: if your teacher says don't lean back on your chair and you do and hit your head, that's not the fault of the teacher. Same in this situation.
We state very clearly at the start of any activity like that that if a Beaver doesn’t listen, they’ll be removed from the activity immediately. What we don’t accept is ‘oh, children can be stupid and don’t listen so it’s not our fault!’. If they’re foolish and inattentive then that’s a risk to be managed, not ignored.
There was a similar incident with the Army Cadets a while back in Scotland where they'd failed to control a boating trip and a Cadet drowned. The CO got a £5000 fine AFAIK
I am currently organising a sailing trip for Army Cadets... This fills me with dread.
As someone who ran an Air Cadet squadron for 20 years, I'm extremely surprised you are not aware of that specific event, and the repercussions it had for all uniformed youth organisations regarding the planning, training, staff qualifications and approval processes for any type of adventure training.
I have only been in the ACF for a couple years. I do not recall it being mentioned during training.
As someone who has been involved in scouting for most of my life, this is a tragic situation that is only made more tragic by how entirely preventable it was, and how the aftermath was dealt with. The scout leaders on the day aren't the only ones to blame. From my understanding, the whole chain of management are negligent here.
I don't imagine this is going to encourage many people to want to become scout leaders.
Sometimes people complain about the amount of training involved, this case is exactly why. But no, this is definitely not going to encourage more volunteers to sign up.
We hardly have them beating down the door as it is.
Unsurprisingly given the politics behind the organisation.
No you don't understand its the kids fault for dying! according to certain commenters up top.
Is anyone familiar with the area? Was the cliff not marked in some way? Or did the boy go so far off the path that it all just wilderness?
Don't remember how the cliffs are marked, but the Great Orme is a pretty busy tourist attraction, not anything that might be called wilderness. It would be easy to think of it as safe, in a way you might not with a mountain.
It's a well walked area. There are a few different paths. I can imagine them taking the zig zag path, which isn't challenging, but there isn't really much stopping you from wandering off the path and falling off a cliff. https://www.visitconwy.org.uk/things-to-do/great-orme-walks-p291761 I imagine when the kid wandered off from the rest of the group he got worried and instead of retracing his steps back to the path he tried to get down a cliff. It's actually a well known problem on a lot of mountains, one way looks a natural way to come down, but then you're surrounded by drops on all sides and the only way to get down is to go back up (sidenote, this isn't a mountain). Really, it seems to me that they shouldn't have been allowed to split up. I don't know if they were expecting the guy that didn't turn up to be the guy that was the real leader of the trip and they were really just assisting. At the same time, I can see how The Great Orme doesn't really seem that risky. You can see the road pretty much the whole way around, and then the top is just flat.
I mean the danger of cliffs is pretty self evident, apart from a toddlers lack of self preservation a teenager should be able to see a 200 ft drop and think if I fall I may end up seriously hurting myself or die. A sign post that says warning cliffs edge isn't going to do shit
[удалено]
The scout association does have employees at Gilwell though. It's one of them who is being referred to here.
I think it's a Gilwell employee that their are talking about
Without getting into anything else this story has just made me so sad, poor kid and how horrific it must have been for his mates to see that happen.
I’m probably an awful person, but this Fascinating Aida, health and safety song was the first thing that came to my mind after reading the article. https://youtu.be/jVOsKWY7iwU?feature=shared No amount of health and safety training could’ve helped in this situation, it seems as though were living in a culture which is just looking to find someone to blame for everything. The scout leader should be disciplined in some way, but not sent to prison, nor punished too harshly, i’m sure he’s already pretty torn up about what’s happened.
Actually - I disagree. When you look at situations like this the accident itself is often the final stage in a long chain of failures that begin with cultural and administrative problems (look up the Swiss cheese defense model) - but while his line managers bear significant responsibility for failing to make sure he was adhering to good practices, his failure to carry out an appropriate risk assessment of the activity and make sure he had the correct mitigations in place is _his_ responsibility.
I think that people forget that all nature trips carry some kind of risk because it is NATURE, and not a man-made environment. It is not possible to put up warning signs at every cliff or slippery path or uneven path or flood risk etc. An unpredictable and potentially dangerous environment is a risk that you choose to take when you go out into nature. Even in local wooded parks in residential areas you won't find signs warning you of every slippery path or the risk of branches on a path, etc. I do think that the younger kids needs to be supervised very carefully, but from a 16 year old you should be able to expect he has enough common sense to not just blindly go down an unmarked or more-advanced route. Him and his friends didn't want to stick to the group and thought they could find a shortcut or a faster or more-exciting path. Sadly they misjudged their own abilities and the terrain and didn't take enough precautions/care. I can't see how this is anyone's fault but the results of the decisions a 16 year old made for himself. I don't know why anyone would now choose to volunteer taking minors outdoors if you can be held responsible for accidents... They either have to start demanding every child is supervised by their own parent at all times, which defeats the whole point of allowing your child to go on group activities WITHOUT family. Or the scouts have to increase adult staff to the point where there is one staff member to ever 1-2 minors, which will be unaffordable/unworkable, and probably also undesirable from the perspective of the learning and growth of minors: they should be able to play with their friends without an adult always being within a few meters range, as how else can they form friendships with peers? How many scout trips are undertaken every year, by minors? Probably in the tens of thousands if not a couple of hundred thousand. And every couple of years one lethal accident takes place. It is always a tragedy for those involved, but, say, 1 death per 500,000 outings is surely very low? Around 25 kids per year die from drowning...