ISAA Membership

Reku · 17-09-2008 11:23pm

The truely laughable aspect of this, and clear indication of it being nothing more than rampant paranoia of paedos lurking around every corner, is the fact that the checks are to see if we can trust folks around kids, we're perfectly happy to give them and train them to use deadly weapons no questions asked.:rolleyes:

But then the really hilarious kicker of this is that it only deals with convicted child molesters rather than doing the sensible thing and ensuring that there is never a situation for the child molesters, whether they have previously been convicted or not, to do anything inappropriate to the children, e.g. the obvious rule of no individual adults alone with a child/children at any time.
Anyone else feel like singing the Simpson's song about doing a half assed job?:rolleyes:

Sparks · 18-09-2008 12:27am

Well, now you all know what target shooters feel like at licence application time...

Panserborn · 18-09-2008 12:51am

Upshot is, we might think it silly (and I really don't like the nanny culture growing around us either), but it is unavoidable as it is coming from authorities higher than the clubs and the NGBs. It is being imposed on the sporting, educational and social groups all over the place. We can complain, we can whine, we can moan (and we will), but in the end we will need to toe the line so we can do the things and activities we want to do. We just have to go through it, forget it, and move on.

We don't really have a choice in this, but we do need to see to it that it has the least disruption to what we do. We could ignore it, but when it eventually comes in then we'll be biten in the @$$. Dealing with the issue now and immunising our clubs to the full weight of the paperwork and admisistration that is to come will be well advised.

Thats my tupence.

Renegade, I hope you still shoot with us. I imagine this is going on (or will go on) the world over.

Renegade_Archer · 18-09-2008 1:09am

In the US, we have Megan's Law.

I am not, under any circumstances, _ever_ going to give my consent to someone from the IAAA to access _any_ information the Gardai have on file about me.

This is pointless won't-somebody-think-of-the-children hand-waving.

How many children this will protect in archery: None.
How many people will this piss off, inconvenience, and easily put off archery: A lot.

Fine, screen the coaches, if you must.

But screening _everyone_?
Reducing access to a club to the whim of a "vetting officer"?
Giving said vetting officer access to sensitive personal data, and relying on their "good character" to keep quiet about it?

Hell no. Hence, no more shooting in the Republic for me.

Reku · 18-09-2008 1:36am

Renegade_Archer wrote: »

In the US, we have Megan's Law.

I am not, under any circumstances, _ever_ going to give my consent to someone from the IAAA to access _any_ information the Gardai have on file about me.

This is pointless won't-somebody-think-of-the-children hand-waving.

How many children this will protect in archery: None.
How many people will this piss off, inconvenience, and easily put off archery: A lot.

Fine, screen the coaches, if you must.

But screening _everyone_?
Reducing access to a club to the whim of a "vetting officer"?
Giving said vetting officer access to sensitive personal data, and relying on their "good character" to keep quiet about it?

Hell no. Hence, no more shooting in the Republic for me.

Exactly.
Wait until the numnuts get it into their heads that children can be molested by people giving them a lift in their cars (a lot more likely than them being molested at archery or shooting ranges) so all people applying for driving licences should be vetted.:rolleyes:
Wonder if ice-cream van operators and stafff for shops that wish to sell toys or sweets will also get vetted, I'd imagine they've better odds of luring a child to somewhere private than someone on an archery range...

Remember folks; all those conventions of human rights don't mean a thing we're all paedophiles (i.e. guilty) until proven otherwise.:p

Sparks · 18-09-2008 3:43am

Thing is, while I agree with Ewan's disgust and have felt it myself - for ticking someone off, there's nothing quite like being asked to give access to personal information to someone else in order to prove they don't want to rape a child - I don't think the IAAA has any power over whether vetting happens or not.

Shooters have the same outrage every time they get vetted for their licences - yeah mate, I want to murder/rob someone, that's why I drove here to ask you for official state permission to use the firearm I already own - but we know our NGBs don't have any power over whether or not this sort of thing happens. And we're required to give the Gardai access to our medical records and our homes if they ask for it (they already have access to our garda records). Where the NGBs can effect change is in how it's done - so now, for example, our dentist's assistant is no longer considered to be qualified to testify as to our mental state (no, I'm not joking).

What the IAAA could and should do, in my humble-yet-miffed opinion, is to take the idea (that of the call being made by a volunteer vetting officer) out behind the cowshed and shoot it. I don't know what dingleberry thought up the idea of taking the decision out of the hands of the Gardai who are paid professionals operating with legal guidelines and experience in dealing with this sort of thing; but I don't think they thought it through enough.

I know this - I wouldn't volunteer for the job of Vetting Officer. And I can't think of anyone out there who I think would be suitable for such a role. I don't mean in the sport - I mean, I cannot recall ever having met one person in the last 32 years whom I would think was suited to such a role in a volunteer capacity. And if you were suited, you wouldn't volunteer, because the respect you'd need for other's privacy would prevent you taking the job.

But more to the point - no sane person who knows how litigious the Irish public tend to be, should volunteer to be made privy to the garda records of random strangers and made the sole responsible person for deciding if someone can join or not based on that information. Becuase if you vet Tom, Dick and Harry and don't let Harry join on the basis of the vetting, you're going to get to know a barrister sooner or later.

And if Tom ever thinks someone mentioned to his wife of ten years how his record shows he was detained for questioning in a "massage parlour" three years ago, then lots of folks are going to get to know a barrister. And "honest your honour, I never told anyone about that" is not a terribly robust defense when the only other people who knew were Tom and a Garda who's swearing on his uniform that he never broke confidence.

Besides, the Gardai can and do vet people. They've done it before. In the 80s and 90s, Telecom Eireann used to send technicians to the UK to work in a branch called TE Services UK (TESUK). Each and every single one of them was vetted by the Gardai, not for kiddyfiddling but for whether or not they were likely to be smuggling semtex. The procedure was simple - TE gave the Gardai a name, and the Gardai gave back one word - yes or no. Confidentiality never arose as an issue. (Similar arrangements are done for fraud investigations in banks, by the way, it's a very common pattern - you keep confidential information to the bare minimum number of people it has to be known by).

If the Gardai could do it when the decision meant the difference between earning a grand a week in the late 80s or not, then there is no logical reason why they cannot do it now (there's reasons why they might not want to, but that's their problem, not ours).

Sparks · 18-09-2008 4:22am

But there's more - who decides how the vetting officer does the vetting in the first place? Are there published guidelines (in which case a yay/nay is actually transmitting confidential information from garda records to the public, and the person who's drawing up the guidelines is going to get to know a barrister at some stage or other as well by someone looking to challange the guidelines) or is it just "make sure there's nothing untoward in there" in which case you could wind up with incredibly unfair decisions.

And how do you catch paedophiles who've not been caught before and so have no record?

And how do the Gardai give the Vetting Officer the records in a secure fashion? Physically? Electronically? Verbally?

And how is it verified that all copies of the information are destroyed after the vetting decision is made? Because as Ewan said above, the VO's good character is simply unacceptable as assurance because if you say the VO is not of good character, you're in a libel lawsuit instantly.

And if the VO destroys all information - including the notes he/she makes during the decision making process - how can they have an appeal to a decision? How can you refer to notes you destroyed? How can you know that the information the VO used to make the decision was accurate if it's been destroyed? And if you say "hold on to it until the applicant isn't going to bring a lawsuit", how long is that? What's the statute of limitations here? And how do you do the long-term secure storage?

And will the VO be required to put in place security measures to protect the information? I mean, I'm required to have a safe for my firearms, so will the VO be required to have one for the documents? To what standard? Who inspects it to be sure it is installed? What if the documents are in electronic format? Who secures and signs off on his/her computer to say it's secure?

The more you think about it, the worse it gets

Sparks · 18-09-2008 4:25am

Oh, and since you're talking Garda records and not medical records, and archery uses sharp objects that can and do scratch stuff, does the vetting officer get in trouble (since they've got the call on membership/no membership) if they forget to ask someone if they have AIDS or Hep C and someone else ends up infected through some minor accident? Or do you just expand the mess to allow the vetting officer to see medical records?

Eugh. I want to stop thinking about this...

Panserborn · 18-09-2008 12:47pm

All of what everyone is saying is true. But unless anyone has any ideas of how we can change the facts of the matter, then we can't avoid it. We can only modify our own documents (internally within the clubs, and at a first degree seperation at ISAA level) to minimise the effect on the actual day to day runnings of our clubs.

Other than that I'm sorry (truely!) to say that it is out of our hands. If we really feel strongly about the issue at a level higher than the ISAA then I encourage (spelling???) attendence at the AGM of the IAAA. This is the only place where the matter can be discussed with a view to moving it forward ........ or backward.

Sparks · 18-09-2008 1:01pm

Speaking for myself (not a student), I could suffer the indignity of being vetted by the Gardai (again) if everyone else in every other sport where seniors and juniors mix was also vetted, but it's the idea of the vetting officer being a "civilian" that I don't think I could stand. It's just too broken an idea.
Does the IAAA have any oomph to get that particular part of the idea dragged behind the cowshed?

Aryzel · 18-09-2008 2:06pm

Guys, have ye talked to the Sports Office in UCD or elsewhere? If this vetting is being required of college clubs then they should be already working on the issue and might have solutions. If this is going to be applied to college clubs, then what I expect and what ye should DEMAND of your college sports offices is that the college itself vets ALL students to see if the students should be allowed to join sports clubs. As all the sports/social clubs in the college will be in the exact same situation so every club/socity you join will have to vet you separately. Makes much more sense for the college itself to vet everyone once and make a blacklist of people not allowed to join clubs or socities.

If all college clubs and socities are not being required to vet people, then it means Archery is required to do it only because of your association with the IAAA, the solution is then to no longer be associated with the IAAA. Ye have no need to be associated with them anyways, you do ye're thing with the college league, and anyone that wants to join the IAAA to compete nationally can do so through whatever IAAA club is near them. Talk to the college sports offices, DO NOT work off the IAAA requirements on this one, it is way out of your league (in terms of responsibility, data storage, appeals, etc). If the requirement to vet people is coming down to you through your colleges then they should have a plan and work with that. If the requirement is coming down through the IAAA, then drop your association with them.

In order to drop your association with the IAAA, all you should need to do is:
- Remove any mention of IAAA from rules and consitiution
- ISAA does not attend IAAA meetings or have a place on its board
- ISAA clubs do not join the IAAA
- ISAA members can only join/attend the IAAA through IAAA clubs

Thats about it, can't think of anything else. You can still barrow IAAA equipment and have IAAA people judge at your comptitions. Again this is only needed if the vetting requirements are only coming from the IAAA, if they are coming from the Universities also, then just go with whatever the universities have planned and being associated with the IAAA is fine.

Dermot
PS: Back in Ireland for a few days, will be out for drinks in Messer's on Saturday around 8:30 onwards,
pop by if your up for a few drinks. Heading back to london on sunday to start phd on monday.

Sparks · 18-09-2008 5:58pm

Went and read the documents on the vetting procedure for Tennis and Swim Ireland. Neither has gone as far as the IAAA in who gets vetted, both are doing it the same way (ie the NGB makes the vetting decision, or more specifically, the national vetting officer).

Thing is - if Swim Ireland, the crowd that brought all this down on us, aren't vetting all their members, only the people who're in charge of things (coaches, team managers, "designated persons" ie, coach helpers, committee members, and so on), why the heck do other sports have to vet everyone who ever takes part in a match? I mean, swim meets in Swim Ireland leave juniors and seniors in the same building at the same time!

I could understand coaches being vetted, and team managers and their helpers - they're left alone in charge of kids, grand, vet them (though I really think this idea of a "civilian" doing the vetting is like jogging through a minefield blindfolded). But if everyone who ever wants to shoot an arrow is required to give a random stranger access to their Garda files and the only security is the lock on the filing cabinet and the good nature of the random stranger, I think there's going to be a recruitment problem sooner rather than later.

Panserborn · 18-09-2008 9:37pm

Aryzel wrote:

Ye have no need to be associated with them anyways,

Unfortunatly we do in NUIG - only speaking for ourselves though. There are no other clubs anywhere near us except GMIT, same boat as us.

Aryzel wrote:

Heading back to london on sunday to start phd on monday.

Good luck with that! Stay the course, if I (laziest person alive) can get through one its well doable! Check out www.phdcomics.com , its uncanny how accurate it is about PhD life

Aryzel · 18-09-2008 10:59pm

Sparks wrote: »

...
But if everyone who ever wants to shoot an arrow is required to give a random stranger access to their Garda files and the only security is the lock on the filing cabinet and the good nature of the random stranger, I think there's going to be a recruitment problem sooner rather than later.

Also Sparks, ye are making the assumption that your colleges will allow you to vet people. Its entirely possible that some universities will not allow their archery clubs to do any such thing. Basicaly back to my main point, if universities are bring this vetting in for all clubs then go with whatever method they are planning. If this is only coming from the IAAA then ye really have to drop your association with the IAAA, otherwise ye are opening yourselves to massive legal problems simply because college clubs are in no way capable to doing this job properly.

Panserborn, why do NUIG need to be associatied with IAAA? If your university requires it, then explain that ye will also be required to do vetting, I'm pretty sure they will stop requiring ye to be with IAAA then.

Sparks · 18-09-2008 11:41pm

Aryzel wrote: »

Also Sparks, ye are making the assumption that your colleges will allow you to vet people.

No Aryzel, WTSC isn't a college club (I'm an interloper in here

). We're only just getting started in archery and we're just preparing to join the IAAA - but we're a long-established target shooting club so if our archery side needs to be vetted, so would our shooting side because there's no junior/senior or archery/shooting segregation.

If this is only coming from the IAAA

The more I look the more I think the IAAA's gotten something a bit wrong - other sports bodies in Ireland don't do this this way, and crowds like GNAS don't do it either, so it's not an Irish thing and it's not an Archery thing.

Panserborn · 19-09-2008 12:22am

Aryzel wrote: »

Panserborn, why do NUIG need to be associatied with IAAA?

There are quite a few of us that wish to be as competative as we can. About four of us travel throughout the UK and Europe to shoot - particullarly in Field Archery. To do this we need to be affilated with the IAAA for insurance reasons. Also, for the European champs last year, and the worlds this year, we needed to be FITA registered - IAAA is the only route to this. For IAAA affiilation we need our home club on board with them.

Sparks wrote:

WTSC isn't a college club (I'm an interloper in here)

No you're not, most of us here are current or former college archers but its not just for the colleges - all archers of all persuasions and sources welcome

:)

Sparks · 19-09-2008 12:24am

Panserborn wrote: »

No you're not, most of us here are current or former college archers but its not just for the colleges - all archers of all persuasions and sources welcome :)

Good to know!
Besides, I'm not a student, but I am academic staff (albiet in TCD), so I'm sort-of-collegy

Aryzel · 19-09-2008 4:40am

Panserborn wrote: »

There are quite a few of us that wish to be as competative as we can. About four of us travel throughout the UK and Europe to shoot - particullarly in Field Archery. To do this we need to be affilated with the IAAA for insurance reasons. Also, for the European champs last year, and the worlds this year, we needed to be FITA registered - IAAA is the only route to this. For IAAA affiilation we need our home club on board with them.

Ahh I see, sorry to nitpick, but that just means you prefer NUIG to be part of the IAAA, not that you need to be part of the IAAA. Those of ye that want to compete national/internationally could join the IAAA through Galway Archers. Same applies to the other college clubs, the only real cost to removing your assoication with the IAAA is that people would need to join an IAAA club in order to compete national. Oh wait, did you mean international student competitions? You still don't need your university club to be part of the IAAA to go to those competitions, you just need to be part of the IAAA which you can do through Galway Archers, etc.

Aryzel · 19-09-2008 4:54am

Sorry to be arkward here, but just trying to make the point that if dropping your association with the IAAA removes the need to setup this whole vetting thing, then it is excellent solution with very little real costs to the college clubs or the league. The single biggest advantage for college clubs to be part of the IAAA is that it makes it saves money and hassle for the few members that are competitive enough to go to national competitions.

There is another solution to ye're problem though, that would allow ye to drop the associsiation of college clubs with the IAAA (removing the vetting problem) but still allow ye to keep the advantages. Set up a dummy/paper archery club. The Irish Student Archery Club, it would be just a normal member of the IAAA, just like any old club, but would be run by a couple of the students, set entry requirements at 18years, and could charge just the bare minimum for members to join (just enough to cover the cost of the club joining the IAAA) it would have no grounds, no equipment, etc. Just a paper club that would give an easy, cheap and controlled access point for college archers to join the IAAA and remove any vetting requirements from the main college clubs.

Hmm, something just occured to me, is the IAAA execting all normal clubs to vet themselves, or is the IAAA itself vetting everyone (which is what it should be and what you should demand of the IAAA). The IAAA should be vetting people, not the individual clubs, that goes at the full IAAA club level not just the colleges.

ruiner · 19-09-2008 10:26am

A lot of work was done to affiliated the colleges to the IAAA. It seems a bit extreme to drop everything before seeing what other solutions there are.

At the delegates meeting two answers were given in regards to the colleges being vetted. You could potentially knock it down to a handful of people.

You may not be able to use IAAA judges. The IV shoots will be removed from the calendar and there will be nothing to stop someone else running a shoot on the same day so there may not be any free judges. Also the judges could say no to doing your shoots. I'm not saying they will but IV shoots would be given the lowest priority.

You will loose the 10Eur shooting only fee.

Clubs who run outdoor shoots not on their own campus wont be able to anymore such as DIT who use Dublin Archers field.

The vetting process for archery was decided upon by the gardai not by the IAAA.

Cookie_Monster · 19-09-2008 11:06am

So much for my vague intentions to come back to this sport...

Should be done the same as Scouting Ireland, centrally by the Head office / governing body removed from the individual in question, not by individual clubs. Makes it far to messy and open to abuse / legal challenge etc

Aryzel · 19-09-2008 11:53am

A lot of work was done to affiliated the colleges to the IAAA. It seems a bit extreme to drop everything before seeing
what other solutions there are.
- Granted, but having each club vet every individual that joins is the most extreme worst case solution. I don't think
ye have a chance in hell of the colleges allowing ye to do it yourselves, ye have zero security for the data and records
that ye will recieve, and it will be viewed as children vetting children and puts extremely private information in danger
of becoming public knowledge. How and where is all this information going to be stored, who has access, what happens
when people leave the club or just stop showing up, you have a very fast turn over of people running college clubs.
What happens (in detail) to appeals and what happens if any piece of private data is made public (ie, the vetting officer
ever tells ANYONE a single piece of information he has read). What happens if anyone fails the vetting, what do ye do,
what do you tell people, who do you tell about why the person failed etc. What do ye need to tell people when they are
signing up and are asking for their permission to vet them, i presume ye need to tell them what its for (checking for
peadophiles), who will be doing the vetting (some random 3rd year student) and how/where the information will be kept.
All these questions and more, need to be addressed in major detail before ye can even consider if ye should do this.
You will need to permission of your colleges to do this also.

You may not be able to use IAAA judges. The IV shoots will be removed from the calendar and there will be nothing
to stop someone else running a shoot on the same day so there may not be any free judges. Also the judges could say
no to doing your shoots. I'm not saying they will but IV shoots would be given the lowest priority.
Well in the seven years I was involved, any many years before my time, we we never associated with the IAAA and
there was never a single problem. Also ye can easily just use past university archers to judge the compeitions you know.

You will loose the 10Eur shooting only fee.
- Oh nooes!

Clubs who run outdoor shoots not on their own campus wont be able to anymore such as DIT who use Dublin Archers field.
- Fair point, though these are rare enough that you only need 1 college capable of holding them, GMIT can i imagine.

The vetting process for archery was decided upon by the gardai not by the IAAA.
- But it appears that the college clubs only need to do it because of your association with the IAAA, which is easy to drop.

At the delegates meeting two answers were given in regards to the colleges being vetted.
You could potentially knock it down to a handful of people.
- This is where you might have a chance, if the way it worked was for the IAAA itself to vet the few main people
in each club, then that would work fine. But there is just no way ye can have each individual college club vetting
every member that joins, its not even remotely viable. Even if ye could come up with viable method of doing it and
your colleges all allowed ye to do it, it would kill membership in your clubs. People would be going around to clubs at
fairs day, arrive at the archery stand, looks cool, €5, sign me up, at which point you would have to explain, properly,
that they would also need to sign their consent to allow that pimply 3rd year student behind the desk have access to
their secure garda records so he could look it over and decide if they were a potential peadophile. Yip, that will be a
big seller.

Sparks · 19-09-2008 12:21pm

ruiner wrote: »

The vetting process for archery was decided upon by the gardai not by the IAAA.

Eh? The two choices as to who did the vetting were the IAAA and the Gardai. It seems a conflict of interest to let the Gardai make the choice, especially when they see it as them doing work versus someone else doing work (and the Gardai have zero concern for the liability issues that the IAAA inherit along with the work). How come the ISC wasn't the one making the decision?

Also, the argument that juniors and seniors aren't segregated in clubs and so everyone must be vetted - the more I think about that, the more it falls by the wayside when you consider that spectators aren't vetted. What's to stop one of them grabbing a kid as they go onto/come off of the field?

Cookie_Monster · 19-09-2008 2:06pm

Sparks wrote: »

when you consider that spectators aren't vetted

I'd like to see them vet all 85,00 spectators in croker every weekend:)

tenacious-me · 19-09-2008 6:40pm

If you really think about it, leaving the IAAA is not a viable solution to the problem, the work involved is too much for any given club and besdies being an IAAA affiliated club has its advantages.
All that really is been suggested right now is the how-to in evading vetting for paedophiles, we need to work on a system of implicating the vetting not avoid it.
For the ISAA in particular, i believe the meeting of certain requirements should determine vetting such as completing a 6-week training course or attending an IV or even showing up to trainig more than twice as on average about 80% of new sign ups dont keep up the sport.
Anyway, the vetting training day is 5th of october whereas the AGM is the 25th, so like it or not every club is going to have to have a vetting officer, its just a matter of deciding the system of vetting......
phew

Panserborn · 19-09-2008 7:01pm

Aryzel wrote: »

that just means you prefer NUIG to be part of the IAAA

Not quite. NUIG as a university and financial sponsor would prefer us to be part of the IAAA. Every penny that comes into our club is given by the sports authority of NUIG - and to be fair to them they are generous as they also pay a nice percentage of our expenses when shooting internationally. In return, They want us wearing NUIG colours and giving then official recognition for the support they give us. Totally understandable. They wouldn't be too happy for us to take their money and compete under the flag of another club, which is what we would have to do at any IAAA, GNAS, EMAU or FITA event.

People would be going around to clubs at fairs day, arrive at the archery stand, looks cool, €5, sign me up, at which point you would have to explain, properly, that they would also need to sign their consent to allow that pimply 3rd year student behind the desk have access to their secure garda records so he could look it over and decide if they were a potential peadophile

Addressing this issue was the reason I started the thread.

Cosine · 19-09-2008 8:23pm

Sparks wrote:

See, you'd think - but if Tom, Dick and Harry all do the beginners course and Tom, Dick and Harry all sign the vetting form, and Tom and Dick are vetted and cleared and invited to join but Harry "fails" vetting and isn't, then if you think Tom and Dick won't talk about what happened, you don't know Irish people very well.

I can honestly say I don't know, but since I'm planning on going to the vetting training on in a few weeks I'll find out and put it up here. I imagine/assume that there is some legal protection for a vetting officer.

Sparks wrote: »

But if everyone who ever wants to shoot an arrow is required to give a random stranger access to their Garda files and the only security is the lock on the filing cabinet and the good nature of the random stranger, I think there's going to be a recruitment problem sooner rather than later.

Eh the Club vetting officers are expected to destroy their copies of the files after a decision has been made. The National Vetting officer will keep a copy of all files if copies need to be gotten later for whatever reason.

Sparks wrote: »

Thing is - if Swim Ireland, the crowd that brought all this down on us, aren't vetting all their members, only the people who're in charge of things (coaches, team managers, "designated persons" ie, coach helpers, committee members, and so on)

Why not mention that at the IAAA AGM so? The IAAA is prob over reacting but its still going to be a requirement for every member of the IAAA unless something is said.

Aryzel wrote:

Hmm, something just occured to me, is the IAAA execting all normal clubs to vet themselves, or is the IAAA itself vetting everyone (which is what it should be and what you should demand of the IAAA).

Ya, clubs are to vet themselves. The clubs Vetting officer sends the paperwork through to the National Vetting officer.

Aryzel wrote:

Granted, but having each club vet every individual that joins is the most extreme worst case solution.

They won't do everyone, just the core who stay with the club. For example we (UL) get in maybe 150 - 200 members of which 50 might stay for the year. Those 50 are the ones who are supposed to be vetted.

Sparks wrote:

the more I think about that, the more it falls by the wayside when you consider that spectators aren't vetted. What's to stop one of them grabbing a kid as they go onto/come off of the field?

Strangely this came up in the delegate meeting and the answer was something along the lines of "We're not responsible for the spectators but we are for the archers".

tenacious-me wrote:

For the ISAA in particular, i believe the meeting of certain requirements should determine vetting such as completing a 6-week training course or attending an IV or even showing up to trainig more than twice as on average about 80% of new sign ups dont keep up the sport

I was thinking the same, it makes more sense to have a universal time that vetting would start at rather then every club deciding willy nilly. 6 weeks seems, to me, to make the most sense as after that no one who isn't serious would still be hanging around.

Sparks · 19-09-2008 9:16pm

Cosine wrote: »

I imagine/assume that there is some legal protection for a vetting officer.

Still not optimal, even if you're correct in that assumption - legal protection just means insurance that covers barrister's fees, it doesn't mean legal indemnity...

Eh the Club vetting officers are expected to destroy their copies of the files after a decision has been made.

Who verifies the destruction is completed correctly? And that no other copies were made? And that noone got to see them in the meantime? In short, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (And assurances as to the vetting officer's good nature are unacceptable - if they were, I could give you my assurances that I'm suitable and don't need to be vetted, after all).

The National Vetting officer will keep a copy of all files if copies need to be gotten later for whatever reason.

He will what?!?!?! Not my bloody file he won't! My garda file, complete with address, firearms stored there, make&model&physical location of the safe, CPO report on my house's security, all resting in someone's filing cabinet with a €2 lock between it and a burglar? Feck that for a yarn. Hell, we can't even keep a B sample secure in the HQ of Equestrian Ireland.

Why not mention that at the IAAA AGM so?

Because first WTSC would have to complete signing up to the IAAA and that would require that we all get vetted first, no?

Ya, clubs are to vet themselves. The clubs Vetting officer sends the paperwork through to the National Vetting officer.

So that's two people that have to see confidential Garda files. Why the hell can't this be done the way GNAS do it? They don't get the Police file, they get a report from the Police vetting crowd saying that someone's record is clean or that there's a concern. If there's a concern, then they can get into more detail.

Strangely this came up in the delegate meeting and the answer was something along the lines of "We're not responsible for the spectators but we are for the archers".

If that's the tone, I'll shoot arrows in my back yard and WTSC will forget about joining the IAAA. Either this vetting is done to protect kids or it's done because someone in the IAAA thinks their archers aren't trustworthy at the moment. If the latter's the case, WTSC has to protect its juniors by keeping away from a suspect body like that, and frankly, if that's how the IAAA feel, they should be calling the Gardai.

Sparks · 19-09-2008 9:25pm

tenacious-me wrote: »

All that really is been suggested right now is the how-to in evading vetting for paedophiles, we need to work on a system of implicating the vetting not avoid it.

Frankly, if the design is as has been discussed here, with everyone being vetted and the vetting being done by the clubs and NGB, then the implementation of the vetting should not be taken on because the design is fundamentally broken.

Anyway, the vetting training day is 5th of october whereas the AGM is the 25th, so like it or not every club is going to have to have a vetting officer, its just a matter of deciding the system of vetting.

See, I could agree with vetting as done in the UK - where coaches, team managers, people who are in charge of u-18s are vetted, and where the police give a report on suitability instead of handing over confidential files. But this proposed system of vetting, this isn't acceptable. WTSC just won't complete joining up if this is a requirement. We have a 160m field, there's no law against buying archery equipment, and insurance can be gotten outside the IAAA, and we can run a match to FITA rules easily enough for our own members. So we'll just stay outside if the alternative is handing over garda files on all our members (which would contain all their firearms details, thus compromising their personal security).

Aryzel · 19-09-2008 11:38pm

Has ANYONE actually talked to their colleges about this vetting process? Got their colleges permission to
consider having a vetting officer, and how it would be done. It seriously looks like everyone is just talking
in circles and noone has actually begun the process of seeing what can and what needs to be done.

Stop talking and get the job done.

ISAA Membership

Comments