[SCA-AE] ANNOUNCE: Background Check FAQ

[Taranach McLeod]

On Jan 19, 2008 1:17 PM, georg <thegeorg at stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Sarah Goslee wrote:
> > On Jan 19, 2008 11:57 AM, Caryl <caryl at faerhaga.org> wrote:
> >
> >> This rule has been in effect for some time now.  Please, please -
> >> everyone make sure that when children are present, this rule is being
> >> followed.  The child's parents count as one of the adults if they are
> >> present.
> >
> > Only one? Does that mean that we can't leave a child alone with
> > its parent? Diaper changes and bathroom trips just got sooo
> > much more complicated. Or does this not completely trump
> > common sense?
>
> Diaper changing is not an Activity organized by the hosting group or
> part of the event. This applies to organized activities mainly. I would
> assume some common sense here. Your tent/car/etc isn't an organized
> activity.
> >> Background checks are only required for CHILD-SPECIFIC activites.  If
> >> I'm teaching a calligraphy class and kids show up - two deep rule.  If
> >> I'm teaching a children's class - background check.
>
> -george


Herein lies one of my main problems with this BS...
"Your tent/car/etc isn't an organized activity."  So a child molester
that is unknown to the group (like the case the SCA is getting sued
over) could be around... NOT get involved with the children's
activities except for occasional helping along with several others,
then bring/lure a child to a tent (which is NOT the activity) and
suddenly we are at square one again....

Part two... it only catches those who have already been caught and
convicted.. not those who may be potential..

Part three... without fingerprints this charade is worthless!! It is
very easy to fake a name and addresses thus bypassing this supposed
safeguard.

Part Four... disallowing those THOROUGH background checks already done
by state and Federal authorities... I'm sorry... I think this is a
case where 'Mundane laws supersede SCA Rules or regulations'... try
taking it to court and you'll find out how weak this "check" really
is.

Oh wait... it IS in court... and the subject was not a known
offender... guess he would have slipped through anyway.

Taranach