 Poster: A snowHead
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
....achilles, of course, but the scenario posed is that it is not possible to stick to the same resort ... because maybe it has gone bankrupt  |
In that case unlucky, a further risk assessment should be made, or the trip cancelled. It would be a smooth move to choose a resort which would not go bankrupt in the first place. SIL for many years took school ski trips to Val Morel and Saas Fee. Both are still around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Boredsurfing, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| achilles wrote: |
| rayscoops wrote: |
| ....achilles, of course, but the scenario posed is that it is not possible to stick to the same resort ... because maybe it has gone bankrupt |
In that case unlucky, a further risk assessment should be made, or the trip cancelled. It would be a smooth move to choose a resort which would not go bankrupt in the first place. SIL for many years took school ski trips to Val Morel and Saas Fee. Both are still around. |
By risk assessment do you mean inspection trip ?
but sadly it seems that it is quite common these days in Austria - here are our Austrian experts inthe region
| Samerberg Sue wrote: |
| Seems a straightforward but sadly all too common case these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops, I mean another risk assessment. As for the resort choice, well, as I said Saas Fee and Val Morel worked for my SIL - and still would. If a school wants a cheaper resort to reduce costs, it should accept the risk (and consequences of) possible bankruptcy in its initial assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rayscoops, not sure where you took that from but I'm pretty sure the context was some other topic. Selective quoting is rather silly don't you think?
I think in the past ski leaders sucked up change of venues and prayed. These days it is just too damned risky - the schools that cancelled because they had no contact details for the hotels had no choice but to cancel.
I had a tour operator (one of the so-called reputable ones) switch my group about 6 weeks before we left. We made them provide us with a lot of information before we accepted the move. They also had to increase their entertainment package as they had put paid to the programme we had devised based on the inspection visit. The company laid on a lot of extras for us and moved in one of their best resort reps to look after us. We did however have notification and we were able to give the parents the hotel name as well as it's telephone number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Samerberg Sue, from here http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=66359 and not out of context at all, simply highlighting resorts can fail requiring a change to essential terms of a package through no fault of the TO. The issue in this case would be whether the TO should invite the team leader for another inspection visit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, surely the question should be the risk assessor who should decide if a new visit is required. For example, if the alternative resort was already well-known to the assessor, he/she might not require a new visit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles, of course, but the suggestion on here is that an inspection is always required for a proper risk assessment when booking a school trip, if only to protect the team leader from prosecution if something goes wrong. So if an inspection was deemed necessary from the outset then one would also be deemed necessary if an essential term was changed, such as the resort location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
If my men are laying bricks on a scaffold (erected correctly and checked by our client, before being released to us) it does not matter if that scaffold is in Romford or Reading.
|
Im surprised that you do not consider the whole picture but prefer to break everything down into individual tasks that are (seemingly) un related within the overall risk assement?
So you would not consider (for example) the position of possiblle overhead powerlines, crane positioning, ajoining or concurrent activites (all of which change as the scaffold in question moves between sites) in your risk assesment?
(curious question) following on from that (on the scaffolding) would you normally have to consider the evacuation of the injured bricky from the scaffolding in your risk assesment? as an outdoor group leader would be required to do.
I am assuming that for the purposes of your task based risk assesments you are able to assume a basic level of competence in your employees and that you dont have to cover the mindnumbingly obvious stuff?
Sadly school outdoor leaders cannot assume any such basic common sense or knowledge/aptitude in their groups, If the kids want to go on the trip and the parents have paid the leader has to take them (equal opertunities for all) even if that child put his clothes on backwards and tries to eat his shoes they are in the group and going with the others. You simply have to plan for the lowest common denomonator....and that can be pretty low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,  I think an inspection will almost always be needed for the first time a resort is used, then, as Elizabeth B has already pointed out, another inspection may not be needed for a while. I'm curious, why does this issue excite you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| rayscoops, I think an inspection will almost always be needed for the first time a resort is used... |
I don't think so. MOST school trips are not ski trips. They go to many common places but they also go to some pretty far flung places. South America, places in Africa like Rwanda, and I've heard of trips to India, Nepal, Siberia, Japan you name it. My niece's last school trip was to Barbados ("Dear Headmaster, I absolutely need to do an inspection trip to Barbados etc...") I'm guessing (what's new?) but the party leaders cannot have inspected most such destinations prior to going there for the first time with group in tow. A ski trip is a cinch compared to say Rwanda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rayscoops, but that thread has nothing to do with this topic, other than the Pettneu local lift system is bankrupt - if you read the whole thread you will see that most locals feel that either the community will throw in the towel or they will bail out the system. Either way it would not happen out of the blue in the sense of affecting any schools who may be booked into a hotel there. Our village lift system was closed before the season started because the company could not afford the TÜV certificate (whithout which you cannot operate), nor could they afford to pay for a qualified Manager (Bergbahnmeister/in with an additional Winter certificate). Knocked out before the season started on both counts. My change of venue was due to the TO losing the contract for the accommodation to someone else, probably before the season even started, they just did not let on until we had paid up. I cannot prove that as I did not go out to visit as I knew the resort very well and also knew the hotel in question.
Pettnau am Arlberg is used by a lot of school tour operators as a hotel base, with the groups bussing (usually in their own bus) to St Anton - that way they can charge the schools the "premium" price for St Anton. Flirsch is another such resort that is sold as "skiing in St Anton" or Reith bei Kitzbühel being sold as Kitzbühel. I've even seen that one in the normal TO brochures. Other examples can be found in any of the school tour operator brochures, it is not an unusual practice. As a leader it is your job to make sure of the details before you pay your deposits.
Like Achilles I'm now curious as to your motivation on these SE related topics? You don't organise school groups nor are you in a group person - you've said yourself on other threads that you largely travel on your own mainly doing DIY. Nor are you an agrieved parent worrying as to how you will get your money back, so why are you so interested?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| rayscoops, I think an inspection will almost always be needed for the first time a resort is used... |
I don't think so. MOST school trips are not ski trips. They go to many common places but they also go to some pretty far flung places. South America, places in Africa like Rwanda, and I've heard of trips to India, Nepal, Siberia, Japan you name it. My niece's last school trip was to Barbados ("Dear Headmaster, I absolutely need to do an inspection trip to Barbados etc...") I'm guessing (what's new?) but the party leaders cannot have inspected most such destinations prior to going there for the first time with group in tow. A ski trip is a cinch compared to say Rwanda. |
As i stated earlier one of my friends who is a teacher is taking 40 kids on a cricket tour to South Africa, in his own time i may add, there has been no inspection trip carried out, now in line with Bode Swiller's comment i think that JoBurg is somewhat more of a risk than a trip to the alps.
As nobody in this thread was prepared to offer an explanation why this trip should have different requirements to a skiing trip I have asked him directly why they have not carried out an inspection trip as some here feel it is a mandatory pre requisite, his response was quite plain, the TO has provided a full and comprehensive document that satisfy's the school board and governers requirements and all staff involved are comfortable with the assesment.
I did ask if an inspection trip had been offered FOC would he have taken it, i think you can guess the response. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
leedsunited, oh goody. So SE's assessment could have been taken as read. Most excellent. Whether a trip to JjoBurg would require an inspection visit would depend on what the children were doing, who they were (cricket teams probably have some naturally alert individuals in them) and the status of the TO, I guess. I have never heard of action (including court action) being taken on teachers taking children on trips to South Africa - I have for ski trips to the Alps.
Why the evangelistic zeal on this? Did you get bad school reports?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
leedsunited, You are assuming the TO can be trusted. Not read the SE thread?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
oh goody. So SE's assessment could have been taken as read.
|
My posts on the subject are not relating to SE in particular, it is questioning the whole need for "inspection" trips overall and any activity.
| Quote: |
Whether a trip to JjoBurg would require an inspection visit would depend on what the children were doing,
|
The example i am laying out is factual and as i have said they are playing cricket, what i am trying to undertsand is the contradiction in many statements relating to "you must" carry out and "inspection" trip which in the real world is not the case as the example i have given proves.
| Quote: |
I have never heard of action (including court action) being taken on teachers taking children on trips to South Africa - I have for ski trips to the Alps.
|
Well in the context of assesment visits that raises a question regarding the quality of the initial assesment which as it was skiing i can only presume entailed an "Inspection trip"
| Quote: |
Why the evangelistic zeal on this? Did you get bad school reports
|
Back to that old chestnut, just because i question something in relation to schools or their employees i am accused of having a downer on said sector or reading a particular news paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| leedsunited wrote: |
achilles,
| Quote: |
Whether a trip to JjoBurg would require an inspection visit would depend on what the children were doing,
|
The example i am laying out is factual and as i have said they are playing cricket, what i am trying to undertsand is the contradiction in many statements relating to "you must" carry out and "inspection" trip which in the real world is not the case as the example i have given proves. |
The example you gave is (I presume) factual. It does not relate to adventurous activity (such as skiing). And it probably relates to children (cricket teams) who are rather more switched on than the average school ski trip members.
| Quote: |
Why the evangelistic zeal on this? Did you get bad school reports
|
| Quote: |
| Back to that old chestnut, just because i question something in relation to schools or their employees i am accused of having a downer on said sector or reading a particular news paper. |
I didn't accuse you of anything. However, it would help to understand your viewpoint if one could understand the circumstances which may have formed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
leedsunited,
| Quote: |
relating to "you must" carry out and "inspection" trip
|
This is the real world, The LEA rules almost certianaly say "you must" but everyone is an individual and we all decide on what level of risk we are prepared to take in our lives. We all know that we "must not" use a mobile phone whilst driving or drive over 70MPH on the motorway. There can be absolutely no doubt that that is the law but every day hundreds of thousands of people choose not to follow the law, that is their lookout.
As far as I (Ie IMHO) am concerned all activity trips require a risk assesment with a pre trip visit because that is what teh LEA requires.. But just like the mobile phone and speed limit laws it is up to the individual staff to comply or not, It is them, their head teacher and their gov. body that will have to accept liability for their actions. TBH We all take shortcuts in our working lives if we are honest as the red tape get in the way of the actual job most of the time it is pointless.
However I dont expect to castigate those who comply with the speedlimit or mobile phone laws (well Ok the guy sitting in the outside lane doing exactly 70MPH probably deserves locking up  ) so Im not sure why anyone should have a problem with the site visit, unless of course it is bent out of recognition by a TO seeking to lure the greedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| achilles wrote: |
The example you gave is (I presume) factual. It does not relate to adventurous activity (such as skiing). And it probably relates to children (cricket teams) who are rather more switched on than the average school ski trip members.
|
So does adventurous activity equate to risky or dangerous activity? How many kids are involved in accidents getting to and from school on a normal school day compared to accidents whilst skiing? Do teachers perform an inspection on each child's commute to school?
Find the whole inspection thing being debated here is quite bizarre. If a parent takes their own kids on a ski trip do they have an inspection trip first! Or do they use common sense and a bit of research, as in we're off to a commercial ski resorts booked through a UK TO that we base at least some trust in and realise that snow is slippery and gravity makes you go down mountains, sometimes quite fast. I guess it all comes down to covering of backsides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
waynos, when I was in the RAF skiing was classed as an adventurous activity along with - for example, gliding and rock climbing. Cricket was not. And indeed it does come down to covering backsides, so much so that I am surprised any teacher wants to take on school ski trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Do teachers perform an inspection on each child's commute to school?
|
Kids aren't the teachers responsibility until they're at school.
| Quote: |
If a parent takes their own kids on a ski trip do they have an inspection trip first!
|
No-one will try the sue them if the kids an idiot and looks the wrong way crossing the road/etc (plus there is only 1 or 2 to keep an eye on).
| Quote: |
I guess it all comes down to covering of backsides
|
Duh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the ones complaining or stating points I guess are not teachers!
SO WHAT! if a tour operator offers a FREEbie whether it be for weekend or longer. It's paid by TO not parents. other industries have perks etc Company Cars etc
If parents don't like it, a) get facts right b) don't send your kid FULL STOP!
I teach, have led 10+ ski trips and went on just one inspection visit, prior to very first trip
Awareness and risk assessments are important because someone will sue if not done correctly, sign of the times!
Unions encourage us not to take trips however we come into the world of teaching to give knowledge and opportunities to allow those younger than ourselves an experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1969jma, not a perk. They cost bundles of tax. Buying your own or having company car is a close run thing.
You refer to inspection trip as "a FREEbie" - Do teachers put free trips down on their P11Ds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
No-one will try the sue them if the kids an idiot and looks the wrong way crossing the road/etc (plus there is only 1 or 2 to keep an eye on).
. |
An inspection trip won't stop the above. Don't get me wrong I don't envy teachers taking kids away with the threat of being sued because little johnny has been a d**k.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| when I was in the RAF skiing was classed as an adventurous activity along with - for example, gliding and rock climbing. Cricket was not. |
I know where I've suffered the more pain!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
laundryman, insufficent risk assesment of the groin area?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
If I might comment on my original post which started this thread. My comment was more about how leedsunited, is unable to distingush between inducements (which can be legal) and taking bribes (which is not) - and indeed he will change his accusation when it is pointed out that he cannot declare someone guilly of criminal offence until it is proven in a court (a right that he is quite happy to afford Reynard but not teachers on many occaisions). Similarly, he is quite free in accusing teachers and LEAs of negligence, a civil wrong which again needs to be demonstrated in court, rather than carelessness or similar which are not accusations that have to be proved in court.
As to whether inspection ski trips offered to teachers are inducements - well it would be silly to argue that there wasn't an element of inducement, otherwise it's difficult to explain why most tour operators for school trips fetaure them so prominently in their brochures and advertising . But I'm afraid there are plenty of inducements offered in the commercial world - lunches for customers and suppliers, corporate hospitality (e.g. 18k of the seats at Wembley are offered on Corporate packages) - this doesn't necessarily mean that they amount to bribes. The border line between inducements/bribes is a pretty important one - but if you look at how it is interpreted in practice it is something of a moveable feast and is deterrmined by what is excessive and not normal practice. Given that it is difficult to find a school trip organiser that does not offer inspection trips - I think anyone trying to argue that taking one amounted to a bribe, especially when there are other good reasons for undertaking the trip as well as the personal pleasure of the school teacher wouldn't get very far in court. If as some have reported Reynard offered holidays in the West Indies through his other company as an inducement to book school trips - then there might be a stronger case for investigating whether bribery has occurred - as such would have more difficulty in meeting the customary test.
I would also like to point out that in my case there was no attempt whatsover to hide the inspection trip from the parents - and I think most parents would support the need for such trips (for which they in effect pay) and do not begrudge the teacher concerned any pleasure that they derive from the inspection trip - and indeed we are grateful for the contribution that teachers make to allow such trips (and countless other activities) to take place. And indeed I suspect most parents share my view that the teachers concerned should not be accused of criminal offences on such flimsy grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, you are absolutely right, it goes on.
The Bribery Act (coming in very soon) makes the distinction fairly clear I think:
Offences of bribing another person
(1)A person "P" is guilty of an offence if either of the following cases applies..
(2)Case 1 is where—.
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and.
(b)P intends the advantage—.
(i)to induce a person to perform improperly a relevant function or activity, or.
(ii)to reward a person for the improper performance of such a function or activity..
(3)Case 2 is where—.
(a)P offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to another person, and.
(b)P knows or believes that the acceptance of the advantage would itself constitute the improper performance of a relevant function or activity.
(4)In case 1 it does not matter whether the person to whom the advantage is offered, promised or given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the function or activity concerned..
(5)In cases 1 and 2 it does not matter whether the advantage is offered, promised or given by P directly or through a third party.
So really it comes down to whether or not the inducement made you do something improper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| achilles wrote: |
| when I was in the RAF skiing was classed as an adventurous activity along with - for example, gliding and rock climbing. Cricket was not. |
I know where I've suffered the more pain! |
I didn't play cricket to a high standard in school. I don't ski to a high standard either - but I have been in plaster through skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| waynos wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
No-one will try the sue them if the kids an idiot and looks the wrong way crossing the road/etc (plus there is only 1 or 2 to keep an eye on).
. |
An inspection trip won't stop the above. Don't get me wrong I don't envy teachers taking kids away with the threat of being sued because little johnny has been a d**k. |
It may not, but if the teachers have been there before they'll know about any roads with traffic and blind corners, or whatever the risk could be - so they can take action to avoid it (or at least show they've tried to mitigate the risks when little Johnny's parents try and sue them). There are many things that could potentially be a danger to someone stupid enough, that a TO or normal person wouldn't (have to) think about, but sadly these days the law seems to assume kids are like retarded lemmings*, so every tiny little potential risk has to be assessed and mitigated by the teachers.
*Which is where the construction examples above fall down - you can reasonably expect a bricklayer to take responsibility for themselves and follow directions in a potentially dangerous place to keep themselves safe, but too many people these days assume kids can't take any responsibility and so must be constantly looked after and wrapped in cotton wool - hence the law suits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Bode Swiller,
I think there is a lot of legal debate about how the Bribery Act definitions will work in practice compared with interpretations of previous legislation - and haven't the Government decided to delay its introduction pending further consideration of its impact and implications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
Bode Swiller,
I think there is a lot of legal debate about how the Bribery Act definitions will work in practice compared with interpretations of previous legislation - and haven't the Government decided to delay its introduction pending further consideration of its impact and implications. |
Not surprised. I can see corporate hospitality at Farnborough, Wimbledon and Henley vanishing. What about the Olympics, eh? Wouldn't do! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Stephen 101 - Please allow me to defend myself
| Quote: |
My comment was more about how leedsunited, is unable to distingush between inducements (which can be legal) and taking bribes (which is not)
|
Inducements are against local authority guidelines and can be deemed in accepting as "a dismissable offence" so if they are not illegal then what are they by policy standards?
| Quote: |
Similarly, he is quite free in accusing teachers and LEAs of negligence,
|
Well my actual comment regarding negligence was aimed at the fact that they LEA/Schools had not done due diligence before handing buckets of cash over to a sharlaton, a D&B report would have highlighted his state of affairs, the credit reports i have in my possesion which i actually PM'd you offering copies, which you did not accept shows a huge red traffic light stating "do not give him any money".
| Quote: |
But I'm afraid there are plenty of inducements offered in the commercial world - lunches for customers and suppliers, corporate hospitality (e.g. 18k of the seats at Wembley are offered on Corporate packages)
|
As i have said previously you cannot compare the commercial sector in the same vain as the public, the commercial sector has its own checks and balances in place with regards to such things (good or bad) and if you have ever worked for a large corporate and in particular an american one you will be very familiar with the ethical conduct and policy documents you must sign every year, as well as complying to Sarbanes Oxley. In my last company any gift with a value over £20 had to be declared and before attending hospitality it had to be sanctioned and signed off.
| Quote: |
Given that it is difficult to find a school trip organiser that does not offer inspection trips
|
As posted earlier i have trawled many school specific To's web sites and still have failed to find any offering such things openly and the TO taking my friends trip to South Africa definately does'nt.
| Quote: |
I think anyone trying to argue that taking one amounted to a bribe, especially when there are other good reasons for undertaking the trip as well as the personal pleasure of the school teacher wouldn't get very far in court.
|
But you could argue that the inducement may sway the purchasing decision, again no matter how small there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
| Quote: |
I would also like to point out that in my case there was no attempt whatsover to hide the inspection trip from the parents
|
And nobody has said different however when the question has been asked regarding others that have taken them and especially with SE / CR there has been a deathly silence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
1969jma, Are you being obtuse? The inspection trip is being paid for by the inflated figure that the parents are paying for their childs holiday! The teachers / guardians on the trip get their trip paid for by everyone else on the trip that pays the full amount! So an inspection trip and "freebies" are paid for by the childrens inflated cost.
Nothing wrong in this if the parents are not paying over the odds for the holiday, but with SE / CR's operating structure, which basically says (and these are my thoughts and my opinions) "bring a group of children on MY holiday and "I" will give YOU an inspection week holiday skiing or one in the Caribean"!! He/they are working on the greed of that organiser wanting a freebie!
Sorry if this offends anyone that took the CR's shilling, but that was his intention IMO!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Roy Hockley, yes, the trip offered to the West Indies definitely fell outside "inspection visit" and was a clear bribe (oh crikey, the "b" word)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| waynos, when I was in the RAF skiing was classed as an adventurous activity |
And so was doing ground runs with no intake guards - hey ho happy days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy Hockley, You are correct
As posted earlier
"Anybody who is of the thought that these inducements trips are really free is kidding themselves, in the bigger picture of the operating business somebody somewhere will have factored the cost into the overall business be it in the marketing budget or cost of sale.
Now do some sums, if for example 2 people are wined and dined at SE's expense for 7 days all inclusive you must be talking thick end of a couple of grand, times that by the number of freebies offered in a season, not sure how many they gave away but i would hazard a guess that it is going to be more than 50, now we are talking in the region of £100K to come from somewhere.
Remember his business is not a charity, unless you count himself in that word and they have to be paid for by somebody, my conclusion is the cost of his or anybody elses holidays could be cheaper if it did not have these inducements factored in."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Inducements are against local authority guidelines and can be deemed in accepting as "a dismissable offence" so if they are not illegal then what are they by policy standards?
|
So even more reason why you should take more care in throwing accusations around. Again , I very much doubt that school teachers have broken the local authority guidelines in this regard by accepting what is a standard perk, usually undertaken with the approval/encouragement of the head teacher/LEA and usually done in the open (which doesn't usually happen with bribery or illegal inducement)
| Quote: |
Well my actual comment regarding negligence was aimed at the fact that they LEA/Schools had not done due diligence before handing buckets of cash over to a sharlaton, a D&B report would have highlighted his state of affairs, the credit reports i have in my possesion which i actually PM'd you offering copies, which you did not accept shows a huge red traffic light stating "do not give him any money".
|
Negligence has a specific legal meaning - if the teachers concerned were qualified accountants or similar then you might have a point, but I suspect many do not know what a D&B report is or how to perform financial due diligence. Careless they may have been, just like you are with your spelling and grammar, but that does not amount to negligence.
| Quote: |
As i have said previously you cannot compare the commercial sector in the same vain as the public, the commercial sector has its own checks and balances in place with regards to such things (good or bad) and if you have ever worked for a large corporate and in particular an american one you will be very familiar with the ethical conduct and policy documents you must sign every year, as well as complying to Sarbanes Oxley. In my last company any gift with a value over £20 had to be declared and before attending hospitality it had to be sanctioned and signed off.
Quote:
|
These things happen in the Corporate sector and they also happen at those subject to Sarbox - I have worked and lived in large corporates all my life and see a very wide range of such entities in my working life. Inducements happen - and most are perfectly legal and within agreed policies (many of which are nowhere as rigorous as your last company) - and there are those who enjoy considerably greater benefits than a teacher going on an inspection visit. Both the public and private sector need to operate within defined standards - but if you wish to look there is no absence of bribery within the private sector.[quote]
| Quote: |
As posted earlier i have trawled many school specific To's web sites and still have failed to find any offering such things openly and the TO taking my friends trip to South Africa definately does'nt
|
Please google school ski trips inspection visits as i suggested before - you will not get zero hits - someone else posted a list of several companies offering such trips.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
In a not entirely serious vein...
Just a thought. but our ground forces in various conflicts seem to have a liking for 'pre trip visits too' from what I can work out they dont seem to trust the image analysts/ fly boys and prefer instead to send in trained 'risk assesment teams' to recon' the routes/sites/buildings etc etc
Surely we could save all this manpower and just go to war on the basis of what is in the brochures and in the internet
Alternatively Id like to see an SAS/SBS school, ski trip risk assesment for a trip to Afganastan for a party of 40+ teenagers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
But you could argue that the inducement may sway the purchasing decision, again no matter how small there is no such thing as a "free lunch".
|
I repeat inducements/free lunches/perks usually legal - bribes illegal. People are innocent of the latter until proved guilty - and not nice behaviour to say people are breaking the law without proper evidence,
| Quote: |
Quote:
I would also like to point out that in my case there was no attempt whatsover to hide the inspection trip from the parents
And nobody has said different however when the question has been asked regarding others that have taken them and especially with SE / CR there has been a deathly silence.
|
I hadn't noticed a deathly silence - but perhaps those concerned don't feel that they have to justify their behaviour especially to someone who has already accused them of something that is illegal. This is a bulletin board not the Spanish Inquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
