To think this charity deserve prosecution for being so bloody stupid?

[Fucklechuck]

Just seen this in the news and went down a rabbit hole reading the whole story plus comments on their FB.

They took a bunch of young kids on a frozen lake (apparently without parental consent) and tried to justify it as a safety lesson despite clearly having no understanding themselves of the actual dangers. For example they're claiming the entire lake was frozen over with 2ft thick ice - no, it definitely wasn't, not in the south west of the UK, it's just not that cold in this country even in the recent cold snap. That's just impossible.

Their comments on their FB page are shockingly blasé and they've even been liking other people's comments saying that vaccines are a bigger danger to children than this was

Just can't believe anyone would be so stupid less than a week after the tragedy in Solihull and then to take to social media calling it a knee jerk overreaction to suspend their license until an investigation is complete shows a total lack of regard for the most basic H&S or risk assessment processes. I actually hope their registration to look after children is revoked by whoever has such powers!

If they're like this over safety issues generally, it's truly a miracle they have not had a serious accident.

As said upthread, the doubling down on a dangerously poor decision has been appalling.

I'm not surprised the ice risk assessment was produced retrospectively as they admitted to doing it on the spur of the moment. The second time children went out on the ice was also unplanned - they lost control of the group at that stage. But for the whole document to be created afterwards suggests they are fudging safeguarding entirely.

It's interesting that the children's reaction to this risky behaviour has been to ignore the advice of the authority figure present and take a personal risk regarding whether they were safe on the lake. This is the opposite of what the organisation claims are benefits to risky play. I'm also concerned that those same children might return to the ice on a cold day in two weeks and finding it all looking roughly the same and feeling cold, charge onto it out of habit. They obviously don't treat the leaders advice as gospel truth to be followed to the letter and could easily make a mistake even if they did try to test the ice.

My children are much more likely to repeat a behaviour if they've done it before at a specific location.

Lots of comments on their FB post and on the local news (it was shared by the local "live" FB group for my area) are saying things like "oh but they had a risk assessment/safety policy" - have these people read that sorry excuse for a risk assessment?

Example comments:

"Knowing our local coastal waters and their potential dangers as we do I can fully understand how you run and work in terms of safety. No organisation worth its weight in gold would put others at risk. All Organised activities have to have a risk assessment etc. I have no idea why these people are giving you all this grief!!!"

"Risky play is an important part of learning and development. As long as correct risk assessment and protocol has been followed, in these circumstances, I see no harm in using the Ice as a teaching tool"

People are clearly taking at face value their claim that there was a full risk assessment and that they had safety procedures in place. I wonder how the same people would be responding to an accurate report making it clear that there was no risk assessment done beforehand and no proper testing of the ice depth...

Can't see how it's a "safety lesson". Rather the opposite I'd have thought, showing kids how safe it is to go on ice. Ridiculously stupid imo.

Someone possibly dying is not the way to test out this theory.

Yes they seem to be happy to lie about this. I don't know how much support they'd have if they gave the full picture.

I don’t really understand what you gain by doing it. Never walk on ice and you will never fall through ice and drown. Walk on ice and you might break through and be in serious danger. Why is it a good idea to walk on ice???

I completely agree. These people are acting like walking on a lake might be necessary and yet we all somehow manage not to walk on them for the whole of the summer.

Encouraging children to test out ice to see if it compares to what this charity showed them was "safe" is stupidity itself.

They should simply be telling them in as many ways as possible NOT to go on to frozen bodies of water and demonstrating as strongly as possible the reasons why.

It's interesting that the children's reaction to this risky behaviour has been to ignore the advice of the authority figure present and take a personal risk regarding whether they were safe on the lake. This is the opposite of what the organisation claims are benefits to risky play. I'm also concerned that those same children might return to the ice on a cold day in two weeks and finding it all looking roughly the same and feeling cold, charge onto it out of habit. They obviously don't treat the leaders advice as gospel truth to be followed to the letter and could easily make a mistake even if they did try to test the ice.

My children are much more likely to repeat a behaviour if they've done it before at a specific location.

All humans are more likely to. The more you do something risky, the less you assess that as risky. Basic human psychology, which these dingalings appear to be oblivious to. So they don't understand risk assessment OR child psychology.

I am local to this and this has been absolutely shocking. Both Scott's absolute and unrelenting (some say arrogant) refusal to back down from his stance that as someone with a decade of ice walking experience in Canada he is absolutely best placed to decide whether or not he is right in this and the FE's swift and absolute response - to apparently demand vacation of the site with immediate effect.

Scott also has some idea that this has been a revenge eviction.

You can read more here.

www.facebook.com/therewildproject

www.therewildproject.com/save-kensley

The most local reporting hasn't been particularly hyperbolic (Gloucester reporting has been, typical for them!). Some agree with FEs take on it, some don't. Bottom line for FE seems to be that as this took place on FE land, in public, seemingly sanctioned by them via their support for the ReWild Project. they had to act to protect themselves as well as members of the public who may have chosen to copy what they saw.

FEs official statement differs from the "24 hour to leave" statement. They have, as is usual with such happenings, told him to stop all activities until they can meet and discuss/investigate what happened, ensure H+S was appropriately in place etc.

“Due to the concerning events of the Friday 16th December 2022, we have written to the directors of The Rewild Project, suspending the licence agreement they have with us to carry out traditional land-based skills at Kensley Sheds with immediate effect. The suspension will remain, and all activities stopped until the incident can be investigated in full and the directors of The Rewild Project met with.”

www.theforestreview.co.uk/news/rewild-project-faces-eviction-from-kensley-sheds-amid-row-over-frozen-lake-586094

Basically, as succinctly as I can. It was shit timing and now a man with a mission is responding in a highly emotional manner to what many believe is the only response the FE could make having received official complaints.

My opinion is that Scott needs to it down and have a nice cup of tea, calm down and meet with the FE without the overriding urge to defend his superior skill set. He is letting his propensity to be offended get in the way of common sense. Forestry England don't actually want him to leave, they just want him to be a little bit more aware of what goes on outside his head and not to act as though mothing else matters.

Having read much of it as it happened, deleted posts and all, yes. They did originally say they had no written assessment prior to going on to the ice, they relied upon Scott's expertise when they realised the ice 'was thick enough', but hey! the FE had never asked to see them so who cares, right?

It's all pretty much an own goal. Had they had the paperwork ready to go the FE might have been mollified. The social media story would certainly have been different.

And yes, the assessment is self serving codswallop from start to finish. Nobody in their right mind would assign that level of risk to an ice walk on grass, let alone over an open cast mine. The little dog beaches they have round the edge include warnings not to go beyond the designated areas because the lake gets quite deep quite quickly!

www.gloucestershirewildlifetrust.co.uk/nature-reserves/woorgreens

@SamphiretheTervosaurReturneth it's almost beyond belief how the project have handled this. You'd expect an organisation in their position, with a really serious allegation made about their safety policies, would immediately issue a statement saying they're investigating and that they're sorry etc etc. And then they'd just STFU on social media until they'd taken legal advice and worked out a way forward. This bizarre level of doubling down and keyboard diarrhoea is surely making it about a million times worse

I live in Scandinavia and am an avid ice skater. It's not unusual on our ice skating trips for someone to go through the ice. While what happens to those British boys is incredibly sad, going through the ice does not necessarily mean instant death.

Having said that, therefore obviously a gigantic difference between a group of prepared and responsible adults going out together and what this organisation were doing. We practice falling through the ice and how to climb out of a hole in the ice. We wear special rucksacks that act as buoyancy aids to help keep your head above water. We take safety lines to help pull someone out. We take spare clothes (in dry bags) to change into. Growing up, my swimming lessons covered how to keep your head above water when fully clothed and how to find the hole in the ice if you do end up under the ice. Taking kids out on the ice without teaching them what to do if something does go wrong seems incredibly irresponsible. And given many of these kids are seemingly ND the decision is even more questionable.

Forestry England don't actually want him to leave, they just want him to be a little bit more aware of what goes on outside his head and not to act as though mothing else matters.

How do you know? They've told him to leave. Why would they play games?

If Scott is so poor at keeping his emotions from getting in the way of his common sense, isn't he exactly the wrong person to have charge of children near knives, frozen bodies of water etc? Maybe this isn't the first time FE have been made aware of him and have finally had enough.

So they really are being completely misleading about the depth of the water?

I remembered seeing a comment from a local saying they'd seen the lake drained and that it has a trench that's much deeper than 3ft.

Google throws up these results (pics in the links). There is indeed a trench when it's drained, plus the mud deep enough for an adult to get stuck in... That lake is not a uniform 3 foot deep!

www.deangreenteam.co.uk/Diary-270911.html

forestwildlife.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/27/

It depends whose statement you look at. They are still in the sheds, haven't left.

FE says, in my post, that they have stopped him operating until they have met with him and done all the usual stuff they do... I suspect it is being treated as a 'near miss', really serious.

I haven't seen any previous instances of him acting like this. The project is really well thought of. Loads of kids, some really troubled youngsters, pass through and get huge benefits from working with him.

It's definitely not Forestry England's first time of hearing from him. He is based in their property, is their tenant. They are usually well engaged with all of their similar 'experience' based tenants. Though lockdowns did seem to flummox them.

Basically this has caused quite a lot of head scratching locally. From outside it seems easy to resolve. He shuts up, deletes his conspiracy theory stuff and talks to FE from the angle that whilst he knows what he is doing it was ill judged given the circumstances.

But the posts he has made have rattled some of his most ardent supporters. The apparent lack of care with risk assessments and the sudden change in tone, accusations of revenge eviction and the difference between his explanation of what FE have asked of him and their statement is really puzzling.

Yes. That's something else some of the older locals have been quite adamant about. The depth changes quickly. As they are the men that dug it out I tend to believe them. It was a mine started in the late 70s and flooded in 1984 so quite a few locals remember it well.

So not a massive puddle then, as described.

No 😂

It just gets worse.

No way would I be trusting my children to him, given his response to this.

No matter how successful the Rewild projects have been up to now, the leaders' lack of transparency, judgement, professionalism and respect for safeguarding should prevent the organisation being given premises, license or insurance to hold 'risky' activities with children in the future IMO.

There's just too much at stake. A child's life is worth more than dozens of workshops. The leaders seem to feel beyond accountability and that's a very dangerous place for someone with power to be.

"a large puddle (2/3ft of water)"

Simply untrue. And calls their overall judgement and trustworthiness into question IMO.

Sadly I suspect that will be the upshot of this.

Someone referred to him as Forest Cartman, demanding we all respect his authority.

All that bloody power to the people malarkey.

‘Large puddle’ 🙄