GW and the Gaming Club Network

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

no arguments that clubs accepting under 16s should have their officials checked

but

Not all of the GCN clubs accept underage members (or those who would be classified as vunerable adults)

so the GCN would have to try and make these clubs get checks

they are also unlikely to be free as eligible volunteers can't gain any benefits other than out of pocket expenses,

and most club members & officials probably have some sort of discount deal with a local game store via the club, or facilities for gaming available only to members or available at lower rates, or even get to play in club tourneys/leagues that have prizes

**krazynadechukr**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
no arguments that clubs accepting under 16s should have their officials checked

but

Not all of the GCN clubs accept underage members (or those who would be classified as vunerable adults)

so the GCN would have to try and make these clubs get checks

they are also unlikely to be free as eligible volunteers can't gain any benefits other than out of pocket expenses,

and most club members & officials probably have some sort of discount deal with a local game store via the club, or facilities for gaming available only to members or available at lower rates, or even get to play in club tourneys/leagues that have prizes

only club officials get checked, & only if there are members under 18... not every member gets checked.....

"To qualify for a free-of-charge criminal record check, the applicant must not benefit directly from the position the DBS application is being submitted for. The applicant must not:

benefit directly from the position for which the DBS application is being submitted
receive any payment (except for travel and other approved out-of-pocket expenses)
be on a work placement
be on a course that requires them to do this job role
be in a trainee position that will lead to a full time role/qualification
It states on the DBS application form ‘By placing a cross in the yes box (at section 68) you confirm that the post meets the DBS definition for a free-of-charge volunteer application. "

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

Ah but the spat with GW is they said unless ALL clubs in the GCN had their officials checked they could not be promoted via the GW stores

that's what the whole spat is about

**krazynadechukr**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Ah but the spat with GW is they said unless ALL clubs in the GCN had their officials checked they could not be promoted via the GW stores

that's what the whole spat is about

spat or not......"For individuals working in certain positions with or around children, a valid DBS disclosure is a legislative requirement."

It is the law.

**Azreal13**

Yeah, but it isn't for those who aren't.

That's what the spat is about.

**Talys**

What constitutes a "club" over in the UK? I mean, in Canada (or the US) anyone can start a club for anything, and the whole darn thing can be run by 12 year olds in a treehouse.

When I was in elementary school (like, age 10 or so), we had an RPG club, and it was just kids playing RPGs at lunch hour. When I was in college, I went to a wargaming club that had every age from about 13 - 70 attending. I'm sure there were never any background checks, and "officers" were just the people who volunteered to run things -- if there was any formal process at all, they were "elected" because they were no other volunteers.

**Azreal13**

It's exactly the same here, post a few ads on social media, establish a venue and you too can start your own banana fanciers society. There's no legal definition as such, the thing with the GCN was it had reach, and speaking from personal experience, finding people and making them aware of your existence is tough, even in a relatively small community, so was worth jumping through hoops to be a part of.

As a club we never bothered, as we have drifted further and further away from GW games, and the big advantage was GW would only allow GCN registered clubs to advertise in their shops, but without that, there's almost no incentive to join.

**Trasvi**

Talys wrote:
What constitutes a "club" over in the UK? I mean, in Canada (or the US) anyone can start a club for anything, and the whole darn thing can be run by 12 year olds in a treehouse.

When I was in elementary school (like, age 10 or so), we had an RPG club, and it was just kids playing RPGs at lunch hour. When I was in college, I went to a wargaming club that had every age from about 13 - 70 attending. I'm sure there were never any background checks, and "officers" were just the people who volunteered to run things -- if there was any formal process at all, they were "elected" because they were no other volunteers.

Where I am in Australia, there are a number of largish gaming clubs (~20-30 attendees per night) which are run out of rented halls. These clubs own their own terrain.
For financial reasons, this puts a bit of pressure on each club to:
- Get public liability insurance (in case someone hurts themselves on club night and decides to pursue action against the club)
- Get property insurance (for the thousands of dollars of terrain and miniatures
- Register as a not-for-profit company (to make insurance and hall hire cheaper, and other benefits)

So yes you can run any kind of 'club' that you want with as many or as few members of whatever age, but when money starts being involved there are a lot of serious matters to consider that makes more formal organisation attractive.

**Baragash**

Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, but it isn't for those who aren't.

That's what the spat is about.

Further...as I understand the guidance on the Government website, you can only make it compulsory for exempted jobs (eg those working with children), because the default position is that you can't make it compulsory under various Rehabilitation of Offenders Acts and associated legislation. So GW is demanding a requirement that is illegal, or forces the GCN to have no 18+ clubs.

In this topic on Warseer someone posted a second-hand statement that GW staff were being encouraged to set up their own GW-games-only clubs. (Emphasis for may-need-seasoning).

**Pacific**

krazynadechukr wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Ah but the spat with GW is they said unless ALL clubs in the GCN had their officials checked they could not be promoted via the GW stores

that's what the whole spat is about

spat or not......"For individuals working in certain positions with or around children, a valid DBS disclosure is a legislative requirement."

It is the law.

If they cared that much they wouldn't have stores with single workers.

That has produced far, far more danger to children, and has made GW far more vulnerable, than any amount of DBS checking with clubs will prevent.

**Adam LongWalker**

Pacific wrote:
krazynadechukr wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Ah but the spat with GW is they said unless ALL clubs in the GCN had their officials checked they could not be promoted via the GW stores

that's what the whole spat is about

spat or not......"For individuals working in certain positions with or around children, a valid DBS disclosure is a legislative requirement."

It is the law.

If they cared that much they wouldn't have stores with single workers.

That has produced far, far more danger to children, and has made GW far more vulnerable, than any amount of DBS checking with clubs will prevent.

EXACTLY!!!

As stated before GW WAS a major global company in the realm of miniatures with its headquarters in England.

NOW it is a National company, with weakened global influence.

This is GW we are talking about. THEY are going to shore up their revenue by doing this type of action in Jolly o' England. You really think they care about the children?

Come on. All they care about is "da money". And they will do it under any pretenses.

**notprop**

GCN as an organisation with child elements associated should have had current protection measures in place with process/stipulation of those element that do have child members/contact. The council not having DBS checks doesn't scan with me, it's something they should have been doing anyway.

Of course GW stipulating that all associated clubs must have DBS checks in place is a bit too much though.

**Kanluwen**

Y'know, I think I could see the point but it hinges upon one crucial thing:

Someone said that GW lets GCN clubs advertise/promote at their shops. Does that mean individual clubs advertise/promote or is it a blanket thing for the GCN?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Adam LongWalker wrote:
Don't post much due to illness. De-vested with Game Workshop a few years back. I don't deal with retards in ties very well. My take on this....

It is about GW's control of their eroding customer base. That is what I first thought about when I heard the situation from GCN. Pretty much politically correct verbage on both sides.

Then this was posted on another topic about the same situation.

adlard.matthew wrote:
GW seem to being showing a wary concept of what they offer and do with killing Slannesh and mainly offering male figures so not to offend female complaints and according to someone in store the religious/moral types who see sex in everything. They are aiming to target younger gamers.

From what was said on another post on FB GW also wanted members to be checked, and other strict polices under new DBS, yet this also means that the person being checked has to decide whether to disclose or fill inform, and different levels. For a club it would mean every member paying a fair amount for checks. And it is not for a job so technically not applicable. And at £55-75 a tim would cut into costs and kill many clubs, which for many are over 18 as in Pubs and or just operate as over 18 for proffered choice, and so do not eed them but would be required to have to take them.

However, picked up from a source that GW has given go ahead for GW employees to begin setting up clubs outside of GW stores, using ex GW stock & GW support. However they are only to support and encourage GW games, and make policy that supports only GW games.

If true and it starts being pushed out would explain the sudden shift and a neat way to cut ties with GCN.

It is always about control of additional revenue resources. AS WELL AS additional tax write off if these "clubs" gets any support from Games Workshop.

This is always be the case with Games Workshop. Burning the Bridges to make that dividend for good o' Kirby.

So basically... hgw employees are expected to promote the company in their own time, outside of the hours they're paid for? Isn't that unpaid overtime?

**TheAuldGrump**

notprop wrote:
GCN as an organisation with child elements associated should have had current protection measures in place with process/stipulation of those element that do have child members/contact. The council not having DBS checks doesn't scan with me, it's something they should have been doing anyway.

Of course GW stipulating that all associated clubs must have DBS checks in place is a bit too much though.

The problem is that for those clubs that do not have child members the club asking for that check is also illegal - as in against the law.

GW is requiring the club network to break the law - as in doing something illegal.

It is a right proper example of what is called a catch .22.

My guess is that some lackwit in GW made a decision without having all of the information needed to make that decision, and is now defending that decision, come what may.

The Network is left with the choice to:
A. Drop GW.
B. Do something illegal.
C. Require all clubs to admit children, therefor requiring the background check, and therefor not breaking the law by requiring the background check.... And then listen to the complaints of those folks that don't want Little Jimmy in their club.

The Auld Grump

**Lithlandis Stormcrow**

That's some good excuse you found there in order to alienate GCN on grounds other than "They aren't us", GW.

**notprop**

GW will be asking for the checks to be done to cover off corporate responsibility and it's also pretty good practice anyway. Corporate responsibility has been tightened up in the UK (sheesh the course I've had to take!) over the last year so this filtering down to the GCN shouldn't be a suprise.

I'm not seeing any illegalities in asking anyone for perform a records check particularly an organisation that has children's clubs under its remit. Indeed GCN not performing to the current standards is a red flag if it were not already known that they are a shambles.

**Baragash**

notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any illegalities in asking anyone for perform a records check particularly an organisation that has children's clubs under its remit.

The starting position is that it is illegal to require a DRB check for anybody unless it's for an exempted job (eg working with children, medical professions, accountancy etc).

I don't think it's illegal for GW or the GCN to require the checks in order to affiliate with them, but it would be illegal for any 18+ club to require the checks. Regardless of exactly where the illegal burden falls, it's definitely unethical.

EDIT: and the organisation that does the DRB check will refuse to do it if it's unnecessary.

**durecellrabbit**

Kanluwen wrote:
Y'know, I think I could see the point but it hinges upon one crucial thing:

Someone said that GW lets GCN clubs advertise/promote at their shops. Does that mean individual clubs advertise/promote or is it a blanket thing for the GCN?

It's been a few years but I found out about my previous club from GW although they didn't advertise with posters the GW manager called them up and introduced me.

**Steve steveson**

Baragash wrote:
notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any illegalities in asking anyone for perform a records check particularly an organisation that has children's clubs under its remit.

The starting position is that it is illegal to require a DRB check for anybody unless it's for an exempted job (eg working with children, medical professions, accountancy etc).

I don't think it's illegal for GW or the GCN to require the checks in order to affiliate with them, but it would be illegal for any 18+ club to require the checks. Regardless of exactly where the illegal burden falls, it's definitely unethical.

EDIT: and the organisation that does the DRB check will refuse to do it if it's unnecessary.

But thats not what they are asking:

all GCN member club committees must go through a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check or only accept members aged 18 and over....
Dan Carroll

My understanding is that GW are saying all committee members of clubs that allow children must have a DBS check or stop admitting children.

GCN, for some reason, have decided that this would be illegal, but a CRB check was not. They requirements under the rehabilitation of offenders act and the limits on who you can require to have a check have not changed at all from the CRB to the DBS. The main difference is the addition of the standard level. The CRB check went way to far in including hearsay and opinion, which resulted in a few people not getting jobs because of nasty divorces where unfounded accusations were made. That and the increase in cost, but as volunteers clubs it should be free, just like sports clubs.

**beast_gts**

DBS checks are different from CRB checks - they now include Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) checks as well, for example.

We're currently looking into checks for our Club Committee, but the reply we're getting is that because our Child Protection Policy states there must be two Committee members present at all times we do not qualify for DBS checks and therefore it would be illegal for us to apply for them. If we didn't have that policy and allowed a single adult to be alone with children we could check that adult.

**Maddermax**

Steve steveson wrote:
Baragash wrote:
notprop wrote:
I'm not seeing any illegalities in asking anyone for perform a records check particularly an organisation that has children's clubs under its remit.

The starting position is that it is illegal to require a DRB check for anybody unless it's for an exempted job (eg working with children, medical professions, accountancy etc).

I don't think it's illegal for GW or the GCN to require the checks in order to affiliate with them, but it would be illegal for any 18+ club to require the checks. Regardless of exactly where the illegal burden falls, it's definitely unethical.

EDIT: and the organisation that does the DRB check will refuse to do it if it's unnecessary.

But thats not what they are asking:

all GCN member club committees must go through a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check or only accept members aged 18 and over....
Dan Carroll

My understanding is that GW are saying all committee members of clubs that allow children must have a DBS check or stop admitting children.

I think you have this incorrect:

1: That all Council Members and Committee members of clubs be asked to undergo DBS checks.
2: That these should take place even within clubs that do not allow members under 18.
3: That the GCN sign an undertaking to do this.
4: If the GCN does not agree to the above, GW requested they instead change their
membership requirements to only accept clubs whose members are 18 and over.

If they didn't do the DBS for *all* clubs, including those who have 18+ requirements, then the only other option would be to make *All* clubs 18+ only.

Basically, GW would force the GCN to remove clubs who allowed under 18 members (which I assume would be most of them), OR it would have to illegally force clubs with an 18+ requirement to get checks. As someone above said - catch 22.

Definitely seems that GW wanted an excuse to start pushing GW-only clubs, and this was a good excuse to split with the GCN, otherwise, they would have only required the checks in clubs that had under 18 members which may have been a reasonable position. Still, the sum total of my knowledge of the issue is within this thread, so I may be wrong.