Under 16s can't travel alone - Caledonian Sleeper

[theblackwatch]

The thing that immediately comes to mind is rape.

Given that, according to https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-child-abuse "90% of child sexual abuse victims know the perpetrator in some way. 68% are abused by a family member" , is this really the case?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Given that, according to https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-child-abuse "90% of child sexual abuse victims know the perpetrator in some way. 68% are abused by a family member" , is this really the case?

I'm not saying that it is really the case but its the first thing that came to mind.

 

[najaB]

The thing that immediately comes to mind is rape.

Rape doesn't come to mind, but you wouldn't expect a 15-year old to share a hotel room with a single random stranger - why should it be any different just because the room happens to be on wheels?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rape doesn't come to mind, but you wouldn't expect a 15-year old to share a hotel room with a single random stranger - why should it be any different just because the room happens to be on wheels?

Indeed you wouldn't. To be honest, you wouldn't expect to share a hotel room with a random stranger *at all* so maybe fGW's approach is better?

That doesn't however give a reason why an under 16 can't travel alone if they have a private cabin.

 

[najaB]

That doesn't however give a reason why an under 16 can't travel alone if they have a private cabin.

I think it's just a convenient cut-off point as there has to be a point where someone is just too young. 16 is generally accepted as the age where someone should be mature enough to be trusted with responsibility for themselves.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's just a convenient cut-off point as there has to be a point where someone is just too young.

Why? There isn't on any other UK mainline rail service. It could be left to the parents in the same way.

 

[al.currie93]

I know that many (all?) hotels request that at least one member of each booking is over 18 - as the sleeper is in many ways a moving hotel, these similarities could be a reason behind this age limit? Just a thought I had :P

 

[najaB]

Why? There isn't on any other UK mainline rail service. It could be left to the parents in the same way.

But then we come back to the fact that day trains are busier and have open saloons rather than closed compartments - so if anything happens it is there is more likely to be someone to see the unaccompanied minor and it's easier to provide assistance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then we come back to the fact that day trains are busier and have open saloons rather than closed compartments - so if anything happens it is there is more likely to be someone to see the unaccompanied minor and it's easier to provide assistance.

But equally more likely someone will cause them hassle than when they are locked in their own sleeper compartment.

 

[telstarbox]

It's more like a hotel on wheels than a normal train and the sharing with strangers aspect comes into it. FWIW I've just looked at the Premier Inn and Travelodge websites:

Premier Inn say you must be 16 to make a booking (although not to occupy a room).

Travelodge: "You can only make a booking if you are 18 years old or over. If you arrive at the hotel and are under 18 years of age you will not be permitted to stay alone. We may require photo id as proof of age."

 

[PermitToTravel]

I always understood that the hotel <18 rule was because minors are harder to pursue for compensation after they smash the rooms up

 

[Bletchleyite]

I always understood that the hotel <18 rule was because minors are harder to pursue for compensation after they smash the rooms up

That may well be the reason. After all there is clearly no legal reason, as ScotRail did not have the stipulation.

 

[Clip]

That may well be the reason. After all there is clearly no legal reason, as ScotRail did not have the stipulation.

Lets face it, you are not under 16 so I find it hard why you are so vehemently against this from them? It just seems a sensible policy to keep everything above board and also probably stop some form of action against them should something happen - thinking of which - would the staff have to undergo DBS checks if they did allow this?

I don't know and normally im all for freedom of movement and all that given I was travelling long distances from very young on the trains but with how the world is today I think this is a good policy.

If you don't like it then maybe ask Serco why they have implemented it instead of frothing on here about it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lets face it, you are not under 16 so I find it hard why you are so vehemently against this from them?

One reason is that I'm a Scout leader, and I find society these days likes to increasingly heavily regulate what young people do, tar them all with the same brush/rules, and not allow them sufficient responsibility to grow and develop. I've generally found that if you treat older children more grown-up and give them responsibilities etc, they live up to it, and I'm opposed to blanket rules that prohibit them from doing so. I find it concerning that children are often thrown straight into adulthood at 18 (normally, not in this case I accept) and not phased in like they used to be, and many find that very hard to cope with.

It just seems a sensible policy to keep everything above board and also probably stop some form of action against them should something happen - thinking of which - would the staff have to undergo DBS checks if they did allow this?

No; the children are not in their care any more than they would be on a daytime train service. And in any case, if DBS checks were required, the age would be 18, not 16, as 18 is the age that matters when determining the requirement for checks.

I don't know and normally im all for freedom of movement and all that given I was travelling long distances from very young on the trains but with how the world is today I think this is a good policy.

The world is not a vastly more dangerous place than it was 20 years ago, or indeed 2 years ago prior to the introduction of this policy. We just hear more about the bad things.

If you don't like it then maybe ask Serco why they have implemented it instead of frothing on here about it?

Because I'm discussing it on a thread which is intended to discuss it on a discussion board.

 

[najaB]

But equally more likely someone will cause them hassle than when they are locked in their own sleeper compartment.

They're only locked in until they open the door (or forget to lock it).

 

[Clip]

One reason is that I'm a Scout leader, and I find society these days likes to increasingly heavily regulate what young people do, tar them all with the same brush/rules, and not allow them sufficient responsibility to grow and develop. I've generally found that if you treat older children more grown-up and give them responsibilities etc, they live up to it, and I'm opposed to blanket rules that prohibit them from doing so. I find it concerning that children are often thrown straight into adulthood at 18 (normally, not in this case I accept) and not phased in like they used to be, and many find that very hard to cope with.

.

So, as a scout leader what are the rules in place when you take kids away for trips and such like? Do you have to have certain amount of adults per children? Are the children allowed to travel their on their own?

No; the children are not in their care any more than they would be on a daytime train service. And in any case, if DBS checks were required, the age would be 18, not 16, as 18 is the age that matters when determining the requirement for checks.

But as has been noted a few times - this is more like a moving hotel than a train so its very different to day times where children will mainly use them when lots of other people are so are visible and more safe than they would be at night in a room where it may or may not be locked.

The world is not a vastly more dangerous place than it was 20 years ago, or indeed 2 years ago prior to the introduction of this policy. We just hear more about the bad things.

Of course its not more dangerous its just the world is now a more litigious place especially where kids are concerned so its obvious companies want to cover themselves more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, as a scout leader what are the rules in place when you take kids away for trips and such like? Do you have to have certain amount of adults per children? Are the children allowed to travel their on their own?

For the Explorer Scout Section, aged 14-17 inclusive, who are those who are relevant here (I doubt many 13 year olds would be seen as old enough by their parents to take the Sleeper alone), they are indeed allowed to camp and travel without any direct adult supervision. Supervision in such cases is remote - the adult would need to be contactable (just like a parent might in the case of a child travelling on the Sleeper alone). The exact meaning of remote supervision depends on an individual risk assessment.

These are the rules surrounding this for overnight events, which are what would be relevant were it a trip on the Sleeper:
http://members.scouts.org.uk/suppor...t-explorer-scout-or-scout-network-nights-away

This facility can also be used for the Scout Section age group (10.5-14) but in practice very rarely is.

Notably, it is strictly forbidden for adults and children to share the same sleeping accommodation, which prevents the use of those hotels where they insist on an adult in the same room.

In case it is of interest, though not directly relevant...if being led by adults, there are ratios in place - minimum 2 adults for Explorer Scouts (14-17 inclusive) but no ratio, for Scouts (10.5-14) 1 to 12, minimum 2, for Cubs (8-10.5) 1 to 8 plus 1, for Beavers (6-8) 1 to 6 plus 1. The minimum 2 is more for child protection/protection against accusations than anything else, plus to assist in dealing with emergencies. With the two older Sections zero is also allowed as above. With the younger ones...well, I doubt many people are sending 10 year olds on events alone!

But as has been noted a few times - this is more like a moving hotel than a train so its very different to day times where children will mainly use them when lots of other people are so are visible and more safe than they would be at night in a room where it may or may not be locked.

Visible yes, safer debatable.

Of course its not more dangerous its just the world is now a more litigious place especially where kids are concerned so its obvious companies want to cover themselves more.

That, rather than actual safety, may prove to be the reason. Which is quite sad in my view.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Given that Scotrail didn't apply a 16+ rule for solo occupancy of cabins, I am not sure how I see that Serco would manage to successfully defend a claim that their 16+ rule for solo occupancy of cabins isn't unjustifiable age discrimination in the provision of services, unless of course there is something buried in the detail of the age discrimination laws that gets them off the hook.

child protection risk assessments trump age discrimination especially when it comes to under 16s and 16 -18s

 

[onlinespotting]

child protection risk assessments trump age discrimination especially when it comes to under 16s and 16 -18s

Age discrimination laws do not apply to under 18s.