Evaluating Capacity for Adequate Safeguarding of Minors at Celtic Burn

@Zoe Ironstone To me, this message serves as an example of how certain statements can unintentionally mislead and escalate concerns beyond what’s actually warranted.

You’ve used strong phrases like, ‘I had to shepherd a young person to the welfare tent because they’d had too much of something and were struggling to handle it,’ alongside speculation about the individual’s age. At first glance, this language creates an alarming impression, suggesting a serious issue involving a minor.

However, we know that the individual was not a minor. Unless you’re counting 18 as ‘in their teens,’ the situation you describe does not involve anyone underage. Because CB is good and unique like that, we do actually know everyone who’s there and how many minors we do or do not have. In this particular case, I’m guessing  you have not been with Kieran’s or Tyler’s kids, which makes your comment factually misleading, particularly as it implies the involvement of young minors in a serious welfare issue without clarity.

To keep discussions productive, it would be appreciated if we could ensure all anecdotes and examples are firmly grounded in confirmed facts. Speculating with ‘might have been’ or ‘could have happened’ only adds unnecessary drama to an already sensitive topic.

Additionally, you mention that, while you believed the person was in their teens, you ‘didn’t think too hard about it at the time.’ This underscores the need for safeguarding policies that emphasise clarity and responsibility. Under these policies, our community will have greater awareness and clarity: if we suspect someone may be underage or in need of assistance, it’s crucial to verify their age and involve a responsible adult, such as a guardian, rather than making assumptions or discussing it in conversations or chats later in this manner. In a community like ours, this isn’t about embarrassment but about ensuring care and transparency, so that anyone who needs support receives it appropriately.

Let’s all aim to handle these discussions with factual accuracy and consideration, focusing on approaches that promote growth and improvement, rather than escalate concerns within the group. In my view, the actual problem we’re facing is not a disagreement in principles, but rather in our ways of communication. I’ll add more on that in a separate comment.

@fox of light I had a lovely time talking with Tyler's daughter at the burn for a start, so I guess you must be misinformed. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on though - this person could have been 18 or 19, and I was in full overload at the time because I was taking in a LOT of new stuff, so my memories are not clear on specifics. Maybe I shouldn't have brought it up if I could only offer vague information, mea culpa. Was mainly supporting that Tom's point about younger people being taken for older can and does happen frequently, and could easily lead to problems.

@egle Yeah, agreed: as I said to fox below, I think I could have been clearer there. I did not want to give too many details of what specifically happened because I don't know how secure loomio is and didn't want to put anything in writing that could be incriminating.

I do count 18 as "in their teens", because it is. Had it been a young minor in a serious welfare situation, I would have responded more emphatically and much, much earlier to the situation. The young person was ok, and no catastophe occurred, as I said in my original comment. The point of Tom's that I was trying, rather incompetently, to support is that young people can indeed easily be taken for older, and that the likelihood of them experimenting with things at the burn by virtue of this fact, and getting into trouble for it, is not nil.

I completely, 100% agree with you about this story highlighting the need for clear policies and awareness about the issue! I definitely could have handled the situation better. To be absolutely clear, throughout the time I was interacting with them I thought them to be in their twenties, and it was only a day or two later that I discovered this wasn't the case. By then, I assumed that if there were any issues to follow up on, wellfare would be doing so.

Hi All,

The content as written by Madeline I agree whole heartedly with and I agree with the sentiment of comments written above. Particularly those by Zoë and Tom. (Nov 3rd & 5th respectively)

I do not consider myself a stickler for the rules and a lover of bureaucracy - however as someone responsible for the safeguarding of young people on a daily basis, I am acutely aware of two things.

1. the risks of potential damage to an individual child. Be that their mental health and development or their physical health by injury.

2. The risks of potential damage to the community of media interest or litigations

I appreciate people’s desire to keep burns flowy places devoid of the structure of the default world. But when it comes to child wellbeing I am of the firm that some of that structure is going to be necessary.

I trust that the outcome of this AP shall be finding how a safeguarding framework can be integrated into our events that sits within our capacity to accommodate, and within our culture and values.

Thanks to those giving a lot of their time and envy to this issue. X

If this is showing up as edited to anyone it's just because I didn't include a closing date and have now added it at the top. This is my first time running an AP so please excuse the oversight.

This was meant for everyone just Nori... Sorry for my technological challenge again 😂

[Update 2024-11-07: I was very angry when I wrote this. Please read my other comments on this thread before responding to this one. This wasn't an appropriate response. I'll leave the text here so conversation isn't lost, but I'd rather not add more fuel to the fire. --Tyler]

Hi folks, this IS making a mountain out of a molehill. We are NOT responding to a real problem that occurred, we are asking ourselves abstract questions about possible risks and if we are prepared.

We do not ask those questions about overdoses or drugs exposure for adults. Those risks are orders of magnitude greater, and visibly obvious to everyone. I don't see that AP.

I'm going to be very direct and say this is motivated reasoning because people felt uncomfortable that a minor happened to be present when someone chose to initiate open sexual activity in a public area at CB. We have plenty of signed spaces for that, but mistakes happen.

Please do not confuse "I'm uncomfortable with what to do when I encounter a child or teen at a burn" with "these children are at risk". I appreciate the honesty of folks like Zoe who openly acknowledge that bias - but it isn't a great reason to exclude children and parents from Celtic Burn.

Radical Inclusion and Radical Self-reliance are principles #1 and #4 of Burning Man. A policy to exclude children, and to deny parents the freedom and responsibility to make these choices for their children, is not in keeping with those principles.

The reason you aren't getting a lot of engagement from parents on this thread is ... we're too busy to engage in the volume of discussion ongoing here and on Telegram. I've seen this at other burns, and it's the reason parents often can't step into roles of leadership at burns, and therefore that's why burns end up excluding parents through their decisions. If children are excluded, I won't attend. That's not a threat, it's just yet another sad decision by Burners who don't prioritise including parents and children, to choose not to include us.

Madeleine has anchored the discussion on a set of requirements that are unreasonable. "Either we have an unreasonably high set of legal safeguards in place, or we must ban kids". I reject that false dichotomy and I urge you to do the same.

@Tyler Wagner Hi Tyler, thank you for weighing in. Your voice is appreciated. I have some thoughts I wanted to share in response to what you've shared
1) There has actually been a lot of engagement in this loomio given the amount of time it has been open. Other APs have had much less engagement in as much time. But I do appreciate your point that there is so much going on in telegram that it's hard for folks to keep up. I think this is why Loomio is a better place for these discussions. Not so fast paced a telegram.
2) I feel you on the impact it would have on you and your family if children were to be excluded from the burn and I think most of us do not wish for you or other families to be excluded. I can imagine it may feel like you are being pushed out of the burn and can feel scary to feel you could lose a space you care so much about. I don't think any of us desire for you to feel you cannot attend.
3) Can you point to which standards have been suggested that you find unreasonable?
4) Regarding your point about making a mountain out of molehill and indicating that the main reason for this AP is not based on real risk but rather discomfort from folks having kids around:
- Respectfully, I disagree with this and it feels minimising of others genuine concerns to make this statement. It does not seem to me that you have fully understood and appreciated the breadth of scenarios folks are concerned about. You have ignored clear examples of risk posed to children at our burn and other burns provided by Zoe, Ben and Tom. You also seem to have ignored the discussion around risk assessment meaning that we have to think about worst case scenarios in order to prevent things we all expect to be unlikely.

I work as a therapist in child and adolescent mental health services, in a service where our threshold for high risk feels dramatically higher than what the general public would consider to be concerning. We have such deeply risky and complex cases of young people putting themselves in danger or being vulnerable for other reasons, that most parents calling our service find it terribly distressing to hear we don't see their child's situation as one of significant risk.
And yet. I see cases of young people who carry with them moments that were seemingly minor to an outside view for years. *I do not expect this result at Celtic Burn, because I believe all the parents I know at Celtic Burn, including you and Jamie, to be very thoughtful, skilled, present parents who would be able to support their children to process anything distressing they might experience at a burn and prevent them from coming to harm. I also feel that our community is a very loving and supportive one and generally believe folks would help out and support where needed if they saw a child at risk. That does not negate the need for a safeguarding policy and clear guidelines to protect children.

Finally no one in this AP has advocated directly for banning children.
*Some may have expressed the feeling that they would feel more at ease with an adults only burn, but they have not claimed that this should mean we exclude children. Instead folks have explained the importance they feel in getting it right or have stated it's important for theme camp leads to weigh in.
I will summarise here what folks have expressed thus far on the topic of banning:
- "I don't think I have the right to ban kids and families from the burn just because I prefer it."
- "By banning kids we also ban parents and both of them in my opinion make our community what it is today."

Regarding the actual requirements set out by the AP, I have not seen folks respond much directly to Madeleine's suggestions which I feel has lead to a lot of back and forth based on differing perspectives. Can we discuss the real measures we could take?

- I think almost all of the measures Madeleine laid out are easily accomplished and would not require much and wouldn't change our burn much. The only one I think is a bit tricky is having a DSL, as this could be felt to be a large responsibility for one person to take on and I'm not 100% sure it's necessary if we are very good with the other measures. That said, Nest had a child safeguarding lead. It's not completely unreasonable. And Madeleine has made the suggestion that this person could be on duty on only a couple days.

Edit - on balance I think I would also agree generally with Vic's responses to the measures below.

@Rachel I think it would make sense for the Consent team to have child safeguard training and reporting to be handled in this way?

@Rachel Thank you. You make valid points. I'll address those in a moment.

I apologise to @Madeleine and to the rest of our community for responding in anger, and for the ad-hominem attacks and minimising of concerns. That wasn't right. I was angry, but that's not an excuse.

To the point that no one is advocating for banning children, I hope that is the case. However, allow me to quote two points in the opening statement of this AP:

"Alternatively, the option is postpone taking any child memberships for 2025 until such time as minimum standards are achieved."

And

"if the community consensus is to go ahead with accomodating minors."

So, the AP authors did indeed assert that we are here to discuss either creating a safeguarding policy and process, or exclude minors. Ban them.

I will respond again to raise my concerns about the proposed necessity and requirements.

@Tyler Wagner thank you for saying that 💗. I really appreciate your thoughtful apology and I can 100% see myself reacting similarly in your position. And yes you are right. I was a bit hasty in my reading.

@Tyler WagnerWagner thank you for reflecting on your comments, I'll also hold my hands up and admit I startws a bit full throttle here and extend my own apologies for that

@Tyler Wagner Hi Tyler! First of all I want to offer hugs and empathy for what must be a really hard conversation, not always communicated well (speaking for myself as much as anyone!). Sorry for how that must have felt. We want you and your kids in our community; it would be an absolute tragedy if an earnest attempt to safeguard kids lead to such a fracture and a loss.

To clarify my earlier point: yes, it was an attempt to be brutally honest about my own personal reaction to being around (mostly) younger kids while I'm in the mode of trying to shed my inhibitions and default-world instincts, but also a clear acknowledgement that I don't actually want to push for that on such a selfish basis, and that I recognise and appreciate the diversity and richness that having families around brings to our community.

I think you're right that it would be a false dichotomy to say "we can't welcome kids until we have enacted ALL of these measures, unilaterally", but I don't think it's false to say that we need to take proactive steps to ensure that children and adults are safe and comfortable together in this community; and we should not do so until we can. All other well-established burns I know of have something in place, and the issues are not merely theoretical.

I have come to respect you as one of our resident level-headed safeguarders when it comes to silly things that adults can get up to, so I would be really interested to hear what you think can and should be done to safeguard kids properly in our small community.

@Zoe Ironstone Thank you for responding to me with patience when I did not offer that to others. I regret that I did not do the same. 😔 I am trying again.

I think reasonable steps include:

• A published safeguarding policy.

• Ensuring we have a census of children on site and their responsible adults.

• Adequate signage around S+ spaces, and limiting those to 18+.

• A plan in place for acting upon raised complaints of inappropriate actions taken towards minors, and sharing that plan with site leads / hero shift / rangers.

• Whatever minimum legal requirements we must meet (statutory, and any conditions of our license or lease agreements).

@Sandy Ryalls is right that children is one area where mistakes are punished severely by authorities (and rightly so). And none of us want to be responsible for harm befalling a child at our event. So it's wise to ensure we meet a standard we are comfortable with.

But I see the proposal as stated as an overreach, disproportionate to the problem.

I agree that the requirements set out in the AP are far beyond the actual necessity.

We do not need all that beurocracy. If we get this stuff too wrong for too long we might get to the point of needing that level of beurocracy.

But ATM iit's massively overstated.

What we need is for children not to be around sex or drugs (and @Tyler Wagner, this isn't just about child protection. It's about what weight and attention the default world can bring to us if shit goes south. An adult ODs and the default world doesn't care but the presence of children cranks up that care and attention a lot)

And to make that happen, to the standards we accept for everything in burn space - we need people to know what is going on where and agree that kids shouldn't be around that stuff.

I appreciate the anecdotes here about bad behaviour at other burns but I've read nothing mentioned on this AP so far that goes beyond an irritation.

My 2p - this AP, as framed, is an over reaction. What we need is some stuff in the thrival guide, the needs of minors to be considered at space allocation time, people to be mindful if what they are doing where, and s+ spaces to be clearly labeled.

The rest, until proven otherwise, can be handled like everything else - with conversations between people.

@Sandy Ryalls hear hear!

I don't understand how asking for an adequate safeguarding system to be put in place is "far beyond the actual necessity" neither do I understand the logic of wanting a lesser plan in place until things go wrong to the point a more rubust one is required. Surely just start with an adequate safeguarding system? Nobody said it has to be complicated, just robust

Tyler! I have to say I am disappointed in your reaction to this AP but agree with your sentiment that you're making a mountain put of a molehill. I had hoped you, as a proud parent and prominent figure in the CB community, would be ideally positioned to take a leading role in the safeguarding of children at CB

@Oberon  the logic is this:

I don't believe anywhere but very specific care oriented organisations have the level of beurocracy and organisation described in the AP.

I don't belive any authority in the default world would expect it of the burn so long as other sensible arrangements were in place.

We also don't take that level of prescription to anything we do.

Instead we trust each other and commicate with each other.

The more process, the bigger the barrier. The more we are asking of people. The more we bring in the default world that we want to be an alternative to.

@Oberon  I started from a position of anger, so I understand your response too. I shouldn't have come out swinging. I'm sorry.

I'm not going to respond to your second paragraph. I realise that I can't claim the moral high ground after my first response, and I'm not trying to. But I don't think what you wrote here was written in good faith either. I propose we drop it.

To your first, the AP proposal frames this as "we must have an adequate safeguarding statement matching the following requirements, or the alternative is to exclude under 18s". This is not asking, it's an either/or choice. To a parent already planning to attend, who has children excited to go to CB, it feels like a threat.

The stated requirements appear to be more robust than those I've been able to find published for events in Scotland, nor can I find the legal basis for them as a requirement. I will ask more about this in s second post.

When pondering what Id like to contribute to this AP, I asked myself whether it would be helpful to flip the question to 'can we safely accommodate a S+ space and drug-taking at this event?'.

The inclusion of all- regardless of age- is what makes a burn and what stands this community apart from many others. Celtic Burn, was created to honour the lore, traditions and ways of being of this island and for community to gather on the land as we would have done in times gone by- multi-generations sharing together.

The S+ space is a 'newcomer' and I think its this that should be debated and the appropriate measures taken if its to be included in future years.

In direct response to the AP;

1. I dont think it hurts anyone to have a safeguarding policy, in writing (which doesnt have to be lengthy and over-egged) that can be used as suggested at the point of purchasing membership for all parents/non-parents alike to read and familiarise themselves

2. All members should be aware of children onsite from the get-go so I support the record keeping and making sure this is communicated.

3. The DSL safeguarding qualification and DBS vetting seems overkill. At this point in time, we are not a company, we are a group of pals gathering on a hill. We can't expect everyone in a 'lead' role to have this vetting and it doesnt feel necessary.

4. I support boundaries and separation, not just for children but also for adults who want to know whats going on in a certain place and dont want to be privy to certain activities. That should be standard.

5. What is the interpretation of 'reasonably supervised'? I think its reasonable that kids can roam around the site (which is enclosed and small enough) with each other, exploring and taking part in appropriate workshops/activities without the need for constant supervision from parents or particular adults. If we have followed step 4 and have clearly delineated/enclosed spaces for 18+ activity, AND everyone has read and understood the safeguarding policy from step 1, then when a child finds themselves wandering into a space they are not welcome, all of the adults there will know what to do.

For the other stuff like kids ear-wigging or being around naked bodies at the hot tub, I'm not going to sweat that stuff. It happens all the time and will happen despite best laid intentions.

@Vic B  big yes to all of this. Realistic and thorough enough

@Vic B Good points, clearly as level-headed and well-thought-out as ever. I'm with you on almost all. I would want to discuss 5 further. What age of kid, etc. I am concerned that having this practice makes the location and behaviour of the kids more unpredictable and places more onus on everyone to actively take carer-responsibility for them than I would like. Of course we are all responsible for intervening in any risky or problematic situations, and being generally common-sense and safe. But if kids are wandering around unaccompanied, I personally would feel like I had to keep an eye on them if they were in the vicinity, and would feel stressed that their accompanying adult was not nearby. Whether or not there were any specifically 18+ activities going on. I think it would make it very hard to relax and come out of vigilant mode, all week.

@Vic B hear hear!

A few short points that I have on mind right now (and I will come back and share more another time):

• One of the main concerns I've heard here and in the Telegram chats is that parents may not adequately supervise their children, and this would fall as a burden on non-parents. I think this is a fair point, but I don't think it's something that will be resolved by a written policy. We could have a Zoom call at some point with both non-parents and parents who are experienced in/ planning to bring their kids, and talk about these worries in a more concrete way and what we all can do as a community to alleviate them?

• I agree with Victoria's point above - I'm also not concerned about children being around nakedness in a non-sexual context, and I think it's important not to automatically conflate nudity and sexuality!

• I would like us to focus on measures that are common sense, that we can agree on and put into practice from inside of our community, and by doing that, we will make sure no illegal situations happen (such as, for example, a child walking into an adult playspace). This approach, to me, is much preferable and suitable for the instead of looking at the situation from the outside and focusing on fulfilling abstract legal requirements.

@Isabelle Agree with points 1 and 3, thanks for that balanced view. On 2, I would say that we need to consider not just whether it's ok for kids to see naked bodies (I would very much agree that it's fine), but that adults also get to consent, or not, to whether their naked bodies are seen by kids. I would probably suggest some form of curfew for the hot-tub area, in order to give those adults a chance to still use the facilities but know that it doesn't implicitly mean they are consenting to being naked around children. What do you think?

Yes to some sort of child safeguarding plan. The way this AP is set out doesn't quite chime with the way we work: risks are identified (check, 18+ performance at cabaret), measures are put in place to stop them from happening again (check, sectioned +18 offerings). Yes this discussion will bring more attention to the roles and responsibilities of kids, parents, carers at the burn which is a good thing.

You're proposing that child tickets should not be sold unless there is a "minimum standard of safeguarding" achieved. This is jumping the gun because the event is made by the members and the members don't have tickets yet.

If CB was growing to 500 capacity tomorrow then yes I would say that this is more important that new people that don't know the culture can be onboarded safely. But CB is growing very slowly. We sold out the first two years and didn't the 3rd. The venue capacity limits us to 130ppl again this time. Even though this is a publicly advertised Burn, this community does a good job of knowing who's there, onboarding people by word of mouth,, and maintaining our close caring culture.

The way this would normally work (I'm not opposed to new ways of working, they just need to be better) is:
1) We sell memberships (all ages)
2) Parents (or other volunteer realisers) join a "Kids" task card/ crew on Wrike (the place we do day to day orgs work)
3) Said realisers do a simple risk assessment of this years event as it unfolds (Will a s+ space manifest, will a cabaret manifest etc).
4) 'Kids' realisers communicate relevant info to CB members in the way they think best conveys the message e.g. section in a potential thrival guide, communicate at potential meetings, welfare training etc.

Yes to some text at point of purchase about child memberships to make parents aware of what the event might contain. A more rounded plan to come later at thrival guide time.

I've brought my children to the first two CBs and 6 others in the last 5 years. I think children are important to the health of our community, integrating all generations is an important part of what makes our village feel and helps everyone to look out for each other.
It's not easy burning as a parent, it can be a lot harder because of the extra responsibility, compared to being there alone, but the amount of support and gratitude I've received for bringing my children, being celebrated for being a parent and getting to share my community with my children makes it all worth while.

It has been really fun witnessing how deeply our community cares about this important issue, one that defines who we are and reflects our core values. This particular topic has sparked a heated and at times divisive tone, yet when we step back and analyse everyone’s contributions, it’s clear that we’re largely on the same page.

It seems to me that despite our personal biases and preferences, we all agree that CB is an inclusive, village-like community that prioritises care and connection. Many say this is one of the “sweetest” Burns because it’s driven by values and ways of working that stand in contrast to the “default world.”

However, I’ve observed a recent shift—default world values seem to be filtering in, and I feel protective of the unique culture we’ve built here. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. There absolutely is.

Unfortunately, a lot has been taken out of context in these discussions, both on Telegram and here, which has inflated and distorted the core issues. I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that CB disregards the law or that anyone here is indifferent to the safety of minors at the Burn—yet these assumptions have been thrown around, intensifying the discussion.

In particular, the way this AP started in Telegram and has been written feels inflammatory, divisive, and exclusive, mirroring how the conversation has gone so far. If we truly align on our shared values and our desire to improve as a community—especially in creating stronger systems and policies around minor safety—then why approach it from a place of division?

Why not start by saying, “As a community, we’ve identified areas for improvement in last year’s CB, and we see an opportunity to strengthen our systems to ensure everyone’s safety.” Together, we could explore ways to build on our values and create a safer, more inclusive space for everyone. Instead, leading with “I suggest excluding minors” sets up a separation that stirs heated debates and hurt.

Our community thrives on inclusion, creativity, and problem-solving—not by cutting out perceived risks, but by addressing them with ingenuity and compassion and taking informed improved action. We are a group of diverse, brilliant minds capable of creating policies and structures that allow us to grow while nurturing our care for each other.

So, I encourage all of us: when we face a challenge or a difficult situation, let’s approach it with compassion, collaboration, and understanding—not with division and exclusion.

CB is us. Whenever we express critique or disappointment, let’s remember that we each share responsibility for the community we’re co-creating.

I especially appreciated Sandy’s perspective (if I understood correctly) on how avoiding default world approaches nurtures our culture of care and mutual responsibility. Bringing default world attitudes into these situations could lead us down a path of division and resentment. By taking compassionate responsibility, we can instead foster our values of care, growth, and connection.

Going forward I strongly echo Victoria’s and Sam’s points. 

@egle As adults it would be better to respond to clarity with clarity than to police my tone (which is merely factual statements to best of my knowledge). Others on this thread have done so. What I perceived here is "tone-police" and passion for "making nice" diluting the reality of what I am raising. I don't resent you for it, since it is only fair to assume that you might not have recognised this aspect of the impact, and importantly, you are not the only one to take this approach. To offer you unsolicited opinion on your phrasing in return, it would be more solution-focussed to have just responded with whether you support safeguarding to include minors and better still whether you offer any practical measures or your time towards contributing to a safeguarding team.

What I'm hearing from you and some others is "don't make a fuss about this issue" and it has me feeling very concerned as this is a technique I am familiar with that is used nefariously within some communities. Of course I truly hope that this community does not have a nefarious agenda and I am not accusing it of anything but I am highlighting my raised eyebrow at the (hopefully) inadvertent impact of trying to dilute my authentic self-expression and self-reliance (and my compliance with this communities processes for enacting change).

Do you have any specific point to make about how to realise safeguarding rather than telling me how I should speak or write? Or is it just essentially a vote for Sam and Victoria's responses? I will count it as such if you don't contribute further. I will not be taking your other points about my tone into the advice process as it was not something I asked for advice on.

@Madeleine Thank you, your response supports the points I raised above.

My response to this Advice Process stems not from a misalignment in our goals for CB on this issue, but rather from a difference in how we perceive each other’s communication. I wanted to clarify that so far, I haven’t seen anyone objecting to implementing safeguarding policies. However, it seems you interpret my perspective, and that of others, as “don’t make a fuss about this issue,” which doesn’t accurately reflect my intentions.

I value that you’ve taken on gathering advice and progressing the discussion, and I’m sorry if I haven’t expressed enough appreciation for that. My main concern here is with the initial emphasis on excluding minors, which you led this AP with. Exclusion feels like an extreme first step, one that doesn’t fully align with CB values, and that’s what prompted my feedback.

I want to be clear that I respect your self-expression and had no intention of policing your tone. I only hoped to explain why this topic has triggered strong responses from others—primarily because exclusion was proposed as a primary solution, which feels misaligned with the community's ethos.

I approached this AP in a spirit of generosity and compassion, sharing how I perceived the energy behind your messages. I didn’t intend for my words to provoke a strong reaction. In my view, offering this perspective is an example of adult clarity, and so far, I don’t see anyone arguing against policies that support safeguarding minors at CB.

My intention wasn’t to dilute the discussion with “niceness” but to offer a calmer perspective and emphasise that we all care about the same outcome. I hear your unsolicited advice, and while I understand your points, I stand by my response. I feel it’s important to address this as a shared concern rather than a “you versus me” scenario, which feels divisive rather than constructive.

Your mention of a potential “nefarious agenda” and concerns about authenticity dilution were noted, but I genuinely don’t have such intentions. I was trying to add perspective, and I apologise if my choice of words about tone caused frustration. My invitation was for unity rather than division, though I see that may not have resonated with you.

I think the reason you perceive that some of us have an approach that worries you is that instead of going with drastic measures, ours (or at least mine) goal is to distribute care and responsibility within the community. Find ways to share responsibility, spread the awareness, make it each persons knowledge, interest  and responsibility to know where we stand on child safeguarding policies rather than choosing exclusion or one person to dump all the responsibility on. Encouraging an approach that is opposite to the default world and more inside out rather than outside in.

It appears that you summarised my response as focusing on your tone, which was far from my intention. My point was about the proposed approach to exclusion, and I was advocating for a more balanced, collaborative method.

This dialogue is as critical as the policy itself. If we proceed with a sense of division, our foundation for any policy becomes fragile. It’s hard to craft a policy that we can all uphold if we’re approaching it as if we’re on different sides. If you found my response to the AP irrelevant, you could have simply overlooked it. Instead, your response suggests that there’s indeed something for us to work through and get out in the open.

This advice process is meant to be an open, exploratory conversation, a space for figuring things out together, rather than a platform for shutting each other down. From my perspective, your response to my comment came across as somewhat dismissive of this openness.

 I have various ideas that I want to contribute with, but since it’a process, I am taking time to process each bit of information and at this point, addressing your response felt like an important part of the process as well. Just like my initial comment.

You mentioned that you wouldn’t consider the rest of my response because you perceived it as a critique of your tone. I’d encourage you to revisit my initial message with a calmer outlook and consider my points on exclusion and communication.

Given last year’s events and as someone who’s worked with children many years, I absolutely support the need for this policy and am more than willing to contribute my time, energy, and ideas to put this policy together and create awareness in our community.

I hope my continued contributions make it clear that I care deeply about this issue and will support it wholeheartedly. 😊

@egle i very much appreciate your contribution to this discussion as rational and compassionate. Thank you.

I just want to clear up a couple of things:

- A child accidentally walking in to a playspace is a BAD THING and to definitely be avoided. But it is not illegal. What is illegal is to intentionally have sex in front of an u16, for your sexual gratification. And then only if you did not reasonably believe them to be 16+. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/11
Still a very important point, but let's stop feeding panic unnecessarily.

- If we're talking about the same incident, what happened at CB was not a child accidentally witness a sexual act. It was a child accidentally witnessing some silliness that was a parody of a sexual act. I can categorically say that no-one was at all sexually aroused. Still bad and DEFINITELY to be avoided another time. But it doesn't help anything to exaggerate and spread misinformation.

@kitten Thank you for clarifying that. I stand, happily, corrected on the nature of the event I referenced.

@kitten  Eeeeeeh, hard disagree on both things there kitten....
RE: point of law....
Were it a chill family nudist camp maybe valid? But that's not the context,
is a mad hippy party with **** and *** going on and the triggering issue to this chat was a *** almost seeing a ******. Do we want (or need) to get a legal opinion on this?
Realistically - this type of thing would burn down the org and peoples jobs....
Just wanting to reality check.

Also,
I feel you are mistaking the thing the guardian said they were going to say to the kid if they did see it,
with what was actually was about to happen?

In the chat someone has already spoken to being ready for being part of the entertainment as was set up for the S+ space, before seeing things and backing out on the spot.
So a person involved did not think it was parody, MC did not think that, guardian did not think that, audience did not think that, facilitator was keen to do it as it was planned and just shifted venue last minute (without knowing kids would be there)
Where are you getting this from friendo that it was parody...?


Both these points I feel are irrelevant - best practice for safeguarding is something we ought to have as you say else ware, and there are issues of reputational and personal consequences (and psychological for kiddos or others) for both individuals or the organisation that need taken into account.


This is a discussion on best safeguarding practices, not the boundaries or fine lines I feel, though worth raising,
but I would really value your input and experience in ones you've come across that have worked for you as a parent? I feel you would be super great here, and love your comment about copying best practice in other burns and your personal experience? <3

@Guy @kitten

Thank you both for your engagement here

Whilst the performance that went ahead was a parody (I was not there to be able to comment on that) the performance we were to do was in no way a parody and would have included a definite sex act. Pretending otherwise would be disingenuous and serve to counter what I'm trying to achieve here

To quote Kitten: - If we're talking about the same incident, what happened at CB was not a child accidentally witness a sexual act. It was a child accidentally witnessing some silliness that was a parody of a sexual act. I can categorically say that no-one was at all sexually aroused. Still bad and DEFINITELY to be avoided another time. But it doesn't help anything to exaggerate and spread misinformation. - end quote

I am afraid this quote is misinformation Kitten. I saw that child enter, not many others may have because who's looking at the doors during a caberet?

I pointed it out to the facilitator who did not feel empowered to challenge the parent. I had no idea what the MC or parent were aware of at this point

In what felt like no time at all and was probably only a couple/few minutes our act was being asked to take the stage and we instead decided to leave

The close call in question was nothing to do with a child witnessing a parody and everything to do with a child almost being witness to a very real sex act because there was literally no safeguarding to account for a child at what was (at least last year) a very adult event

Here are some kitten comments on the AP itself:

• I’m a parent and also have experience of being responsible for and safeguarding others’ children. I’m supportive of kids being welcome at CB, provided we manage expectations at point of ticket sale, that 18+ areas are clearly labelled, and kids under 14 (or 16?) are accompanied by a parent, guardian or other trusted adult at all times. I can think of at least one child I would love to bring!

• I’ve been to UK burns with my child and to many burns in the UK and abroad where other people’s children were present. I can reassure you that having kids there really doesn’t stop the space being what it is. Unless of course your intention of being there is to get so wasted that you are danger to others, and in that case maybe you can do that elsewhere in any case.

• Children and altered states is nothing new. Not sure about Scotland, but in England you see it every time you pass a gastropub playground, and at every family festival that serves alcohol. Children seeing adults openly consuming mind-altering substances happens at most family dinner tables. Alcohol may be legal but it is the WORST type of altered state to be around kids with, compared to most others. I have experience going to various festivals with children, and CB feels safer than ANY of them. So yes we need to take care, but it doesn’t need to be scary.

• For teenagers, it’s much better to learn about how to manage alcohol well seeing adults who know how to do so responsibly - same for other substances. Compare that with the poor kids who have their first experiences with their peers who have little knowledge, a lot of bravado and probably don’t even know what the dose they’re offering is.

• Children being naked around adults and vice versa is legally absolutely fine, and very healthy. My child grew up regularly going to a naturist club with us. The club has a child safeguarding policy and DSL. In fact, naturism a big positive for kids’ mental health:
  https://www.bn.org.uk/news/news/pressreleases/think-of-the-children-experiencing-family-nudity-in-childhood-nurtures-mental-wellbeing-into-adulthood-r1300/

• Sure, some people might find that weird, at first. Just as they find many other things about burner freedoms weird, at first. Avoid Making Other People Feel Uncomfortable was never one of the burner principles, and nor should it be our objective here.

• HOWEVER, I totally agree that there are significant risks and that safeguarding needs to be effective, not just pay lip service. Aella and others have made many good points. Also, all those risks are the same or bigger at Burning Nest. They’re solving this as we speak, so let’s piggy-back on what they do, not re-invent the wheel.

• To Oberon’s claim “You can't be a family friendly event and have a sex+ playspace that's hosted by anyone running the event, at least not under uk law” - I’m pretty confident that’s incorrect; Microburn and Burning Nest both do that, and knowing the people that run those events, I’m sure they wouldn’t be doing something illegal.

@kitten "Avoid Making Other People Feel Uncomfortable was never one of the burner principles" is my new favourite saying. I'm going to quote you. 😂🫶

@kitten thank you kitten, these thoughts are very similar to my own.

@kitten Tyler got there first! I too was going to say that "Avoid Making Other People Feel Uncomfortable was never one of the burner principles, and nor should it be our objective here" is SPOT ON. 🙌

@kitten thank you for writing this out so I don't have to and also coming with your own personal examples

Finally… I created a child safeguarding policy in a previous life when I used to run the Sunday School at a church. I’m a bit rusty, but happy to brush up. I would be willing to be DSL for CB on two conditions:

(i) for 2025 at least, we do a copy-paste of what Burning Nest do with only necessary changes for site differences … I don’t have capacity to create a policy from scratch

(ii) the dreams budget funds some basic DSL training.

I didn't begin my part of this conversation well. I have apologised for that above. I would like to try again.

What are the actual legal requirements for us to meet, as an event organised in Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, to allow children to attend?

I am not an expert, but after 20 minutes of Google searches and reading publications from the Scottish government, I can't find anything close to the requirements stated here.

Here's an example safeguarding policy for a Scottish festival open to the public. It is far less process heavy than what is proposed.

https://glasgowmusicfestival.org/takepart/safeguarding-policy/

@Tyler Wagner 

Fair enough to research actual legal requirements, but the law should be a minimum requirement, and it’s clear from the responses to the AP’s proposals that many of us support a good portion of what Madeleine has proposed and it seems you support a few of her points too. You’ve said multiple times you feel the proposals are an overreach but could you please clarify which specific aspects you object to? Apologies if you have said so elsewhere, I’m on my phone and scrolled through a good bit but didn’t see that in your comments

Fair enough, I didn't provide details. Thanks for calling me on that. These are the proposals that I find problematic:

3. Celtic Burn does not exist within its own legal system. It is no longer an option to have no safeguarding policy ...

... and ...

Policy and communication thereof: We can only safely go ahead with memberships for minors if a safeguarding policy is in place.

Starting here, because Madeleine asserted a legal requirement for a safeguarding policy. I see the value of one, but what I don't yet see is a requirement. I'd like this backed up with a statement or link to the actual requirement.

Absent a requirement, it is an overreach to claim that we cannot even offer memberships to children until and unless we define this policy.

The DSL must have completed a Level 3 Safeguarding qualification (online courses available for between £100 and £300).

I looked online for any requirement that we have a DSL, which seems unclear. The assertion that we must have a paid qualification, I believe is an overreach.

The fully trained DSL can train others in basic safeguarding so that responsibility feels more shared throughout the event. For an event the size of CB the DSL can be on duty part-time (e.g. on duty on Monday and Sunday only).

The assertion that we require an on-call DSL at any time, I believe is unnecessary bureaucracy.

Legally vetted adults in any care positions: Any arrangement to formally provide child supervision or to formally run children's areas on site will require the supervising/facilitating adults to provide a DBS check.

CB offers no such facilities, and never planned to. I don't know why this is in the proposal. It implies it may be needed, but it's simply not. We do not require DBS checks for anything we do at CB.

I left a comment above detailing what I do support (as you said, Rachel, just want to be clear for others).

It is frustrating that it's so hard to find clear guidance on the actual requirements online. If anyone asserts that we MUST have any of this, I think it's reasonable to ask that they cite their sources.

@Tyler Wagner Thanks for all those good points, Tyler. I can't speak to them specifically, but from what I understand, Madeleine spoke directly with someone she can trust whose job is basically dealing with the legality of child-safeguarding, and that's how she produced these requirements. As you said before though, much as we don't exactly follow ALL legal requirements when it comes to substances etc, there is discussion to be had about what aspects of this we need to/can take on.

At the end of the AP, Madeleine states that this AP is not intended to decide specific policies; that this would be part of a larger discussion and probably another AP. I think the guidelines given were intended to confront us with the reality of how child safeguarding for an event like ours is viewed legally, and challenge us to decide whether we are prepared/able to do enough. But that's just my interpretation, and it's very clear it has been read super differently by different people. AND I think it's very very hard to discuss whether we have the capabilities to do necessary safeguarding, without first deciding what that would look like. So perhaps this AP can't achieve what it's set out to achieve without broader discussion first. At least it's started the conversation, I guess!

@Zoe Ironstone It has certainly started it! 😂 And with apologies to @Madeleine , who must be feeling a bit scorched right now.

One takeaway for me is the importance of precise language in APs, and being clear what's required vs. what's an opinion. Things got charged, and that's when imprecise language turned into assuming the worst. (As a mid-level leader in a big company, I routinely speak on behalf of or with organisations of hundreds of people. I have my own scars from failing to catch ways my statements can be misinterpreted.)

Thank you for doing the research with your colleague, Madeleine. I do not claim to be an expert, but nor am I comfortable with the level of rigour proposed in the AP opening text. It seems to exceed the standard set by other events I've attended, or seen in their published policies. Something seems not-quite-right. Are we perhaps applying the standard required for one type of org or event, to another? Can we identify, perhaps from your friend, any summary from any government website or publication detailing what we must do?

@Tyler Wagner I appreciate and accept your apologies Tyler - sometimes when we are reacting from a place of authentic emotion it can be a little harsh. You seem to take accountability for that just fine and so no big deal about the words that have been spoken as far as I'm concerned. We're only human.

In that spirit I'd like to say sorry for the stress and also assert that whilst the language I have used in this AP may not have been perceived the way it was intended, it was in fact not intended to prioritise "banning" children at all (I never used this word in discussion or in the AP). The word "post-pone" is super important in this AP - my goal is to avoid new parents and children attending Celtic Burn without everyone first being on the same page about what their responsibilities are towards the children and the community. I did have the AP proof read by another person who has run APs before and I wanted it to come across as balanced and simple - we have to implement something of a safeguarding resource if we want to accommodate minors, and I believe it is important for that to meet a minimum legal requirement.

I'm very run down so I can't reply to each individual point at the moment, but I want you to know that I have spoken to the safeguarding profession who originally advised my AP and flagged that others are not sure it's right. She is taking it to a colleague who specifically deals with events to double check everything and will get back to be in due course. She admits their may be difference in Scotland that she didn't account for and that she advised best-practice legally speaking, but that events do seem a murky area (but also asserted that is the main reason to be careful).

So once I have more info, I will share. In the mean time, she said the NSPCC website is a good resource.

Things have got very heated. On Telegram and it's carried across here in places. Thank you to those who have recognised their words may have been sent with too much force. It's easily done, it's a topic which elicits a hell of a lot of strong emotions. I will echo Egle's call that we all try approaching this with 'compassion, collaboration, and understanding'. Coming at this topic with divisive language is categorically stopping some people in this community from voicing their opinion at all. No matter how right you feel you are, and I can see there are genuinely held beliefs on multiple sides, some people in this community are silencing themselves because of this language. I was one of them. I don't believe anyone is trying to prevent others from speaking but it is the result. We are a community, and this is a community decision which means anyone with an opinion should feel able to voice it. I sincerely hope we can move closer to that.

I am responding to the AP as I interpret it. I can see different opinions on believed intent of the wording in people's responses here. All I can do is respond as it comes across to me.

I do not agree with banning children from Celtic Burn. I do not think the fact that we can't forsee and prevent every possible scenario for child welfare means ban them. It means we need to step up as a community, collectively, co-creating something that is radically inclusive. I completely agree with stepping up safeguarding and pre-burn communication. I am willing to be a part of that and it sounds from these responses like many others are too.

Ultimately I think this AP is premature and does overstate some requirements. This is a last resort if we try and see that we are failing to reach agreement on safeguarding pre-burn. I completely agree it should not be post-big incident.

I agree with Vic so I'm not going to repeat all their points. But if we're voting then that's my vote.

I agree safeguarding practices, I do not agree with the level required as outlined in this AP, echoing what Vic, Jordan, Sandy, Egle, Tyler and kitten have posted.

I do not wish to ban minors from CB. I am happy to help find solutions to the issues that arise from having them there, just not in the scope outlined by the AP.

I am also in awe of how well spoken and written many of you are, thank you for taking the time and effort to enumerate your thoughts so eloquently. 🩷💛🧡

Thank you for the helpful responses to the points raised in the AP.

It is evident that people have interpreted it differently to one another. I took time to write it in a way that I believed to be fair and clear and had it checked by someone else before sharing. I still, upon many re-readings, believe it to be fair and neutral whilst still being direct. My understanding was that I make the statement about the area that needs developing and discussing, and then we develop and discuss. At no point did I intend this to be a call to "ban" anyone. I did include the invitation for those who aren't comfortable with children at a burn to voice that (why can't they? I believe reasons behind that discomfort are valuable considerations when developing what we do). I was also curious about what proportion of our community feel they want adults only (maybe there is an adult-only burn event to be developed as a result of that). There shouldn't be anything unacceptable about people voicing their personal stance on that matter.

To create balance, I made efforts to prioritise the idea that we need to address safeguarding so that we can include minors. The idea of "postponing" the sale of memberships unless this is going to be addressed is not the same as some sort of blanket ban, and was presented as the "alternative" to sorting out safeguarding. From this, please infer that sorting out safeguarding is the primary outcome, NOT the postponement, and certainly not an outright ban on children.

I have received enough private messages of support to rest assured this was needed. I'd rather it had been plain sailing, but the fact that it couldn't be highlights some very real discrepancies and sensitivities about the topic of safeguarding. I guess sometimes a little storm is the only way to properly clear the air, but diversity doesn't have to feel like division.

Currently, I have two legal professionals from child protective services informally looking at what we need, one of whom specifically covers child protection at events. So whilst I wrote the AP "to the best of my knowledge" at the time, I am more than happy to dig deeper on that legal minimum and am doing so.

So far, there have been some initial offers to be put forward for DSL and to lead on a policy/assessment. Perhaps we will see more offers like this.This would keep us in good legal and reputable condition and align with best practice. It is worth noting that any individual who undergoes Level 3 DSL training can then train others in basic safeguarding in an up to date way to help share out responsibility. Even though it is a decentralised community, it's not as if everyone does everything, it's more that everyone does something, no? People lead the way in areas of their capacity, strengths and interests.

Having a safeguarding lead makes sense to me, or a safeguarding team that leads on it in the same way. You can go ahead without up to date training, but why do that? That would possibly result in a policy that doesn't align with actual requirements and doesn't protect us properly should a complaint be brought against the community. Is it not better to aim for optimum competence? Similarly, it doesn't feel wise to respond to safeguarding issues as an when they come up, rather than doing a pre-emptive risk assessment.

I will check back on this infrequently as time progresses, and extend it if needed. My attempt to engage with community processes about an important issue very dear to me has left me feeling dangerously overwhelmed at points, so I need some space.

Hey all. Thanks to Madeleine for authoring the first AP important enough to finally get me to make a login on this website, and thanks to everyone for having a productive discussion despite all the big feelings.

I do agree with implementing most measures suggested (policy, record-keeping, boundaries, supervision, etc.) As none of this seems too egregious, and largely has already been happening informally, I look forward to another year of welcoming kids of all ages.

I'm more than happy to function as a DSL myself, being mostly sober at such events.

I also agree with the proposal to take an existing policy from a sibling burn and adapt it as necessary rather than try to reinvent the wheel.

From the initial points it also seems important, at this stage, to not offer formal childcare - but coming from a history of everything being done informally this doesn't seem a sticking point.

So yes, broad agreement. What I think is very important that hasn't been raised on this platform yet is having a space in which younglings are welcome. Those of you on telegram might have seen me mention this when this topic was first raised. This isn't a legal requirement, but it is one of respect. Even if only one under-18 comes, having every indoor space be 18+ or S+ or D+ doesn't add up (small pun there for the mathematicians in the house).

It shouldn't be a 'kids camp', imo, but it should be a place where kids are welcome, and adults are welcome, and adults who want to hang out with kids and kids who want to hang out with adults can do so. An 'everyone's allowed' space of sorts where art is made and boardgames are played, with the occasional movie night, and some cool cat in the corner sat on their Gameboy. I'd love to collaborate on this with some others - please message me privately if you want to help facilitate such a space and we can make this formal whenever we all get around to the space adoption AP.

Love to you all x

@Gareth There was a really cool kids dome at Village Burn, with a small covered dome on top that had been bags and a SEGA console in!! The kids LOVED it! and they had to climb up a small rope ladder to get in 😄

I am happy to have kids around and I am OK with moderating my behaviour accordingly but I certainly don't want to feel responsible for someone else's child, particularly in a legal sense. On balance I would rather there weren't any kids. At 2014 CB I seem to recall only seeing one under 18 so maybe it wouldn't be such an issue to be an over 18 event?

I will be brief as lots has been said and I don't really have anything particular to add other than weight to already expressed opinions.

I'm not personally particularly comfortable with children and one of my favourite things about the burn is how well everybody is embedded in consent and feedback and ability to decide for themselves as adults whether they want to be involved in something. It allows for much wider freedom of things to happen knowing everyone has the self-ability to involve or not. This kindof breaks down when there are children around. I have to self-police, I have to censor, I have to look out, and to be honest, I don't wanna.

That said, I also don't want to tell anyone they can't come, so if we can do it safely, and reasonably, then great. But I can't help with that as I have no skills or knowledge (or as previously mentioned... desire!). This needs to be lead by the parents of the children. I would say as a bare minimum we should not let children be unsupervised on site.

I see a lot of people talking here about if children should be allowed or not, which isn't really what I saw this AP about. To me its about the specifics on how to handle the risks, not if we want to remove all risk (that isn't really in the burner spirit). My main concern is unsupervised children across the whole site. This has happened at CB before and they were a pain in my arse. they would take my stuff and wonder off with it, or repeatedly go in the no shoes area with shoes on when they thought they could get away with it etc and i had to keep sweeping it out. they drew on my stuff, opened a post box and where reading peoples private sumbissions etc etc. I also feel a sense of responsibility when i walk into an area and see a child doing something they shouldn't and i'm the only adult there that i really don't like and don't consent to. I would love children to be welcome in a way all the issues i described above can be addressed, i'm an disappointed someone else here has diminished these concerns as "just minor annoyance" like that can be ignored. parents may be very use to this kind of annoyance, but I never consented to it. when confronting a parent and them just saying "they are only X years old, it's just kids being kids" doesn't really make me feel better about it either. For me it totally breaks down my feeling of being safe and letting go and being myself at a burn when these type of things happen, and seriously puts me off bringing my stuff or hosting a space. Every time I see the smudge where i tried to clear off the kids drawing from one of my favourite artworks I am reminded of this....

Hey Gang,

Weighing back in. I’ve just caught up and I wanted to comment on the discussion about what the legal minimum requirements are.

It is not a legal requirement that there be an on duty DSL 24/7 at an event the size of Celtic Burn. Although other events (albeit larger ones) have started to introduce this in recent years. Buddhafield for example.

It is not a legal requirement, but I think having a DSL for the event could only be a positive thing. (By my count two people have said this is something they would be prepared to do!). I would not envision this as being someone available round the clock, but just a nominated person with basic safeguarding training identified to attendees.

As many people have commented, we have a wonderful community which is great at looking out for each other. I imagine CB25 will pass without any safeguarding concerns.. but why would we not want a nominated person to talk to in the unlikely event of something happening?

I am not going to suggest that everyone on site be DBS checked, but many of us already are. I think that (with people’s consent) sharing that information could be a useful resource. For instance if the site leads had a list of DBS checked adults, it might help with decision making - in the event of an emergency, if someone has to take a child off site or something.

What we’re looking at is a spectrum. At one end we tie ourselves up in knots and red tape and create difficult to uphold guidelines via endless APs, tearing each other apart in frustration.. conversely at the other end of the spectrum - we roll over and say. “It’ll be fine, we’re cool people, no serious child safeguarding issues could happen here.”,  thus potentially endangering individual young attendees and in turn our community.

To veer too much towards wither of these outcomes would be a real tragedy! To the point many people have made about the principle of inclusivity, I am not pro safeguarding because I am anti kids at burns. I am pro safeguarding because I am pro kids and I am encouraged to see the direction in which this is headed… seems to be that most of us agree that a some work do framework (the extent of which is up for discussion is going to be implemented).

Sending massive love to all the parents for whom this debate must feel intensely personal! I am sorry that we as a community have not collectively managed to navigate this conversation in a way that was peaceful to everyone. Hopefully lessons have been learnt and debate can be less upsetting in future.

While the mode of discussion has been unfortunate, I do really welcome the discussion itself. I have too much professional and personal experience in the complex issues that children and young people can face. As co-creators of the event we have a duty of care to all attendees, big and small. :)

X

@Nori Valentine Ok I had to take a little break from this for a while but feeling ready to engage again

I basically agree with everything Nori has said (I take my nose off to you, wonderful clown 🤡❤️)

One thing i would like to address that I have heard stated as a reason that CB doesn't need any, or anywhere near the requested level of, safeguarding is that "we know everyone who attends because we are a community" (or some variation of this statement)

This is simply untrue and in fact basically anyone is able to attend CB, there is no requirement to engage in any meaningful way with the community beforehand and it's incredibly easy to fabricate an identity solely for attending burns (I'm not suggesting that we should vet burners before attending just pointing out a fallacy that's been used as an argument)

As a direct example I can speak of mine and Madeleines experience of and journey to attending CB.

Firstly, my social media algorithms knew I was interested in burns and was geographically close to CB and so I was advertised CBs Facebook page

After deciding to attend I engaged with the membership portal, dropped a message on the telegram chat by my own volition and then upon arriving was met by a lovely reception creature (who's role was clearly, and rightly, not to vet us but to welcome us)

It was easy and lovely

But tbh I could have been literary anybody, using any name and nobody would have known

There is very clearly is a fantastic and active community that is the core of CB however it does not seem true to me that "we know everyone" or "not in my community" are correct or valid statements when it comes to safeguarding

Thank you for setting up this AP! I think there are some really good proposals in the description but I also think we don't need to do all the things listed there. I wanted to add some things of my own but instead I will just link to 3 comments to sum my opinion up quite well:

https://www.loomio.com/d/ZoHG563k/evaluating-capacity-for-adequate-safeguarding-of-minors-at-celtic-burn/41

https://www.loomio.com/d/ZoHG563k/evaluating-capacity-for-adequate-safeguarding-of-minors-at-celtic-burn/17

https://www.loomio.com/d/ZoHG563k/evaluating-capacity-for-adequate-safeguarding-of-minors-at-celtic-burn/33

I will start and end by saying -- so much love and respect to every single one of you who has posted here. I'm gobsmacked by the attention, articulation, good sense, and care put into this discussion. Madeleine, Tyler, Zoë, Sam, Vic, Tom, Sandy, Nori, Kitten, and Rachel have all made points I strongly agree with (even when they didn't agree with each other!). I especially resonate with Vic's point that community and inclusivity are bedrock to the Burn ethos, while S+ and D+ spaces are not intrinsic. (Radical self-expression absolutely IS. I get that, and I get why children make that harder for some people. That's legit.)

My perspective: I'm a parent. I'm DBS checked. Our kid will be almost-16 at the time of CB25. He loves the Burners he's met so far and actively asks when he's going to see them again. When there was a white van parked on our street last week we had to convince him that it wasn't Gareth's. ("But it might be!" ... "Sorry, hon, I don't think so.") It's been amazing to see who he becomes in the presence of Burner quirkiness and engagement.

Though I love the adult-playground vibe at times, CB and subsequent Burn-adjacent events (Wee Fest, Singing Sands, Reuben's party, George's party) have not felt like responsibility-free spaces. I've woven in and out of default-world efforts at all of them: helping plan, assemble, cook, rejigger, carry, provide emotional support, clean, etc. I would not want CB to feel like a space in which I had no responsibility for the welfare of others. For me, that would feel untethered, unrealistic. It's the deep connection between us that makes the Celtic Burn community so precious to me.

I'm for:
1) adopting safeguarding policies as drafted by sibling Burns, with adaptation if necessary (reinvention of wheels is antithetical to my being)
2) gratefully accepting DSL services from one or both who have offered 🙏
3) very clear signage re: places and hours where children should not be, and verbal review of same at Morning Meetings daily
4) making peace with the Both/And that we all share safeguarding responsibilities and parents must put in additional effort to ensure that kids aren't where they shouldn't be and respect curfews if they exist. (I know for certain that my kid will err on the side of NOT going into a space where he shouldn't be rather than wandering in accidentally, but he's almost 16 and he can/does read, which won't be true for everyone.)

Gratefully, and with deep respect and love, Sprite

We’ve talked about this privately with Madeleine and I will share my final thoughts here too.

It was a big shift to get clarity on proposed “postponing child memberships”, which wasn’t intended for a whole year, but just until better safeguarding agreements are in place.

1. Spreadsheet error
   The Celtic Burn 2024 spreadsheet accidentally left out the “small people” section, which should’ve been there based on the original template. This gave the impression kids wouldn’t be at the event, even though Kieran’s child, for example, was introduced at the morning meeting. This kind of error should not happen again.

2. Different ways forward
   There are loads of ways to approach this. Yes, a policy and a lead could help, but since CB is a decentralised burn, maybe we could look at handling it in a decentralised way too. From my experience, having a lead can sometimes mean others feel less responsibility, and policies risk being created but forgotten. Parents are the best people to sort out kid stuff. If we sell out memberships and parents don’t buy because they think kids aren’t welcome, we’re losing a chance to include them.

3. Trust the community
   We trust people in the community want to find better ways to safeguard kids.

4. Less lead culture, more shared responsibility
   What would a more "everyone informed and responsible" vibe look like? Maybe something like:

   • Clear messaging at ticket sales.

   • Clear indicating of how many small people are coming to an event on the spreadsheet.

   • Parents self-organising via calls or chats.

   • Welcoming families at the gate.

   • Welfare getting safeguarding training.

   • Morning meeting shoutouts, “Who’s here today?”

   • Family camping area.

   • Flagging whether events/workshops are kid-friendly or not (verbally and on the board).

   • Workshop/event hosts checking that no kids are in the space before starting if it’s not appropriate for them to be there.

   • Everyone actively being a caring human responsible for spreading awareness about safeguarding agreements.

I also really loved Gareth’s idea of an intentional child-friendly space and would love to be part of making that happen.

Thank you Madeleine to all the work, energy, patience (!) and emotional labour you’ve put into this AP, as well as everyone else’s valuable input, which has been enlightening.

Yes Egle, I like that list! And yes, @Madeleine -- thank you for all the intentionality, patience, and emotional labour (such a useful concept that did not exist when I was growing up!!) you've put in. Seen and deeply appreciated.

Amazing stuff <3

I also feel one point is almost the same for 1st time/hardcore **** sitting:
'who is the dedicated sober adult on shift for this drooling mess chasing butterflies in facepaint?'

Thanks Everyone

Please consider this AP as now closed for additional comments whilst the feedback is properly considered and processed. I anticipate reporting back within the next week.

After taking time to collate and analyse the advice and inputs received, something of a pathway forward has emerged. Thanks to everyone who has contributed and been on this occasionally bumpy ride, it is appreciated. Thanks to Zoe for helping edit this AP doc initially and to Rachel for supporting me in navigating the feedback.

Looking at it all together with some AI assistance, it seems general consensus was reached on the following points:

- CB wants to include children and families safely and is therefore willing to include a safeguarding policy/risk assessment

- Most people agree that a policy on its own will not fully solve the situation and so procedures and community conversations/awareness raising will be an important part of the plan

- It is broadly agreed/not contested that some clarification on parental responsibilities should be communicated nice and clearly at point of sale.

- S+ or adult only areas/acts need to be clearly signposted and communicated within the community, and space adopters should be especially engaged with how this will function.

- Safer use of substances like alcohol are encouraged in a self-reliant fashion.

- We can adopt and adapt a policy similar to Burning Nest's (where feasible for our site and needs). Communication with Nest has now been initiated regarding this.

There seemed to be conflicting opinions primarily regarding the following:

- The need for a DSL/concerns around how to share the responsibility

---Opinions regarding DSL were more or less evenly split. To have a safeguarding lead is commonly agreed best practice and stands us in good stead in terms of foresight and civic responsibility, but we can transform this into a team to share the weight and feel more descentralised. The safeguarding team will still have the usual responsibility of engaging wider community on big decisions. We don't have to use the legal jargon of DSL. It is still best practice (and cheaper) for one person to take a lead on training and then pass on training to others. Given that there has been a volunteer to do this, other burns have had one and with our community capacity to develop a team to support/work with that volunteer, I am confident that we can implement this without threatening co-creation. It's not really so different than having a tech lead, a consent lead or any other person willing to lead on a particular issue. After discussions with those who put themselves forward, Gareth has said he still wants to take on a leading org role for safeguarding. I will support him and he is contacting others who have expressed interest to form a small team. If you want to be a part of this team please reach out to one of us. Gareth taking a lead on training does not mean any responsibility is solely his, only that we are trusting him to co-ordinate a working safeguarding team, share knowledge/training and manifest a family friendly space.

- Agreement around supervision of minors and how to ensure this is fair to as many as possible.

--- Over the course of this discussion I have heard a number of concerns about supervision, from parents wanting their children to be able to be unsupervised due to being older to those worried about burners not having properly supervised their children at other events resulting in serious incidents.

---The age at which a minor can be unsupervised at an event depends on the nature of the event. Since Celtic Burn has S+ areas, an open bar and is currently on a site open to the public and with various opportunities for accidental injury, it would likely be considered moderate to high risk.

---The age at which children can generally be unsupervised varies between 13 and 16. Those teenagers who are able to roam freely should do so with parental permission and check-ins, be easily identifiable as a minor to other burners, be trusted to be responsible and capable of reading/understanding signage.

--- Parents and guardians can informally arrange for other burners to keep an eye on their children as long as this is consented to by the other burner.

--- Supervision simply needs to be "reasonable" (for example, an adult doesn't need to be breathing down child's neck 24/7 but to be within earshot/eyeshot, know where they are and what they're up to, checking in somewhat regularly). The younger or more vulnerable a young person is, the greater the level of supervision required.

--- We will need to discuss this further as a community to reach agreed upon boundaries/strategies regarding supervision of young people. Our safeguarding working team will facilitate this conversation as a video meeting. TBC.

To summarise:

1. We will develop a safeguarding team with one extra skilled-up person who will have training, but the weight can be distributed and parents/community will be liaised with as needed. Suitable training can be funded by CB but doesn't have to cost the earth. Once paid for, it lasts for years and knowledge can be shared freely.

1. The safeguarding team will develop a risk assessment and safeguarding policy that adequately addresses the risks, drawing upon Burning Nest resources where appropriate.

2. Parental responsibilities will be explicitly agreed, rather than implicitly assumed. Meetings will be held as needed when developing this aspect.

3. Point-of-sale will clearly state the relevant safeguarding responsibilities related to child and accompanying adult memberships to help make sure everyone is fairly informed. Follow-up info may need to be distributed as the policy emerges.

Myself and/or Gareth will gradually reach out others who we feel might like to help in due course, but if you're keen to be on board to co-create this plan let us know whenever, no need to wait to be asked :)