Jump to content

    • Flattering, a scout uniform? I'd settle for functional, though neat is good.
    • We'll do something similar. We'll have vehicles at the campsite, so younger scouts don't have to carry a full pack, just a day pack. 
    • Proof to the contrary is non-existent?  Maybe so... but can you show any proof that confirms the fear is valid either?  Is there some study out there that BSA national based the "thou shall bring an adult female" rule when female youth are involved?  Are females inherently at higher risk for abuse when the adults are all male?  If this is indeed true (scientifically), then why the hell would BSA even risk allowing girls in the groups in the first place ?!?!  The rule should be all female units must only have all female adult leadership. Seems to me its a selling point to folks that are not already part of BSA, but might think about enrolling their daughter.  "See, she'll be fine out in the woods... we'll even make sure a female adult goes along on any all outings she participates in..." When the rules are made solely out of fear of litigation, then it becomes absurd... which is what has been achieved.
    • Not to go off topic... but I find it ironic that national has an official position that states they would prefer no or at least minimal fundraising for the Eagle Project.... yet the scouter magazine had an online article not too long ago spotlighting an Eagle project a lad had completed to place a fountain statue memorial to a classmate in a park.  The scout raised over 15 K for the project ?!?!?   Like a great many things, BSA national can't seem to keep from contradicting themselves...
    • Once again, this reveals how risk assessment only goes so far. Although the infamous "perversion files" seem to have been built up meticulously, they are not the  stuff for good criminology. We know nothing of "minimum exposure time" before a child is groomed for assault or before an adult attempts his/her first predatory act. If YPT and comprehensive registration feels like a "dragnet", it's because it is formed out of that ignorance. There is a belief in the inherent risk to females of all-male leadership (relative to the risk to males of all-female leadership) ... that two-deep leadership will not be sufficient in that context. It really doesn't matter how valid that belief is. Proof to the contrary is non-existent. Agressively litigation thrives in that domain.
  • Who's Online (See full list)