Issues & Politics
In answer to many requests, we established a separate forum for these topics. Those not interested can skip this forum instead of spending time reading unwanted messages to identify content.
2942 topics in this forum
-
- 5 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 29 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 54 replies
- 8.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1k views
-
- 94 replies
- 13.8k views
-
- 18 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 80 replies
- 10.6k views
-
- 97 replies
- 14.4k views
-
- 125 replies
- 21.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 37 replies
- 6k views
-
- 17 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.4k views
.thumb.jpg.fbe850654d19be49b2fc787c153163d4.jpg)
-
LATEST POSTS
-
Now we are talking about BSA in general. You are way off on the homosexual vs bisexual comment. The great majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/ On whether the Boy Scouts did their best... I don't think I can add anything that will change your mind but note that your description of how an SE or TCC would have analyzed the situation has no mention of doing the right thing and is all about liability and reputation. -
By johnsch322 · Posted
This is Hooey, When the initial allegations came forward about the nude photos he could have been removed as a member of the BSA period. There is no god given right to be an adult member of BSA. How many young boys could have been saved? And they did have standing as he was part of their organization. Taking nude photos of young boys and having sexual relationships with them is neither homosexuality or bisexuality. How can you possibly say they removed the threat as best they could when after the nude photos came up they allowed him access to children. That is called gross negligence. -
You misunderstood what I was saying: my recent posts are not about one single instance.
-
By HICO_Eagle · Posted
The thing is neither BSA as a national organization nor the troop involved had standing. The Scouts involved were the ones who should have filed charges. The problem for BSA then was that accusations without proof of criminal conduct could have had serious repercussions and exposed the organization to liability. Put yourself in the SE or TCC shoes -- you have hearsay witness testimony but you don't know this yourself. You could file a charge with the police but you know the youth and their parents just want it to go away and may not testify. You know under the laws of the time that he could then sue you and the organization for defamation of character. At the time, ejecting him and barring his future participation seems like the easy out. Again, when you want to talk about culpability, BSA removed him and prevented him from rejoining. What more could they do in 1968? They were not the victims and in many (most?) cases, the youth would not testify or file charges. They did hold themselves to a higher standard and they chose to eliminate the threat as best as they (thought they) could. Saying or insinuating someone had homosexual or bisexual inclinations was a far different matter in 1968 than in 1998 or 2008 or 2018. -
For families they “just stop coming” how hard has it been to get these items back?
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)