Jump to content

Patch Trading Central

Have a patch or memorabilia you're looking to swap? Use this virtual patch trading blanket. (This area is intended to facilitate memorabilia swapping, not necessarily commerce.)

375 topics in this forum

    • 3 replies
    • 560 views
    • 1 reply
    • 1003 views
    • 3 replies
    • 600 views
    • 4 replies
    • 1468 views
    • 0 replies
    • 701 views
    • 6 replies
    • 974 views
    • 3 replies
    • 962 views
    • 0 replies
    • 956 views
    • 4 replies
    • 2890 views
    • 0 replies
    • 778 views
    • 5 replies
    • 1010 views
    • 8 replies
    • 1504 views
    • 5 replies
    • 926 views
    • 3 replies
    • 870 views
    • 4 replies
    • 915 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Which works out to be $63,000 per victim, before attorneys (so, cut that down to $40,000). As for the lawyer friend who said sue everyone, that is right. If I am an attorney looking out for my client's interests, I am going to find out anyone who may have liability for the bad acts. That's not "ambulance chasing", that's good lawyering.
    • I have not been involved with Cubs in many years - before the Cyber Chip was added - so take this from an almost-outsider.  It seems to me this discussion is missing an opportunity and possibly missing the point.  What I read is that your kids do have access to the internet - it is restricted and supervised - but they do have access.  I read the intent of the waiver option as being for kids (families) who truly have no access - or no practical access.  The requirement does not say for them to do the Cyber Chip on their own, or by themselves and I don't think that is the intent.  The whole Cub program, and especially the Tiger program, is intended to be done with a parent/guardian/family.  So - isn't the solution as simple as spending the time to do the Cyber Chip together with your Scout(s)?    
    • The Archdiocese of Milwaukee took 4 years to settle.  The benefit is that they only paid out $21M to 330 individuals.  If BSA wants this quick, they will pay more.  If they want to minimize damages, be prepared for years of litigation.  I tend to agree, now that lawyers have victims names, they will proceed to councils and COs that have $$.  Even individuals if they think they have any funds.   When talking with a lawyer friend recently, I asked him who we would sue.  He said everyone.  Let the courts figure out who pays.  
    • G2SS policy was meant to prevent stupid, which happens fast. It happens real fast in units that cut corners, of which not seeking guidance from council is a hallmark. This pack sought guidance because they were in the unique situation of available qualified supervision but lack of access to other district/council wide events: In other words, they were in full compliance with the very significant, but often ignored, page 1 of G2SS. Specifically this sentence: Why review reference material when “such activities” are said to be disallowed by the pack? Well, first is to understand why packs aren’t allowed to have their own events. Second is to understand what goes into holding a district event according NCAP standards and the Shooting Sports Manual. When a group of scouters can convince their SE that they can meet and exceed NCAP standards and the council would not otherwise be providing those same standards to those particular scouts, councils will try to work with those scouters. Otherwise we risk cubs and parents doing these activities on their own. Safety lectures (the most important part, I felt, for my kids to hear) will be missed, and bad things will happen. In other words, there’s the Guide to Safe Scouting and there’s actually scouting safely. We want the former to enable, not impede, the latter.
    • I just read this. Thank you for the inspiration. Sounds like these scouts have created a great memory for themselves. I hope the ceremony is (was?) a success.
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...