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.)

374 topics in this forum

    • 56 replies
    • 8286 views
  1. Vintage tents 1 2

    • 15 replies
    • 6430 views
    • 11 replies
    • 5297 views
    • 15 replies
    • 3822 views
    • 9 replies
    • 3554 views
  2. Scoutmaster Emeritus

    • 11 replies
    • 3316 views
    • 14 replies
    • 3125 views
    • 4 replies
    • 2952 views
    • 2 replies
    • 2898 views
  3. New Square Knot?

    • 10 replies
    • 2856 views
    • 4 replies
    • 2787 views
    • 12 replies
    • 2693 views
    • 16 replies
    • 2661 views
    • 33 replies
    • 2512 views
    • 6 replies
    • 2453 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • Agree Not making any excuses, but to judge peoples actions by today's standards or reporting is not really a great comparison.  A lot of moving parts, many scouters were booted from their troops, but there was not a good avenue of recourse.  Parents did not want to involved the police.   Yes there were some failures, but not to the degree portrayed and in many cases actions were (for the time) appropriate.  Not saying right or wrong, just appropriate for the time.
    • I admit I got some mixed emotions on this. Grant you the research on this topic I did was over 20 years ago, and more information is now available than when I did it. But here is what I found. Yes some professionals really did screw up and not follow National policy of the day. They did allow folks to continue in the movement when they should have been removed. That is inexcusable. THEY are the ones who failed our Scouts. And yes the BSA did not report a large number of abusers to authorities. However this was a time before mandatory reporting laws were on the books. If the child's parents decided they were not going to press charges, and in the cases I studied it was the majority of cases, then there was nothing the BSA could do legally. If I remember correctly, one concern about pressing charges without the abused's testimony, was the BSA being sued for libel. What BSA could, and did, do was create an Ineligible Volunteer File to cross-reference new volunteer applications against in an attempt to keep out those suspected of abusing Scouts. Even when mandatory reporting laws went into effect, there were limits as tho who were mandatory reporters. Initially it was  physicians and other medical personnel, and over decades has expanded. Also each state enacted their own laws. So in some states BSA employees were mandatory reporters before  BSA employees in other states. Do not think I am callous towards the victims. I have had friends and neighbors who were victims. And knowing what I know now, I was being groomed by my Cubmaster/Scoutsmaster.  I lucked out. When something set off my senses, I switched troops. But I know folks who were abused by him. This was before BSA implemented YP and 2 Deep.
    • You should be mad at the scout executives, not the lawyers.  They're the ones who killed scouting.  
    • The first rocks were thrown by the pedophiles. The second by scout leaders at every level that failed these scouts. That they are seeking legal recourse it not "throwing rocks".
    • I don't see the point in pushing through advancement requirements before BSA goes under.  What value will there be in having a uniform patch from a defunct organization?  It would be far better for the boys to just focus on having fun.  
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...