elitts

You need to slow down and take a few breaths between reading and typing, you aren't even responding to the right point of outrage here. Eagledad was talking about the Scouting program and the patrol method being a "proven program" NOT the Youth Protections.

If you are talking about people questioning the "50% of abuse is youth on youth" statement, that's because history tells us that when someone gives a statistic, you can't know anything about what it means until you understand the definitions being used; particularly in the area of sexual abuse and rape where there is a distinct tendency among some advocates to keep expanding definitions to make their chosen issue seem more dire than it might be. I have no illusions about the BSA and their overall level of competence. Completely separate from this, any organization that publishes a guide

The issue with some LCs is that they survive off the investments because donations and fees aren't enough to keep them running. I don't know exactly how compelling that need is for all of them, but for at least some losing even 50% of their investments would put them out of operation. Well, keep in mind the context of that defense. You and a few other people have the "anti-BSA" point of view very well covered and represented so for those points about which I agree with you, there's not really any purpose in my repeating you. That leaves me with those positions where I disagree with

I don't see any issue with it at all. Two individual scouts wearing their uniform to a meeting like that isn't "being involved in political matters". First because there's a difference between two individuals doing something and a whole troop or a council; and second because the issue wasn't so much about politics as it was about censorship and religion. Plus, they weren't wearing the uniform to try and create some association between Scouts and their viewpoint, they were wearing the uniform in an attempt to be taken more seriously.

I just filled mine out and put "Childhood". I know I was vaccinated, but my docs got lost somewhere between the 1980s and now and my earliest health record is from like age 16.

One of my criticisms of the YP training material is that they spent as much time as they did getting experts and victims to tell us CSA is a problem and not nearly enough time discussing grooming techniques and other standard methods to be aware of. I had never heard of grooming up until I saw the training the first time and I have to think my experience with it is pretty typical. I would willingly exchange 1 or 2 minutes of telling me how bad it is to rape kids (Duh!) for 10-15 minutes of more detail on warning signs, common MOs and demonstrations of things like what "boundary testing" migh

I have no problem with an independent monitor or court supervised reporting, that's not what was being discussed. RememberSchiff was talking about an outside committee being in direct control of BSA Youth Protection policies. I wouldn't even have a problem with a court appointed receivership because at least that person would be neutral and independent and would have a fiduciary duty to the the organization (as well as a duty to comply with any court judgement); whereas a committee put together of survivors and experts and allowed direct control of BSA operations would not necessarily h

Just to be clear: Asking any claimants to come forward wasn't "on their own volition". Part of filing bankruptcy involves the requirement to inform any potential creditors that the bankruptcy is happening so that they can file notice of the debt with the court. Failure to do so when you know a creditor exists is one of the ways you can get a bankruptcy undone if someone comes forward later. Cynicalscouter explained how it would be theoretically possible to successfully defend against an abuse complaint, but in reality, with the way our courts work any incidence of abuse is going to e

It's possible I read more into this line than you intended: I read this to mean that you thought it would be unacceptable to just have a scout sit out of an event if they didn't wish to participate because of the clothing requirements and so the event just shouldn't happen. The bold part is one of those things that would depend entirely on the tone of voice and sincerity. (I understand you are using it sarcastically) But I would find that statement to be just fine (except the "out group") part if it was made with actual compassion and an invitation to "come watch with the rest of us

Yes, I read it. I also read a number of other articles on the subject. The standards change does NOT make all cords illegal, they are only disallowed on "stock" products. Here's a slightly more competently written article published by the WMCA. https://windowcoverings.org/historic-safety-standard-removing-majority-of-corded-window-coverings-from-u-s-market-takes-effect/ This article specifically mentions that the standard only applies to about 80% of the blinds produced. I don't know why you would think all blinds are disposable items, they are household fixtures that most people don

The problem with this idea is that it sets the bar of acceptable at "whatever no one is uncomfortable with" and that's a standard that isn't functional. I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public but I draw the line at not allowing those who ARE willing to appear shirtless to perform or appear that way because we don't want some kid to feel excluded. If Ryan doesn't want to participate in an activity with their patrol for whatever reason, that's their choice, as is any resulting feeling of exclusion.

They still aren't illegal. The rule only applies to stock blinds sold off the shelves in retail stores. Custom order blinds, which are very common, can still be had with cords. (albeit shorter ones) There's plenty of stuff in homes that is no longer considered "safe" that aren't going to go away any time soon. The fact that something is no longer up to code for new installations or purchase doesn't mean it doesn't still need to be maintained. Though I have no issue with adjusting the requirements to add a requirement to find out if the item being repaired is still considered acceptabl

Nope. It's not inappropriate. I'm not quite sure why you would think it is. Young men and boys have been swimming, playing sports, mowing lawns and attending sporting events shirtless for at least the 45 years I've been alive. I would agree that wearing loincloths with nothing underneath is wholly unacceptable, but over shorts? If that bothers you the only conclusion I can come to is that you've seriously over-sexualized everything. That's the sort of attitude that gets us rules banning an unrelated adult from hugging a crying child and results in men being unable to be in a pl

What on there is "New and innovative"? Spot Checks is the active component there that isn't done in some way right now. I suppose it is doable, but not really any different than the visits DEs are supposed to be doing with all units. Since CSA isn't something that happens where anyone else can see, I'm not sure how a spot check would be useful unless you are just looking to see if a pack/troop/crew is just violating "2 Deep" or "no one on one" as a matter of standard practice. Zero Tolerance is almost never a good plan anywhere I've ever heard of it being the rule of the day. Unl

My biggest problem whenever this topic comes up in a forum or article is with the headings. The heading is always "Increasing Youth Protection standards" or "Improving Youth Protection Training standards", but I have yet to see anyone offer a convincing argument about there being something insufficient about the basic Youth Protection rules within the BSA. All this heading does, when coupled with information about the 80k filings is give the impression that the BSA is still at step one with regard to implementing safety rules as opposed to being 40 years in. What people usually end up d

Well, typically, prior results have no relevance to a current risk assessment (other than as a comparison) if the underlying conditions have changed significantly enough. If a particularly significant risk factor for a particular problem (say: one on one contact and CSA) has been mitigated then the statistical results from before the mitigating actions were taken are no longer relevant to assessing the current risk. Of course, it's still relevant to determining the effectiveness of the mitigation, but that's a different kind of analysis. Now, I'm not actually arguing that they shouldn't

Yep. I should have known to read the actual language. While it seemed odd to me that a state organization would implement hard and fast rules that would actually apply to organs of the state, I'm totally used to seeing half-baked legislation passed where no one bothered to turn to outside folks and say "Hey, anyone see a problem with this language?" Plus I see there's no teeth in the legislation either. I mean, from time to time during the day, lots of classrooms have two adults, but that's a whole different story from mandating it at all times.

Well, there's some problematic wording. Let's ignore scouts for a second.. How the hell does Newsom think school is going to work? He planning to double the staff in schools by having 2 adults in every classroom?

Usually the debtor organization remains in existence as a zombie more or less while the "new" organization moves on. My understanding is that it functions much like an estate. Well.. They've been putting values on injuries for centuries. I don't think you could really argue that all those valuations have been objectively determined and consistent.

Eh.. I have to wonder what kind of an "appraisal" was really done on that kind of scale. A true appraisal for a specialty property like a summer camp would run $5,000-$7500 minimum here in Michigan and I'm sure it would be higher on the coasts. (not to mention taking 6-8 weeks) Did some attorney or the TCC actually front 5 or 6 million dollars for 850 appraisals to be run? Or more importantly: Is 15% of all LCs a greater amount than 30%-50% of just the LCs that are in open window states? I think the other assumption is that LC finances look the same as a for-profit bus

No, probably not. Most of these camps aren't selling for use as camps, they are selling to be logged and then developed, or even just developed. Eh.. I have to think it's a little bit of both. Outside of a new dining hall my troop's primary camp was entirely unchanged from the time I was a scout until my son was. (so about 25 years) That's an awfully long time for a camp to exist with next to zero capital improvements. And even the dining hall only got replaced because a couple trees fell on the old one during a storm. But during all that time, summer camp attendance h

Moderator Note: And with that we are going to need to let the discussion of contingency fees die folks. That horse was beaten nigh unto to a puddle a few months ago and the most recent few posts have recapped that discussion pretty much in its entirety so anyone who might not have seen it can see the main points now.

So your response to the fact that many schools have a crazy and impossible to manage definition of bullying is to expand that definition to Scouts too? There's a twisted sort of logic in there, but man... That's like arguing that kids with mandatory school uniforms should have to wear a uniform all the time because we don't want them to be stressed out by having to switch between school clothes and home clothes. My experience with my son is that while the official "rules" do have objective standards for bullying, there is a solid contingent of folks who will bend the definitions into

Functionally speaking, when an organization goes through bankruptcy it ceases to exist (or goes on only as a trust fund). What comes out the other side is a completely new organization that just happens to have the same name and some of the same assets. (barring a few select circumstances that can re-link the two organizations) I don't think your appraisal of people is realistic either. I've spent 20 years working with "the public" via phone calls, letters, mailings and in person visits. Even fairly intelligent people are regularly unwilling to read more than a few lines of a letter