ThenNow

16 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

Stats are the current dead pony, I believe. Names was another carcass that has been descended upon by a wake of buzzards. A new one of the same name and nature will drop from the sky shortly. And, for the record and as to the wake, I refer not members of my profession, but the actual raptors, so please don’t fine me.

Sorry sir, I am far to simple to understand your prose. Though I have no doubt it is well intended. 

1) At the time of that posting, the debate was over the release of statistics;

2) Prior to that, IV Files and names were being bludgeoned, er, discussed and whipped to a pulp (beating a dead horse);

3) Said items in #2, above, were so trampled upon by so many words that they were starting to smell, attracting birds that pick clean dead carcasses;

4) I was thinking the debate over releasing IV Files and names would “circle back,” once the metaphoric activities in #3 had been completed (since stats became the issue, #2 was allowed to lay out in the hot son (was neglected for a time, attention being diverted elsewhere); and 

5) The birds referenced in #3, as originally posted, were called “buzzards.” I meant the real creatures and not what some were previously calling members of the profession that works on their craft in front of the bar. By that I mean attorneys, not my Irish uncle who whittles leprechauns while sitting in a lawn chair in front of O’Malley’s.

Moderators: You know I LOVE to banter, bloviate and blather, but I think we are getting nowhere (slowly) and some are reacting so quickly that substantive comments by some who are being thoughtful (even agreeing) are getting buried under the frenzy. I like it, but how to reign it in a smidgeon? Send it to a tag-team cage match thread? I think there’s a lot of “let’s wait and see” that we need to agree to adopt. Just me. I want to hear more about the 72 hour food drop experience. I’m intrigued.

1 minute ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Meaning some scout will not take a shower any more often that every 72 hours. I think that is a generous count, some will try to make through the entire week. 

As I have heard often, swimming is not showering/bathing. 

Again, where is my, “You missed the joke, my brother,” emoji?  

9 minutes ago, MikeS72 said:

There are times that I think many scouts think the 72 hour rule is the minimum time between showers when at summer camp.

What do you mean by, “showers/showering at summer camp”? 

26 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Being a fly on the wall, with a recorder of some kind, in any lunch break area in any school, even elementary, might turn ears blue.

My sister was an ELL teacher to international students of various countries of origin. She heard things she’d never heard and never wanted to hear, and she’s two years older than I am. As a Catholic school product, we had a course and book entitled, Becoming A Person. We had an even more detailed marital intimacy course in Catholic prep school. If you didn’t talk with friends, you probably didn’t understand the material and the classes would have been worse for it. I’m sure there’s a line somewhere, but I wouldn’t want to be the one asked to carve it into granite.

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

Patrol Method has proven itself over 100  years all over the world. To break that up because of a very broad blanket statement that that 50% of the BSA abuse cases are from youth would be ridiculous.

Having spent about 8.5 years in Scouting - I was a disgruntled and unchallenged Cub, etc. and ditched it early on until I could join Boy Scouts. I could not abide a Den Mother. Sorry - I can’t image the absence of the Patrol Method. This has nothing to do with my thoughts and commentary on YPT, just the nature of Scouting for me. I, too, am keen to see the data on this 50/50 assertion. Not saying I don’t buy it, but all of the info needs to be made available by someone. Back to Mr. Johnson’s Mr. Anderson, I’m wondering if MJ has a file or ten full of stuff on which he needed legal cover prior to full release. Dunno. My brain is overactive, but from my experience and training, that is a logical step. He made a bunch of allegations to be walking out on a newly ice-over, frozen looking pond. Meesa wondering, not saying it’s so. Just sayin...

14 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

14 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

Not likely to find that. Document retention requirements were not as robust back then, and even the current strongest requirements would not require maintaining a document that long. 

But my understanding is that BSA started indemnifying CO's around '73 or '76 or so. 

I've been able to track down annual charter agreements from the 1920s and 1950s just via google. I'm sure a circa 1970 charter agreement is sitting on some shelf in BSA HQ or in some filing cabinet somewhere.

My abuse started in ‘72 and ended when I left in ‘79. I’m just looking for some of the lingo about CO role and responsibilities. I have some, but don’t want to misstate, misstep, misfire or misrepresent. 

2 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

IMHO nothing changed yesterday. We got Mr. Johnson's side of why he left, the rest we knew or strongly suspected.

Who be “we”? You got a mouse in yer pocket? (Nod to my Gramps.) But seriously folks, do you mean Scouters, the general public, this forum, survivors, the bankruptcy mediation parties, Scouts and Scouting parents or…? “Help, Mr. Wizard! Stop this crazy thing…!!”

12 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

I want hard evidence of that data.  At the very,very least, a release of names and contact information of the NEC and National Executive Board (as of when he left would give us a start). 

Based on how things were couched in that presser, nothing is coming out until everyone is under oath in one form or another. He has an attorney. They have oodles of attorneys. No blanks being filled in without them being read in and bills being rung up.

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. 

Bam. Thank you, Miracle Max! You’re the man. You win a nice MLT on the house!

29 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Jeff Anderson, Mr. Johnson’s lawyer

Lest we skip over this simple five word line, there is clearly more to be revealed. I, for one, am most intrigued, even while mostly dead. Is “Mr. Anderson” merely his shield or also his sword. Hmmm....

7 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Over the years, I have become more aware of how the BSA "professional" side operates, and have grown more and more uncomfortable with their modus operandi.  Johnson's revelations yesterday only confirmed my interpretations of negative experiences accumulated.

I have no clue how you guys put up with this for years and years and years on end. I know. I know. Love for kids and love of Scouting, but good Lord. 

11 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

In sum, civil litigation and the threat of civil litigation is the ONLY thing that has prompted BSA to move on this subject in the last 3 decades.

See, for reference, the brilliant note by the ancient philosopher that the failure of 🥕 🥕 🥕  leads one to search for and deploy big sticks. 

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

.tinfoil hat on for the morning...

Do you take it off to make your dinner and re-don it once it cools? Charred side in or out? Inquiring minds...

With permission:

Former Boy Scouts’ Head of Abuse Prevention Says Group Is Still Unsafe for Kids

Michael Johnson’s accusations come as the Boy Scouts solicit votes for a bankruptcy settlement from more than 82,200 men over childhood sexual abuse

Michael Johnson, former youth protection director of the Boy Scouts of America, said the group remains a ‘high-risk organization for child sexual abuse.’ Mr. Johnson held his post for over 10 years.

Soma Biswas

Updated Oct. 12, 2021 6:06 pm ET

The former youth protection director of the Boy Scouts of America accused the organization of failing to fix its system for protecting children from sexual predators, allegations that come as the group lobbies thousands of sex-abuse victims to support a settlement offer to end its bankruptcy.

The allegations of Michael Johnson, who left the Boy Scouts in December, come at a sensitive time for the youth group, which is seeking the votes of sex-abuse survivors for a bankruptcy restructuring that would resolve 82,200 claims of childhood abuse. Votes are due by mid-December on the settlement offer, one of the largest sex-abuse compensation plans ever.

Mr. Johnson, in a letter addressed to Congress, said the Boy Scouts continue to be a “high-risk organization for child sexual abuse” and do “not meet an acceptable standard of care to assure parents and communities that children in the organization are safe from sexual abuse.”

He said the Boy Scouts also fail to prevent sexual abuse incidents committed by other youth, doesn’t properly screen adult volunteers and leaders and “continues to minimize the significance of child sexual abuse risk in the program.”

A retired Plano, Tex., police detective, Mr. Johnson was hired as the youth protection director in 2010 to put programs in place to respond to and prevent sexual exploitation. That same year, a Portland jury issued an $18.5 million award against the Boy Scouts in a landmark sex-abuse case that would shed light on the youth group’s knowledge of suspected incidents of sexual abuse.

Mr. Johnson’s letter, dated Oct. 6, said known offenders are still volunteering in the youth group and have access to young people.

A Boy Scouts spokesman said on Tuesday that Mr. Johnson was the architect of the expert-informed policies the youth group has implemented to keep children safe, put in place over his more than 10 years of service.

“Today, Scouting is safer than ever before,” the spokesman said. “We are disappointed to hear Mr. Johnson’s characterization of the program he spearheaded and the concerns he raised, especially given his past public support for the robust measures the [Boy Scouts] instituted at his recommendation.”

At a press conference on Tuesday, however, Mr. Johnson said he was excluded from key meetings on policies on abuse prevention while he was at the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts have acknowledged past failures to protect children and apologized to abuse survivors, while saying that current abuse-prevention protocols are among the strongest of comparable youth-focused nonprofit groups.

Mr. Johnson’s letter said the organization still fails to sufficiently screen both adult and youth volunteers and leaders, and to fully inform families of incidents. He said the Boy Scouts lack access to files on known offenders kept by troop-chartering organizations that administer and support most scouting activities.

The letter also called attention to the “large number of youth-on-youth sexual abuse within scouting.”

Mr. Johnson said he was asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement when he left the Boy Scouts “in exchange for a large sum of money,” and refused.

The Boy Scouts said his employment was terminated “as part of a difficult but necessary reduction in force” resulting from the bankruptcy restructuring. Like other eligible employees whose positions were eliminated, “Mr. Johnson was offered a severance package that, as standard practice, included a nondisclosure agreement and a nondisparagement clause,” the spokesman said.

Jeff Anderson, Mr. Johnson’s lawyer, said in an interview Tuesday that the Boy Scouts made progress on its screening policies after he joined, but over time the organization pushed back against many of his recommendations and it became evident to him that it was not sincere. Mr. Anderson also represents hundreds of claimants in the bankruptcy case and said he is against the Boy Scouts’ settlement plan.

At the press conference on Tuesday at which he was accompanied by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Johnson said he “tried, but could not make the needed changes within the organization.”

The Boy Scouts have offered $1.8 billion, plus the rights to additional insurance, to make peace with abuse survivors and shield itself from future litigation. Funding for the compensation plan comes from the Boy Scouts and hundreds of local councils, as well as insurance proceeds and a settlement with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The proposed deal needs the approval of at least two-thirds of the survivors who filed claims in the bankruptcy case and a judge’s approval in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., where the Boy Scouts sought protection in Feb. 2020.

Many abuse survivors are getting conflicting advice on the bankruptcy plan. It has the support of a coalition of law firms representing the bulk of the abuse victims, but it is opposed by an official committee tasked with looking out for the interest of all survivors.

Under the proposal, victims’ claims would be valued at anywhere from $3,500 to $2.7 million each depending on the severity of the abuse suffered, where it took place and whether suspicions about the perpetrator had been reported to the Boy Scouts. Plan opponents have said the settlements aren’t enough to cover abuse liabilities, which they believe are higher than the Boy Scouts’ estimate of between $2.4 billion and $7.1 billion.

8 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I know a man who was convicted (wrongfully) of murder, later exonerated and released, who petitioned BSA to be removed from IVF.  The answer was "No." 

Image before ethics.

What was the IVF entry on him? Did BSA create it on their own initiative subsequent to the initial conviction? Upon hearing the charges? Was the arrest in any way related to BSA? I’m not poking, just asking because a better understanding of the facts will help me ponder and respond. Or, ponder and don’t respond, just hit one of those little buttons of which I’m glad someone else noted there are far too few to cover the range of emotions and reactions evoked by posts on this forum. Anyway...

8 hours ago, MYCVAStory said:

But there's still a part of me that wants to say "Thank you Mr. Johnson, but I wish you hadn't waited a decade to speak up."

I hear that and I agree. For me, I had no idea there was a current or former Director of Youth Protection (or YPT for that matter until late 2019). During the live feed viewing of his remarks, all I could take in from Mr MJ, through my tears, was someone (anyone) who is, was or had been officially part of BSA National saying they are “sorry” and “we failed you…I failed you.” If BSA leaders knew the power and impact that had/has, they would have at least gone to acting classes to up gin up some tears before the 2.18.2020 announcement. Their attorneys would’ve benefited their case by having a morsel of even a slight hint of compassionate consideration, as well. Ms. Lauria has been ice since that infamous day in Delaware. (“You’re as cold as ice. You’re willing to sacrifice our…” dignity in the name of financial expediency?) As I said previously, I believe the worm may have turned on this pivot. We shall see. I hope so. TCC time…

7 hours ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I think it is fairly standard across states that murder 1 requires premeditation. 

We had a very lively exchange on the topic of regular old Murder v. “Soul Murder” back in the good ol’ days on the forum. How much child sexual predation lacks premeditation? Not much. Is the murder of a soul left to fester within the victim any less murderous? When I used the term “soul murder” (not of my coinage), I was immediately rebuffed with the comment, “show me the body.” To which I said, “I have the body right here. I’ve been dragging it around with me for 50 years.” Premeditated child sexual abuse is soul murder in the first degree, and there are lesser degrees of soul murder following behind. Is a life lost of the same impact of a life tortured from within? I don’t know, but I like discussing and debating it. There is great value in this multi-dimensional dialogue. Well, there is to me and society at large, I believe. 

I’ve asked this before and will try again, since COs are implicated in all of this. Does anyone have a copy or substantive excerpts from the 1970’s agreements?

8 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I like it. Good luck. Your response is much more Scout like than mine would be.

I’ve refrained from reciting that which has percolated through my brain for the last 20+ years. There are those in my inner circle who don’t know or care what “Scout-like” is, means or implies. They have their own ideas about justice. I don’t advocate what that entails and have quelled the conversations around it. There will be a reckoning, however. When and what it looks like I don’t know. I may never see it this side of the dirt nap. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/former-employee-says-boy-scouts-of-america-is-safer-but-not-for-kids/ar-AAPr1Lj

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

That is not even an option for most as the SOL expansion laws are for civil laws only.

A guy’s gotta have a dream. I may have to settle for all his assets, including his home, which I will bulldoze and replace with a monument and meditation garden dedicated to abused scouts. 

1 minute ago, skeptic said:

"I want to nail as many predators to the wall as we can".  That I would hope few if any here would have issue with.  Trouble is, it does not seem to be the main goal, as of course, most, if even alive, have little to take, other than their freedom. 

I have an idea! Join us in state by state SoL reform by passing Victims RIghts Acts, to include criminal SoLs. That’s how we get them. I’m locked and loaded and waiting for the day. Maybe then he’ll take that photo of 13 year old me off his Fb page.

3 minutes ago, HelpfulTracks said:

I don't think that is what he meant. 

I think he is saying if MJ gives a deposition he will be able to name names, dates and meeting at which his efforts were blocked by BSA.

Sorry. Yes. I was referring to the previous comments which precipitated my comments which precipitated his comments prior to me precipitating your comments. I’m sure I should’ve quoted someone else or some other post. There’s a lot of precipitation on my screen and I misplaced my squeegee. Things are hazy.

13 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I guarantee that’s coming up in a deposition: which BSA executives and officials blocked Johnson‘s inquiries. Names. Dates. Meetings.

So, until it’s fully known, I recommend no one infer or imply he’s a coward or ineffectual as a leader. 

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

The fact that he didn't speaks to a failure on Johnson's, not BSAs.

Some here have gone on and on about threats to leadership being the reason names at certain levels (boards, I recall) are not available to the public and the troops (small ‘t’) on the ground. Did you hear his comment about his family? Does he look to be the sort who is easily cowed, pushed around or running for the really big guys to protect him? I want to know more about that somewhat thrown away line. Was he referring to within the organization or without? Both?