johnsch322

8 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

This could be devastating to the local councils and to the BSA.  Should these predictions occur, I predict the collapse of Scouting in a few years.

TCC has consistently had the message that they want the BSA to survive.

TCC press release and I agree!!

https://www.pszjlaw.com/newsroom-news-boy-scouts-claimants-reject-settlements.html

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

What was the nature and extent of the injury?  Do people sign waivers prior to such adventures? Did s/he? Anyone else injured on this Indiana Jones reenactment? As in, prior knowledge and reporting/disclosure?  

Welcome back!!

57 minutes ago, MattR said:

Are we sure about this? 600 hundred months is 5000 years.

Not quite....50 years.

19 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Here is why Kosnoff is important. He is loud. He is the center of a lot of attention. And due to the requirement that 2/3rds of claimants have to approve the BSA bankruptcy deal, he may enough leverage with victims to ensure the vote never reaches 2/3rds.

And then there most likely a cramdown and a rush to courthouses and he can get any of his clients who live in an SOL state their cases in front of a judge and a jury.  Then many LC's and CO's whom he believes have much more to give will find themselves giving more than they currently are.

4 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

That is my general fear... and why I called it, "salting the earth". 

To be fair his tweets may have a negative affect on scouting.  It may make parents think twice about having their children part of a scouting organization. But it also may have a positive effect.  It may prompt government legislation to oversee and investigate. It might make parents who have children in scouting to be more vigilant and act more proactively about child abuse.  If you listen to the interview he gave in which the link was posted in this forum you will hear him talk about the history of the abuse, the effects of the abuse and possible solutions for further abuse and lastly the possibility of the eradication of BSA in the form that it is today. I don't believe he is trying to put the spotlight on himself (ego) but rather on the problem and what he wants for his clients.  As a disclaimer he is not my representation in this bankruptcy.

27 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

That was precisely the point I was trying get across the bow. 

I don't believe he was invited into mediation.  His representation in the current RSA would be in front of the trustee for his clients.  He has begged to be deposed by the insurers.

2 hours ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Holy moral equivalency Batman! 🙃

Did those other organizations amass a fortune by pulling on people's heartstrings by saying, "look how your money is helping these sweet little kids"... while simultaneously covering up the carnage of predators that were preying on those same little kids?

And since you keep harping on "should they only make $1" ... fine, I'll take the bait... here is what would get me signing a different tune. If the "current" BSA folks wanted to win me over with their "new and approved sainthood"... I would say the CEO should be compensated at about $350K per year, plus have a "modest budget" for expenditures on things relative to his functional position. That would show me he is in it for "the kids". At cool $1M, nope... that is ludicrous considering we have scouting families that barely get by and still what little they have left over to make scouting happen in their communities. Honestly, I would feel ashamed to have that kind of salary knowing what my organization did, in addition to the fact that it is currently going through bankruptcy, and that I should be doing everything I could to win back public support. Getting paid $1M doesn't exactly say, "sorry for a century of carnage... we promise to do a better job if you let us continue..."

While it is less than the other CEOs in the other organizations you keep propounding for your moral equivalency argument, it sure ain't a minimum wage salary. 

To be fair to the current CEO he was brought in after the sh_t hit the fan.  1 Million may not have been enough to have me take the job. Well on second thought $1,000,001 works for me).

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Yep, as is your "right" to mass down vote every post made by myself and @johnsch322 or whoever else you want to target. If petty little down vote/internet "points" is the only response you are capable of and the only thing you care about, so be it.

I personally welcome anyone who wishes to disagree with me to do so.  The only thing that I ask is for an explanation why.  I may be wrong and I am not afraid to admit when I am.  All of this is a learning experience for me. I am appreciative of what most people have to say hear and I love when I see facts and figures.  I also reserve the right to disagree with anyone on this forum but I will as best as I can to let you know why.

I would like to point out something to the dedicated scouters/leaders on the forum.  The biggest threat to the BSA/Scouting as you know it is not the Tim Kosnoff or the majority of the claimants lawyers it is the insurance company's.  The longer that they object to everything (validity of claims etc.) and refuse to settle the more money BSA is bleeding from legal fees.  If it comes down to no money available a cramdown will become necessary for the survival of National. If the cramdown cones into effect the LC's will be left hanging as there will be a rush in all of the SOL states to the courthouse.  When other states open up and have SOL's more claims will be filed (and it is only a matter of time before that happens).  The amounts that will be awarded will cause most of those LC's to have to go bankrupt themselves.

35 minutes ago, SSScout said:

Shame on the prior leadership for hoping the problem would go away if ignored and not criminally addressed. 

It wasn't covered up because they thought it would go away...it was covered up because they did not want BSA's reputation tarnished which would have made it harder to raise money.  Funny how it always comes down to the money i.e. they sacrificed boys mental health and lives for the sake of the almighty dollar.

45 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

NOT TRUE!

In this interview https://dianerehm.org/shows/2019-08-20/a-moment-of-reckoning-for-the-boy-scouts-of-america-and-a-history-of-sexual-abuse  .

He stated he wanted the complete dissolution of the BSA and IF something like Scouting is still needed, it starts from scratch.

Again the IF it is still needed, from the tone of the response, he doesn't believe Scouting is needed. 

 

 

 

Let me first thank you for posting the link but I think That your "NOT TRUE" is quite false.  He gave dissolution as a possible scenario but wasn't adamant about it.  He did say clean house but I am pretty sure he meant new leadership.  After listening to the interview I actually have more respect for him.  It totally reinforces my view that he is not in this for the money (though everyone likes to be paid) but instead is looking out for the survivors and for future youth.

29 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

Just talking out loud here....

I see it as indiscriminate lack care for collateral damage (i.e., the current scouts). How can we salvage anything with what's left if Total Warfare Tim K. is "salting the earth"? I think 99.9999% of the good folks in this forum agree that BSA needs to do the right thing by compensating the victims from its trail of carnage... and, most of us also agree that BSA is not scouting. However, if it is burned to the ground and people are dancing around the ashes afterwards claiming total victory... how do we think 12-year old Johnny is going to feel when he realizes what has happened? Sure, there may be other organizations that fills the void... but I believe the killing of BSA, if that happens, will hit these kids harder than most people think. Ultimately, my concern is always to protect kids... they are innocent and don't deserve to get caught in the middle of adults fighting. If BSA goes away, how do you break that to a 15-year old Life Scout that was a few merit badges shy of Eagle Scout? "sorry buddy, the BSA did some pretty bad stuff way before you were born and so it had to go away. I know you've dedicated half your life to scouting and to becoming an Eagle Scout... but that's no longer in the cards". Of course, this is all conjecture... but hopefully you get my point. As an adult, with a fully developed pre-frontal cortex, I know BSA is not the same thing as scouting. But to a kid who has "Boy Scouts of America" on his shirt... I think it's gonna be hard helping him cope with an aftermath that doesn't allow him to continue his journey towards Eagle Scout. 

Whatever will happen is anyone's guess at this point... but... Tim K. can win without salting the earth in the process. 

That is a lot of hyperbole.  I haven't seen any burning to the ground or salting the earth before the courts.  You may see me dance though if I receive a fair and equitable settlement.  Protecting kids or the lack of protection is why BSA is in the mess that it finds itself in.  If some how BSA went into Chapter 7 you personally believe in the Scouting life and then I think you should say to 12 year old Johnny or the 15 year old life Scout that the dissolution of the BSA is not the end of the world and pales in comparison what happened to 13 year old John. You can always try to resurrect Scouting and it doesn't have to have the name BSA.  I hope you get my point because if BSA does go Chapter 7 (and I personally don't think it will) those boys will need you.

17 minutes ago, Gilwell_1919 said:

and I got the impression that Tim K. was more interested in a "General Sherman total warfare" approach wherein winning and the decimation of BSA was more important than considering what could be salvaged afterwards. 

I couldn't disagree more.  I believe he cares more about survivors than he does in the institution known as the BSA.  He will leave the salvaging of BSA to those who believe it can be salvaged.

5 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Also, John, you didn’t use the high-end of the statistics - 100 per abuser or 1 in 6 men abused - for the calculations did you? That’s right. You did not. 

As to multiple multiple, as abuse if defined in the POC and in the Tiers of Abuse, my abuser hit 8 the first night of my very first BSA campout. He went down the row of 4, 2-Scout tents tossing in a pair of cold Old Style and a porn mag to share. That was campout one. I was in the Troop from ‘72-‘79. (I was an unhappy Cub Scout prior to that, so about 7ish years total. I don’t have the Cub start date listed anywhere.) 

You are right. If I had used 1 in 6 or 100 per abuser the doubting Thomas’s would have had a field day. I wanted to show that even using watered down stats that the 82,500 number was a number way to low. 

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The question is ... is this channel about the legal case?  Or do you want to re-hash and debate the past.  Many of us believe though BSA had bad incidents, BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little.

The answer to this question is within what you wrote "BSA was trying to do something when the rest of society was ineffective and doing little." What BSA was doing was ineffective (unless maybe you count the last 10 or 15 years).  If it was effective there would be less claimants/victims.  Also there would be no bankruptcy if there was minimal amounts of abuse.  The small numbers that BSA believed they had drove them into thinking bankruptcy and then the volume came forward. 

18 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

For example, the one I question significantly now is about abusers have hundreds of victims.  BSA case files show some with multiple.  (not sure number or percent ... @ThenNow has a pretty clear example of multiple multiple).  But, I've not seen files that reflect hundreds.  I've seen few BSA IVF files with more than a few.  Even recent cases.  Yet, I've read of cases of roller skating teachers that have hundreds of victims (one guy bragged of 200+ ???) ... 

If a roller skating teacher bragged of having having 100's of victims what would make an abuser in the BSA any different?  Larry Nasser in gymnastics had 100's.  I am not saying that all of them had hundreds and I acknowledge that some had maybe 1.  One of my abusers had at least 11 according to the IVF and nobody asked me if I had been abused.  I would find it hard to believe my case is an anomaly. 

16 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

 

Yup. That’s what I’m talkin’ about, Willis. Now we’re cooking with Hickory!

On my Traegar!!

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

We want you to prove that 82,500 claims of child sexual abuse over the 100+ years of Scouting is a fairytale concocted by bad lawyers and fraudsters.

To have only 82000 victims the stat would have to be 1 in 1400 which would be a fairytale

31 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

1) Statistics indicate sexual abusers abuse approximately 100 victims in their period of active predation. Remember, sexual abuse is not limited to touching. It starts at elements that constitute “grooming” (did I just babble?), distribution of alcohol and pornography, and, etc.;

7000 known abusers with 25 victims is 175,000 with 50 is 350,000 which is a nightmare. So what would the stat for how many were caught vs got away with it?  Lets say 1 in 4 were caught that would be between 700,000 to 1.4 million a bigger nightmare.

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

2) The stat is 1 in 6 men will be sexually abused. For our purposes, let’s say it’s 1 in 12;

lets try 1 in 100 and then maybe 1 in 300

18 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

3) BSA has had 115M minor Scouts since inception; and

At 1 in 100  115 M scouts =1,150,000 victims

At 1 in 200 115 M scouts = 575,000 victims

At 1 in 300 115 M scouts = 383,333 victims

Wow

7 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

So how did at least 2 abusers get into my troop? - Did either have family in your troop?  Were either former youth members of the troop?  Not knowing the time frame, could also have been due to not having the background check system now in place; or could also have been due to having no prior record to show in a background check.  Could also have been a case of a CoR just signing off on them without checking references.  (although they would have to have been exceptionally stupid to list someone as a reference who would have incriminating information on them)

The abuse happened in the late 60's and neither had relatives in the troop.  

8 hours ago, MikeS72 said:

The IVF may not have been the best system in the world, but it was an attempt to keep people out of the program.

The IVF was reactive and not proactive.  Maybe slightly better than nothing but looking at what happened thru that period of time it was ineffective to keep the abusers at bay.

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

So, you want a disclosure statement at sign up saying that "your scout may be sexually abused"?

This, by the way, is the information currently on the registration form.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406.pdf

Youth Protection Begins With You™. Child abuse is a serious problem in our society, and
unfortunately, it can occur anywhere, even in Scouting. Youth safety is of paramount importance to Scouting.
For that reason, the BSA continues to create and consistently improve its barriers to abuse.
The BSA is committed to providing a safe environment for young people. To maintain a safe environment, the BSA
provides parents and adult leaders with numerous online and printed resources and adult leaders must complete
Youth Protection Training (YPT) and renew their training as required. Parents who participate in Scouting activities
are highly recommended to complete YPT. To learn more about the BSA’s Youth Protection resources, go to
www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/.
Mandatory Reporting
All persons involved in Scouting must immediately report to local authorities any good-faith suspicion or belief that
any child is or has been physically or sexually abused; physically or emotionally neglected; exposed to any form of
violence or threat; or exposed to any form of sexual exploitation including the possession, manufacture, or distribution
of child pornography, online solicitation, enticement, or showing of obscene material. No person may abdicate this
reporting responsibility to any other person.
Additionally, any known or suspected abuse or behavior that might put a youth at risk must also be reported to the
local Scout executive or the Scouts First Helpline (1-844-SCOUTS1 or 1-844-726-8871) if your Scout executive or
local council cannot be reached.
All parents must review the How to Protect Your Children From Child Abuse: A Parent’s Guide booklet in the
Cub Scout or Scouts BSA handbooks or at www.scouting.org/training/youth-protection/.
Youth Protection Policies
• Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings.
There must be a registered female adult leader over 21 in every unit serving females. A registered female adult
leader over 21 must be present for any activity involving female youth.
• One-on-one contact between adult leaders and youth members is prohibited both inside and outside of Scouting.
These and other key Youth Protection policies are addressed in the training and at www.scouting.org/training/
youth-protection/.
To learn about the BSA’s other health and safety policies, please review the online version of the Guide to Safe
Scouting, the Scouter Code of Conduct, and the Sweet Sixteen of BSA Safety, which are available at www.scouting.
org/health-and-safety

That is better.  I went and looked at the form.  Do you know when it was first written on an application like that?  That form was from 2018 I think.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

That's what we've told him over and over and over. That 82,500 is NOT a scientifically valid count of total amount of scouts abused. It is, at best, a count of total number of SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS FILED IN THIS PARTICULAR BANKRUPTCY. And that is ALL it is.

The message just is not getting through.

More than one message isn't getting thru.

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

the identified number for the BSA is 130 M / 82,000 = 0.06%

When was this study done?  Because there was 82,000 claims does not mean that is all who were abused.

3 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Well, there is info in every handbook. It is required to be covered in every cub rank and at least 2x in Scouts. It goes on and on about how abuse happens and how to prevent it.

So, other than putting it on all flyers, it is pretty well covered. 

100-015.pdf (scouting.org)

 

But a disclosure in a handbook would be after the fact of signing up.  How about a disclosure when signing up that had to be signed by the parent? And one every year after?