David CO

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Years later and I was nearly adult by then. They’re much younger than I am. I would be surprised if I didn’t point that out when I shared this history back when.

I looked back at your March 1 post.  You never mentioned the age difference or your age at the time.  Not all of your posts are as clear as you think they are.  

1 hour ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Again, the end result of this lawsuit will punish the scouts in my unit. They will be the ones stuck with higher fees because of liability insurance. Availability of summer camps will be more limited and more expensive, though one could argue that is a good thing. Etc.

I understand.  I have felt that way for a long, long time about YP.  I know it's not true, but I have still felt that way.

It feels like YP is punishing my scouts.  They didn't cause the problems, so why are their scouting activities being curtailed and restricted.  Why can't they experience the same sort of great scouting program their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed.  It's just not fair.

YP wasn't put in to punish my scouts.  As much as I hate it, I have to admit that it wasn't intended as a punishment.  I can't call YP a punishment.  It does make things difficult and expensive, and it does drive good people out of scouting, but it is not a punishment.

1 hour ago, Owls_are_cool said:

Again, the end result of this lawsuit will punish the scouts in my unit. 

I don't think your scouts are being punished.

26 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

One distinction you and others may be missng is that in our legal system criminal and civil actions have very different purposes.  Criminal actions are where we look for punishment, but civil actions are focused on compensating injured parties. 

That's partly true.  But civil actions can also result in punitive damages.  

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I couldn’t think past that or contemplate that our SM would end up abusing many boys after me. 

That doesn't sound entirely true.  Didn't you state in an earlier post that you prevented your younger brothers from joining the troop?  Didn't you contemplate the possibility that your SM might sexually abuse your brothers?

11 hours ago, jr56 said:

Is passing the abuse forward, by depriving present and future scouts of a scouting program, really the way these folks want to go?  

Yes, it is the way these folks want to go.  I agree with having lawsuits.  There must be a legal way to hold people and organizations accountable.  But I do find it somewhat disingenuous of them to sue the BSA and then state that they don't intend to deprive future kids of scouting opportunities in BSA.  Of course they do.  They understand cause and effect.  They shouldn't pretend that they don't understand the likely effect of the lawsuits.

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I’ve addressed this to the point my face is blue. (Ask one of the other old guys what that means.)

It means he has gone on ancestry.com and determined that he is part Smurf.

9 minutes ago, yknot said:

File photo IDs may be coming soon to a BSA unit near you. 

When it gets to that point, perhaps we should just close it all down and finally admit we can't do scouting anymore.  

9 hours ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Additionally, you also have to provide a drivers license once you get in the school to make sure you are even supposed to be there.  Not look at the picture and say ok, but it is scanned and checked against state databases.

School security measures have increased as a response to school shootings.  It really has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Participating in school, scouting and sports can be a little bit like watching My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Some families are loud, exuberant, and intimidating.  Others are quiet, contemplative, and supportive.  It takes all kinds.  Kids need to recognize and appreciate different temperaments and styles.

I am concerned about how the focus on preventing child abuse often moves away from those things that are obvious forms of child abuse to the nit picking criticisms of other peoples styles, temperaments, and demeanors.  

Scouters should also stop using YP as an excuse for constantly running down sports.  It's getting tiresome.  Give it a rest.

30 minutes ago, yknot said:

no one in their right mind would disagree with you 

Thank you.  I have always thought this.  It is nice to hear somebody finally say it.  

9 hours ago, Owls_are_cool said:

The local scouting organizations I have been a part of have done an excellent job keeping youth safe. Little League baseball has background checks for coaches, do not have the two deep leadership/no one-on-one rules that the BSA has. 

It's true that BSA has more rules than other organizations, but I don't think those extra rules have made kids more safe.  

28 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Yes there are other failure modes such as oversight, enforement, etc.   That's where the analysis could really be beneficial.

I get it.  The elites rule and we obey.  It's an old story.

14 hours ago, fred8033 said:

It's about outside, independent analysis

Independent.  Nameless.  Faceless.  Self-appointed.  Unaccountable.  Wait a minute.  Isn't this the BSA National Council?

14 hours ago, fred8033 said:

 

 

I actually think it's a very good idea.  We have IIHS for automobiles.  We have NTSB for air travel.  

It's not about corporations running our lives.  It's about outside, independent analysis of failures that then produce recommendations.  Call it the NYSB, national youth safety board.  As people want to fly, people also want their kids to be active, experiencing life. 

The very first thing the National Youth Safety Board would outlaw is scouting.  

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

It could provide re-education camps for wayward parents. It’s a recipe for success. 

Absolutely.  The Philmont Family Re-Education Camp.  A great repurposing of a BSA camp.  

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

The insurance companies were not insuring the victims of abuse, they were insuring BSA against their own negligence in allowing the abuse. 

Since our units were paying for the premiums, one might think that we were the ones being covered.  At least that's what we were told when BSA charged us the fee.  Looks like we were covering national's assets, and we will be left twisting in the wind.

We need to remember that these victims of abuse were boy scouts.  Their registration fees paid for those insurance policies.

22 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

"The Mediators have been informed that such mediated discussions have resulted in a settlement between the BSA, on the one hand, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, First State Insurance Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Company and Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (collectively, “Hartford”), on the other hand."

I'm not sure what this means for the councils and CO's.  Are the insurance companies off the hook now when the LC's and CO's are sued under the "toggle" plan?

2 hours ago, skeptic said:

And there is part of the problem.  A small group of people "prefer" that every lurid innuendo is thrown into the public eye.  They do not care about anything but money and media attention.  What is actually fair, balanced, and in the best interest of the greatest number involved does not matter in the least.  

I disagree.  Sometimes the truth is disagreeable and unpleasant.  We still need to be truthful.  Telling the truth about child sexual abuse in BSA is in the best interest of the greatest number.  

1 hour ago, yknot said:

I'm also not sure about the public perception side of this. From a purely public relations standpoint, it would be better to resolve 83,000 claims at once even if some are questionable rather than to fully litigate 1000 or even 100 or maybe even 10 lurid, gut wrenching cases through the court system and mainstream media.  The 83,000 claims are somewhat abstract in the public mind but even just a dozen fully litigated cases, with human victims and damning testimony, is what could really kill scouting for good in the U.S.

I couldn't disagree with you more.  It is important that the truth be told.  I am very disappointed that people had to file lawsuits in order to make the truth public.  I would be even more disappointed if the lawsuits were quickly and quietly settled just to hide the truth again.

Dishonesty is what is killing BSA.  

5 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Truth is we don't know the maturity or life experiences of new scouts, so why assume they aren't trustworthy.

Because the insurance companies say we must?

3 hours ago, elitts said:

Scouting is not based upon the idea that "A Scout is Trustworthy" or that "Boys can be trusted" like it's a promise. 

I disagree.  That is exactly how B-P meant it.  

A scout's honor is to be trusted.  It was both a promise by the scout and a directive to the adults.  Trust them.

3 hours ago, yknot said:

Or have I misunderstood what you are saying? 

You misunderstood.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

If a child who believes in Santa Claus encounters an adult Santa who abuses him or her, what reaction would we expect? Mute incomprehension and confusion would probably be the first reactions, followed by fear, shame, terror, horror... I don't see any actionable requirements on the kids here. They trust the adults around them to keep them safe, or at least that's what we tell them. If victimized, they would expect the adults in their lives to save them. 

Yes.  I totally agree.  A child who is yet of an age to still believe in Santa Clause would probably react just as you say.  Of course, I would never trust that child to go off into the woods, with his little Santa Clause believing friends, utilizing the patrol method, with little parental involvement.  

30 minutes ago, Owls_are_cool said:

The people responsible should be put in prison and/or be forced to pay restitution.

Aren't we responsible for it?  We made assumptions about child behavior that turned out to be untrue.  Don't we have to take some responsibility for our mistakes?