Rules revisited

[Fat Old Guy 11]

This thread was spun from another thread.A while back there was a discussion about the need for so-called artifical rules with some arguing that rules are never needed because all is covered by the Scout Law.

 

In my continuing quest to build a collection of Scouting literature, I have discovered that BSA doesn't agree with those thoughts or they didn't as of 1997.

 

With the nifty old OA hanbook, I also picked up a 1997 edition of "The Scoutmaster Handbook." On page 127, in the section "What to do About Bedtime" it says, "Make sensible rules about bedtime . . . and use the patrol leaders to enforce the rules>" (emphasis mine).

 

Interesting, no?

[Proud Eagle 13]

But that was SEVEN YEARS AGO. You may as well bring up something from the ancient days of BP.

[evmori 11]

Excellent point!

[Eamonn 61]

Baden Powell Quotes:

"The object of the patrol system is mainly to give real responsibility to as many of the boys as possible with a view to developing their character."

I tend to think that a big book of rules does little to give responsibility to anyone.

BP Again:

"To get first class results you have to give the boy leaders real free-handed responsibility. If you only give partial responsibility you will only get partial results"

Free handed responsibility ? I don't see much room for that book of rules.

BP Again:

"Trust should be the basis for all moral training."

I see no rule book.

Take a look at Aids to Scoutmastership 1920.

"The Scoutmaster guides the boy in the spirit of an older brother..

He has simply to be a boy-man, that is:

(1)He must have the boy spirit in him: and must be able to place himself in the right plane with his boys as a first step.

(2)He must realise the needs, outlooks and desires of the different ages of boy life.

(3)He must deal with the individual boy rather then the mass.

(4)He then needs to promote a corporate spirit among his individuals to gain the best results.

Yes Sir Baden Powell was way ahead of his time.

Eamonn(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Eamonn 61]

Drat the double posting.

Eamonn(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"Take a look at Aids to Scoutmastership 1920."

 

Sorry but 1997 trumps 1920. :-)

 

Or we could follow the lead of Bob White and declare that old books are invalid and have no value in today's world.

 

 

[Eamonn 61]

We could dig up all sorts of old books to try and make the point that we want to make. Still at the end of the day we are better off if we use the material that is current.

Your 1997 Handbook and the 1920 Aids To Scoutmastership are fine and dandy but the program we strive to deliver is todays program.

Eamonn

[Sturgen 10]

Why strive to promote todays modern PC program? Because some fool in Irving says to? Ought not we strive for BPs goals? If none of you have notice Boy Scouts at the world level has been disfigured from its original program into a bumbling bunch of old men yelling at little kids. True leadership is no longer taught in the vast number of troops, instead it is replaced with lessons in how to take orders. The ignorance of those who believe that because the Texas office decided to publish a book, video, or some other mandate to the troops that that word is gospel astonishes me. Is it not seen that BP built a program to turn boys into quality men based on years of experience internationally in one of the elite world military powers. Who writes these books now? Professional Scouters, to be frank these people, in general, have no where near a quarter of the experience, knowledge or wisdom that the programs founder had. National is notorious for making decisions that are incredibly illogical. I say we need to return to the basics, the program that was set up years ago in England.