Jump to content

This will not end well: Boy Scouts among groups fighting changes to state’s Hidden Predator Act

Recommended Posts

Myriad of issues here, but the headline about fighting changes to state’s Hidden Predator Act is not favorable to the program - 

the Boy Scouts said they “strongly support certain parts of HB 605, which would reform the civil statute of limitations for child abuse giving survivors more time to pursue justice. We do not support it in its current form, however, because it does not strengthen efforts that experts agree can help keep children safe and includes provisions that would hinder the ability of youth-serving organizations to protect the children they serve.”


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article quotes a statement by "the Boy Scouts" (it's unclear whether that is National or a council)  but I wonder if that's the entire statement.  I wish they were more specific about what portions of the bill they oppose and why - or if they did put that in the statement, I wish the newspaper had printed the entire statement.

I think there are other things in the article beside the headline that make the BSA look bad, like:

No entity has worked harder to derail the Hidden Predator Act of 2018 than  the Boy Scouts of America, Spencer said.

It's not really good journalism to quote one person's negative opinion as if it is a fact.  On the other hand, he could be right.  There's not enough in the article for readers to decide for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Journalistic and Political BS.  There is no evidence at all that the lobbyists hired by the BSA are working the halls of the capitol in opposition to this act.  They could be working on many other things.


If only the BSA had some way to confirm what their lobbyists were doing....


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reached out to lobbyists representing each of the organizations opposed to Spencer’s bill but received no response. 

Right... given that... I'm fine assuming BSA is lobbying against this bill for the financial liability reasons outlined in the article until they say otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, part of the issue likely relates to the real possibility of another dragging out of "names and cases" from mining the IVF, something that BSA did that few other groups of any type attempted to monitor.  It is really a bit unfair that BSA's attempt to lessen the likelihood of repeat offenders by keeping the file should later lead to their having to deal with cases long dormant due to numerous factors, including the general method of families, government, and societal responses to these types of things in an earlier time.  BSA by itself could only suggest action by the family or authorities.  If they chose to not pursue it, then why should its simple recording in a file, the like of which few other groups even tried to maintain, suddenly render them open to a reopened case?  Basically, by doing something at the time while others did not, they are now penalized.  Just an opinion, so please refrain from personal attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...