Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[fred8033 1604]

58 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

Scouting executives quietly blacklisted Brock from ever volunteering again, but let him skirt the accusations by writing a letter of resignation citing only his high blood pressure for quitting.

He was blocked re-registering in the 1970s and 1980s.  The 1968 letter had the SE say they could not ignore the accusations and said it was Brock's actions that led to the result.  For 1968, this seems like it was handled well ... for 1968 ... before computers ... before modern laws.  This sounds like BSA's files worked well.

The one thing that surprised me is no police report.  So so so many of the files do have police reports.  I bet there was not a 1968 chargeable crime.  The 1960s were a long time ago and so much has change.  A lot has changed.  

[johnsch322 529]

BSA Settlement Trust Financials Thru 12/31/23

https://scoutingsettlementtrust.my.salesforce.com/sfc/p/#Dp0000016pkB/a/Uu000000e6l4/QDFa7uyndHmsnfZMMFiAnt0qCKrBIPkLSXKIzLDxTgU

[clbkbx 80]

19 hours ago, fred8033 said:

This sounds like BSA's files worked well.

The BSA doesn’t think so: 

"There have been instances where people misused their positions in Scouting to abuse children, and in certain cases, our response to these incidents and our efforts to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong,"

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html

[fred8033 1604]

55 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

The BSA doesn’t think so: 

"There have been instances where people misused their positions in Scouting to abuse children, and in certain cases, our response to these incidents and our efforts to protect youth were plainly insufficient, inappropriate, or wrong,"

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2012/10/boy_scout_perversion_files_off.html

Ahhh...   That's a logical fallacy to change scope when the judgement shifts.  I was referring to the earlier use of a specific person that where the poster used that person to argue the system failed.  From my reading that specific case file, the system worked.  ... Similarly, an earlier poster says many of the files refer to incidents in the vaguest terms is yet another logical fallacy.  The same files that contain vague references often also contains very specific details and interview notes.  

It's an ugly topic that indites society; not just scouting. 

@skeptic ... I really appreciate the NY Times 1935 article about the IVF files.  Amazing how misrepresented details can be.  

Edited May 1 by fred8033

[johnsch322 529]

19 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

 I was referring to the earlier use of a specific person that where the poster used that person to argue the system failed.  From my reading that specific case file, the system worked. 

"Clyde A. Brock, a 53-year-old bachelor, was twice "called to task" for taking nude photographs of Boy Scouts, displaying them around his Oregon City home, then showing them off to boys who visited. Yet troop leaders didn't kick him out.

Only after two Scouts came forward to say Brock had "relationships with them as well as other members of the troop ...that cannot be condoned" was he expelled from Scouting in 1968.

 

Scouting executives quietly blacklisted Brock from ever volunteering again, but let him skirt the accusations by writing a letter of resignation citing only his high blood pressure for quitting.

Let's see how the system worked:

Twice called to task. Not once but twice,

Troop leaders did not kick him out.

Later had multiple relationships with multiple boys (and we know what that means).

He was not reported to police.

Allowed him to write a letter of resignation.

[fred8033 1604]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

"Clyde A. Brock, a 53-year-old bachelor, was twice "called to task" for taking nude photographs of Boy Scouts, displaying them around his Oregon City home, then showing them off to boys who visited. Yet troop leaders didn't kick him out.

Only after two Scouts came forward to say Brock had "relationships with them as well as other members of the troop ...that cannot be condoned" was he expelled from Scouting in 1968.

 

Scouting executives quietly blacklisted Brock from ever volunteering again, but let him skirt the accusations by writing a letter of resignation citing only his high blood pressure for quitting.

Let's see how the system worked:

Twice called to task. Not once but twice,

Troop leaders did not kick him out.

Later had multiple relationships with multiple boys (and we know what that means).

He was not reported to police.

Allowed him to write a letter of resignation.

Twice called to task for showing bad pictures?  I agree it's extremely in appropriate, but what 1968 law would have applied?  If we look back on 1960s as the era of free love and redefining society, there is way more to this story than can be read here.   And it 100% misses the time and context.  ...  He was expelled when more came forward.  

Yeah, the system worked.  Like so many case law examples, the incidents are ugly and don't show society at it's best.  But, it seems to have worked.  ...  I agree I'd prefer the police were involved.  BUT, that was society in the 1960s.  

I'm more upset with so many groups that kept not reporting even in the 1990s, 2000s and even the last few years.  

[johnsch322 529]

4 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Twice called to task for showing bad pictures? 

"was twice "called to task" for taking nude photographs of Boy Scouts," you need a law to know that was wrong?

"two Scouts came forward to say Brock had "relationships with them as well as other members of the troop" and I know for a fact that the types of relationships he was having was hella illegal, even in the 60's.

[clbkbx 80]

4 hours ago, fred8033 said:

a logical fallacy to change scope

It is pretty clear that the topic is about BSA’s culpability in general. You make an over arching conclusion about that… in the same post where you say you were only talking about one specific example and the goalposts were being moved. 

[clbkbx 80]

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

you need a law to know that was wrong?

And from the Boy Scouts who very prominently purportedly hold themselves to a higher standard! 

[johnsch322 529]

3 hours ago, fred8033 said:

If we look back on 1960s as the era of free love and redefining society,

This statement I can't get out of my mind. I am a child of the 60's having been born in the early 50's. I had long hair, I smoked pot, I questioned authority, and I witnessed and read about all that was going on in that time period. Not once was Free Love about sex with children or taking photos of young boys to satisfy perverted sexual desire it was about consensual sex with consenting adults and not feeling guilty about it. 

[HICO_Eagle 96]

3 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

"was twice "called to task" for taking nude photographs of Boy Scouts," you need a law to know that was wrong?

"two Scouts came forward to say Brock had "relationships with them as well as other members of the troop" and I know for a fact that the types of relationships he was having was hella illegal, even in the 60's.

The thing is neither BSA as a national organization nor the troop involved had standing.  The Scouts involved were the ones who should have filed charges.  The problem for BSA then was that accusations without proof of criminal conduct could have had serious repercussions and exposed the organization to liability.

Put yourself in the SE or TCC shoes -- you have hearsay witness testimony but you don't know this yourself.  You could file a charge with the police but you know the youth and their parents just want it to go away and may not testify.  You know under the laws of the time that he could then sue you and the organization for defamation of character.

At the time, ejecting him and barring his future participation seems like the easy out.

23 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

It is pretty clear that the topic is about BSA’s culpability in general. You make an over arching conclusion about that… in the same post where you say you were only talking about one specific example and the goalposts were being moved. 

Again, when you want to talk about culpability, BSA removed him and prevented him from rejoining.  What more could they do in 1968?  They were not the victims and in many (most?) cases, the youth would not testify or file charges.

21 minutes ago, clbkbx said:

And from the Boy Scouts who very prominently purportedly hold themselves to a higher standard! 

They did hold themselves to a higher standard and they chose to eliminate the threat as best as they (thought they) could.  Saying or insinuating someone had homosexual or bisexual inclinations was a far different matter in 1968 than in 1998 or 2008 or 2018.

[clbkbx 80]

8 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

BSA removed him and prevented him from rejoining

You misunderstood what I was saying: my recent posts are not about one single instance.

[johnsch322 529]

7 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

The thing is neither BSA as a national organization nor the troop involved had standing.  The Scouts involved were the ones who should have filed charges.  The problem for BSA then was that accusations without proof of criminal conduct could have had serious repercussions and exposed the organization to liability.

This is Hooey, When the initial allegations came forward about the nude photos he could have been removed as a member of the BSA period. There is no god given right to be an adult member of BSA. How many young boys could have been saved? 

And they did have standing as he was part of their organization.

13 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

They did hold themselves to a higher standard and they chose to eliminate the threat as best as they (thought they) could.  Saying or insinuating someone had homosexual or bisexual inclinations was a far different matter in 1968 than in 1998 or 2008 or 2018.

Taking nude photos of young boys and having sexual relationships with them is neither homosexuality or bisexuality. How can you possibly say they removed the threat as best they could when after the nude photos came up they allowed him access to children. That is called gross negligence. 

[clbkbx 80]

9 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

They did hold themselves to a higher standard and they chose to eliminate the threat as best as they (thought they) could.  Saying or insinuating someone had homosexual or bisexual inclinations was a far different matter in 1968 than in 1998 or 2008 or 2018.

Now we are talking about BSA in general. 

You are way off on the homosexual vs bisexual comment. The great majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

On whether the Boy Scouts did their best... I don't think I can add anything that will change your mind but note that your description of how an SE or TCC would have analyzed the situation has no mention of doing the right thing and is all about liability and reputation. 

[clbkbx 80]

19 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

many (most?) cases, the youth would not testify or file charges.

I see this idea often, not just from @HICO_Eagle

“The BSA would have done something if only the abused kid would testify.”

First, that’s pretty classic blame the victim. 

Second, in my case in the 90’s, an ASM did raise concerns and was told it was fine and the YP rules were being followed. After several years of abuse I did testify, on my own with the support of my family and zippo from BSA. So it’s always frustrating to read that because in the instance I know, the exact opposite happened. I doubt I’m one in a 100 thousand.

On balance wouldn’t it have been much much better to have been sued for defamation from a false accusation and erred on the side of protecting kids?