theysawyoucomin' 10 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I hate when units say this is "an unofficial activity". You can't obey half the rules What they should say is, "Insurance is not covering this and the organizers are personally liable, you, "yourself" are on your own." My daughter wants to go to law school but the profession and the current American mindset on liability needs to change. The thought of winning LOTTERY type settlements has to go away. We have had one Patrol camping trip in our Troop in recent memeory. Three kids went and three came back and they had a great time. No attorneys needed for that outing. Problem is they rule both major political parties with an iron fist wrapped around the soft parts of those who govern. Try changing that! This needs to be fought at the highest level. Would a weeklong Patrol leaders course solve the skill and safety question? I would like some scumbag lawyer to write the liability lecture and Kudu to write the rest of the training outline. Link to post Share on other sites
boomerscout 35 Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 I wonder if such merit badges as hiking, cycling, camping, backpacking & survival are going to be done away with? Many times these are done by Scouts alone or with a few buds. If a Scout works on Whitewater, does an adult have to be in the kayak at all times? Patrol cooking will have to be abolished. Scouts could burn their little hands. All cooking will have to be done by Culinary Institute certified chefs. Most of our Scouts go to the same school. If they're caught playing Lazer Tag, would it be deemed a school event? One underlying purpose of Scouting is to teach enjoyable life skills. One such skill is to enjoy the outdoors. If a patrol wants to go camping on their own, then haven't we succeeded? They may need to borrow troop equipment; should that be held against them? Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle1987 10 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Do you want to know why there is Youth Protection? It's because of people like my cubmaster, who thought it was a great idea to play with boys. Oh he finally got caught. About 10 years into his scouting career. He had a wife, 2 daughters and a son. And absolutely no one would have thought that he could be that way. Well guess what? The SOB was a freaking pedophile. He never touched me. I'm pretty sure he knew I would say something. He also knew my mother would make sure he would rot in jail. I'm not sure what he thought of my quiet dad though. I'm thinking when it came to dad, he wouldn't have to worry about rotting in jail. But those are the reasons that we now have to do this. And who really cares. We are here to teach and to safeguard the boys right. Youth protection is just that. It's not for scouters, it's to protect the scouts. Get over whatever it is you need to. But youth protection is here to stay. And as far as I'm concerned, it's a great addition. Link to post Share on other sites
Kudu 186 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 uz2bnowl writes: Would a weeklong Patrol leaders course solve the skill and safety question? I would like some scumbag lawyer to write the liability lecture and Kudu to write the rest of the training outline. Bill Hillcourt's step-by-step "how to hike and camp without adult supervision" Patrol Leader Training is already online: http://inquiry.net/patrol/green_bar/index.htm It is a six-month course that requires a significant investment of the Scoutmaster's time, energy, and insight so as to train each Patrol's most competent natural leader and witness his strengths and weaknesses over time before sending him out with other's people's children. If you view Patrol Leaders as interchangeable parts that can be replaced every six months so that every Scout gets his turn to be a "leader," then you should stick with our current Webelos III program in which adults keep a close eye on skills that require far less competency: like getting a duty roster to work in a small campground with the Patrols kept close together. Kudu Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle92 110 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 Eagle87 said Youth protection is just that. It's not for scouters, it's to protect the scouts. Trust me it's not only for their protection, but adults as well. I know of two instances where a scout lied and accused an adult, because he was ticked off at them correcting him. In the first case, I was with 2 other adults and he was with 3 other youth in the middel of the night. He had the 3 youth going along with him at first and accsuing us of things, but eventually the other three fessed up that they were lying. Second incident didn't have anyone else around. Leader going to the latine in the middle of the night caught the same "scout" doing some stuff. When she corrected him and tried to send him back to the tent, he made a ruckus, accused her of inappropriateness, and she was gone from scouting. Unfortunately that "scout" went on to "earn" Eagle, while the movement lost a very talented and dedicated leader over someone's dishonesty. Link to post Share on other sites
shortridge 184 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 The original topic of this thread - independent patrol outings without adult leadership - doesn't really have anything to do with youth protection. YP guidelines don't prevent a group of Scouts from adventuring on its own. Link to post Share on other sites
Buffalo Skipper 13 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 With no new evidence to support this allegation has emerged, can we conclude that there is no official change in this policy? I have seen nothing here which conclusively eliminates this.... Anyone? Anyone? Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 >> then you should stick with our current Webelos III program Link to post Share on other sites
Kudu 186 Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Does this mean you have come back to the dark side? Ever since White Stag Wood Badge destroyed Bill Hillcourt's "Real Patrols" (unspervised Patrol Outings), Holders of the Wood Badge have used personal attacks to defend the resulting Webelos III Patrol Method: According to White Stag's own Website, Dr. John W. Larson (the Director of Boy Scout Leader Training for the National Council who wrote the first White Stag syllabus for Wood Badge) accused Hillcourt of having a "vested interest." http://www.whitestag.org/history/history.html The dark side, the ad hominem nature of Leadership Development, continues to this day. Perhaps Hillcourt should not have been so nice to the business nerds who destroyed his life work. If not in 1965, then definitely he should have demanded that Leadership Development be driven back out of Wood Badge before stepping in to bail out these "experts" a decade later. Kudu Link to post Share on other sites
theysawyoucomin' 10 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 I would agree this is allowable policy Eagle 1987 --are you in the right thread? Nobody here is endorsing a YP voilation. Please re-read the original comment. YP has nothing to do with this. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now