Merlyn_LeRoy

Well then, the BSA's policies are even worse than I thought. It sounds like the council would take the word of one person (Evans) that there would be another adult along. That's no verification at all.

Beavah writes: We now recognize that court records are sealed only with the consent of the victims, and for da victim's protection. I certainly don't. Are you a lawyer, Beavah? What's your cite for that claim? As for the BSA's culpability, I'd like to know if Evans was the only adult registered with the Sea Scouts; if he was the only one, how could they go on any outings? If he wasn't the only registered adult, where are they? If there's only one registered adult and the local BSA council still let Evans hold outings, I'd say the council was negligent.

I have already answered your question, Ed.

Didn't say that Ed. Lisa, I also suspect the two-deep leadership rules weren't followed (though I haven't been able to find any reports on whether Evans was sometimes the only adult along on outings), but I would also like to find out if any other adults are registered with that Sea Scout ship.

Same reason, Ed.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Beavah, part of the two-deep leadership policy is to reduce the opportunity for incidents as is alleged in the Evans case.

I'm still wonderin' how the BSA was "lax." How did Evans get to be alone with Sea Scouts if there was two-deep leadership?

Beavah writes: What I actually said was "I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn." That was da truth, eh? No, it wasn't. And it could be that I would have been clearer had I put an "if" in there..."I'm astonished if yeh would support..." Not "clearer", it's a different statement. I would not have called you a liar if you had written that. But I confess I do find his efforts to use the victimization of children to press his personal anti-BSA agenda to be distasteful. I'm criticizing the BSA for their lax youth protection which lead to the victimization of children. jr56, I used to be a cub scout. I actively work against the BSA's discriminatory policies (especially governmental support of their discriminatory policies) as part of Scouting For All.

My last couple of posts have only been about the unethical tactics some people use in this forum, not about the BSA. I'd prefer to argue about the BSA instead of getting sidetracked by having to correct other people about what I have and haven't said. Getting somewhat back on track, there are a lot of comments on the SF Chronicle website, some by people who know Evans and/or have been Sea Scouts: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BACLTONGF.DTL

Trevorum writes: I genuinely believe that much of time your accusations of "lying" are mere failures to communicate clearly. Since I didn't even mention the statute of limitations, Beavah can't be misinterpreting anything I wrote, since I didn't write a thing about the statute of limitations. Captainron14 writes: myself have grown tired of listening to Merlyn and his rants. There comes a time when we have to agree to dissagree. Calling people names and such degrades this forum and keeps good people away from entering into constructive discussions. Calling liars "liars" is not name-calling. Some people may use the term as a general insult, but I use it when people lie. Lying about someone else's position also prevents constructive discussions. Pointing out that someone has lied about my particular position helps get the discussion back on track, since I'm certainly not going to defend a position someone else has tried to pin on me.

Ed, when Beavah says "I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn" when I haven't even MENTIONED what he's referring to (changing the statute of limitations), I will certainly call him a liar. Yes, I know some people think that calling liars "liars" is somehow not fair to the liars. Learn to live with it.

Beavah writes: Yah, Merlyn, thanks for acknowledging that in fact both victims and BSA agreed to seal the files, and that keepin' the files sealed from the press is a way of protecting victim privacy. I didn't acknowledge that. But you're just lying again. As for Statutes of Limitations, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, eh? Probably should have spun that off. I was makin' a general argument about statutes of limitations, without direct reference to either case. So what? You also stated "It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn." which was just a lie. What do you think, Merlyn? I think it's pointless to try and argue with you, since you deliberately misrepresent my views.

Beavah writes: Yes, not in evidence. The rant of an editorial (by an agitated editor who feels himself "under attack" no less) is not evidence. Oh, but you making up stuff is? Beavah lies: It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn. Hey, liar, where have I said ANYTHING about the statute of limitations? Your statement that I "support" changing or eliminating the statute of limitations is a lie, because I haven't even commented on it. By the way, your statute of limitations red herring doesn't matter; these are recent allegations: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_7649274 ... Evans is accused of having sexual relations with four boys, ages 13 to 17, aboard the S.S.S. Farallon, the 85-foot ship used for the Sea Scouts program, over the last five years, said Berkeley Police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss. ... They seized a computer containing child pornography from his home, Kusmiss said. Police believe Evans showed the pornography to his victims during the molestations, which occurred aboard the Farallon ship or after Sea Scouts gatherings, Kusmiss added. ... [the police ARE looking for older crimes, too]: Kusmiss said investigators believe the four boys who came forward are not the only victims. "We are quite confident there are (more victims)," she said. "Based on our knowledge and experience of sex offenders and the culture of pedophilia, it is unlikely that his activity is confined to recent years." ... (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Beavah writes: Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge....Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers. That's not in evidence, eh? In fact, that would be part of the sealed records, so you're really just blowin' smoke. http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-2NRsummer/p95-0602-miller.html ... First came the tip: A pedophile caught at a local scout camp in 1997 had not had two victims, as we reported at the time; he had dozens. When we went to the courthouse to look for the civil suit filed by these victims, the clerks (and the computers) said there was no such case. We later learned that the national Boy Scouts of America and its local Grand Teton Council had hired two of Idaho's best-connected law firms to seal the files and hide what came to be known as the Brad Stowell case. The Post Register went to court in late 2004, and by January 2005 we'd dragged the case file into the light of day and read it from beginning to end. Turns out that as early as 1991 scout leaders had been warned about Stowell; they hired him again anyway. Top-level local and national leaders of the Mormon Church, which sponsors almost all Grand Teton Council scout troops, had also been warned, but to no effect. From these files we learned that while under investigation Stowell confessed his problem to his bishop in 1988 and had been sent to church counselors for sex abuser treatment. Seven years later, this bishop told scout executives he knew of no reason Stowell should not be a scout camp leader. The files also showed lawyers for the Boy Scout organization knew about more victims, but never told those boys' parents. The victims were probably asleep at the time, one lawyer said, and even if not, it was a bad memory best ignored. ...

Beavah writes: I didn't SAY that. I said the records were sealed by the BSA's lawyers. Now we should be clear about a few things here, eh? Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge. Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers. A judge sealed the records after the settlement of the original cases, in all likelihood to protect all parties especially the victims. In all likelihood of protecting the BSA's reputation. I think Merlyn and the Post Register both suffer a bit from a desire to sensationalize, and from a lack of understandin' of Scouting. That doesn't explain the lawsuits pending against the grand teton council and the BSA.

OGE writes: Wait a second there, Merlyn, are you saying Beavah's assesment is accurate, other than the part about the records being sealed by the BSA lawyers? No, I hardly skimmed Beavah's whitewash. But I did notice where he misrepresented what I wrote. Since he can't even get correct what's plainly written in this thread, I wouldn't bank on what he writes about the grand teton situation, where he doesn't even have firsthand knowledge or access to court records. Here's the Post Register series on it, where they actually talked to people with firsthand knowledge, and had access to court records: http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/index.php

Beavah writes: I see no evidence in the reporting to suggest, as Merlyn claims, that the remaining victims have requested the records be unsealed. I didn't SAY that. I said the records were sealed by the BSA's lawyers. Some of the remaining victims are suing the BSA and the grand teton council. Doesn't sound like they agree with how the BSA handled things.

And the sex-abuse panel would know that. And redacted data with names removed would still be useful. In the particular case of the grand teton council, the victims didn't seal the court records, BSA lawyers did.

By the way, here's an article that touches on point 2: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003849260_boyscouts23m.html ... "You can look at those files two ways," Rothschild said. "They were making a conscientious effort to identify offenders, and the Boy Scouts of America could be commended for that. Or in my case, there was a lack of awareness or sophistication about warning signs about people that may be a danger." The secrecy of the files has also meant that the Boy Scouts have kept them from their own sex-abuse advisers, a group of respected experts first convened in the late 1980s to help craft a youth-protection program. During the past 15 years, the group repeatedly suggested that the Boy Scouts study the files to see whether their prevention measures were working, said one adviser, David Finkelhor, who heads the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. But the Scouts' lawyers rebuffed the recommendation, Finkelhor said. ...

LongHaul writes: OH! So if I find a reference in print that equates atheism with what ever action or trait specified further use of that reference is totally justified because hey it was in print. If I see a newspaper report what court filings say, and it uses the term "pedophile", that's enough for me to use the term "pedophile" when describing the situation. Again I ask where is it documented that any defendant declared themselves to be a pedophile? Father Oliver O'Grady is an admitted pedophile who was shielded by the RCC. There's one. That is exactly the point you are not addressing the molestation problems you are addressing the BSA's handling of these problems. You focus is on the BSA and not on the molestation. Eh? The BSA is the organization that's isn't addressing abuse properly. In the case of the grand teton council, they sought to hide the molestation. THAT'S the kind of thing that makes things worse. Of course I'll criticize them for that. I don't know what you expect me to do directly about molestations within the BSA. And you have shown no interest in anything except to get back at BSA for excluding you. What? I've never been excluded by the BSA, I was a member when I was about 9, before it was taken over by people with the current mindset. The secretiveness displayed by the BSA in handling abuse cases shoots up a red flag for me; you can ignore it if you like.

LongHaul writes: Why must you continually equate "pedophilia" with "child molestation"? Where am I doing that? I'm using both terms, but I'm not saying they're equivalent. You object strongly to the equating of homosexuality with pedophilia even though they are both sexual preferences which by current belief are "genetic" in nature and beyond the control of the person in question. You know, "heterosexual" is a sexual preference, but I would object to equating heterosexual to pedophile, too (and I don't think pedophile is classified as a sexual preference). You hear "pedophile" and you think "child molester" but rebuke those that hear "homosexual Scout leader" and think POSSIBLE "child molester" Well, if people hear "human being" and think "POSSIBLE child molester", I can't really argue against that, but that's no reason to bar all human beings from scouting, either. You list 4 things seemingly specific to BSA in reference to child molestation cases within the organization. In the first you use the term pedophile for it's shock value even though those facts are not in evidence. I use the term because the Post-Register, which exposed the BSA's complicity and attempt to seal the court records, used the term 'pedophile'. In point 2 you claim that numbers and details are important in an examination of practice. Before I can examine whether a program is working I must first determine exactly how many failures there have been? If you're trying to improve current policies, yes, you DO need to know how well the OLD policies worked in order to measure if the NEW policies make the situation worse, better, or the same. Old data would also be useful for other kinds of analysis, like whether there are specific councils that are especially bad (or good). You know, having INFORMATION on a problem REALLY HELPS. In Point 3 you talk about equating one group necessarily with another yet you are guilty of this same practice as I have pointed out. I say I haven't, as I say above. But even if I did, that does not make equating one group with another a valid method of argumentation. In Point 4 you demonstrate the equating one group with another for shock value by using the word pedophile where child molester would be appropriate. Actually, I should have pointed out that the catholic church criminally shielded BOTH pedophiles and child molesters; thanks for the correction. Physician heal thyself. Ah, I see. It's much more important that I make "proper" arguments than to address the molestation problems of the BSA. Glad you got your priorities straight. At least try not to seem as though having something to trash BSA with is the important part of this issue even though you show no concern for the youth involved here. So far, I'm the only one taking the BSA to task for my points 1, 2, and 4. You've shown no interest in anything except getting back at me.

So far I haven't seen anyone here saying the BSA's way of handling things should be changed. The BSA sought to seal the molestation cases in Idaho - why isn't there any outrage over that? Why isn't there any outrage when the BSA doesn't give their own information on child abuse to their own committee on assessing their child protection policies? Oh, but there's plenty of time for BSA supporters to defending keeping gays out, because that protects scouts from pedophiles. No, it doesn't. What WOULD help is eliminating harmful acts like the two I just mentioned -- sealing court records and not giving child abuse data to their own committee, both of which seem to have been done only to try and prevent bad PR, which is the same road the catholic church went down and is now facing bankruptcy-inducing penalties.

Beavah, you'd also have to find a youth organization that: 1) tries to seal molestation cases to conceal how a known pedophile was allowed to continue molesting minors; 2) sets up a committee to review their child protection practices, but refuses to give even their own committee their internal data on how many volunteers have been removed for molestation and similar reasons (and which is only brought to light by lawsuits over (1) above); 3) has supporters who equate gays with pedophiles, which only creates a false sense of security when gays are barred; 4) has, as one of its largest supporters and advocates of excluding gays an organization which has criminally shielded known pedophiles. Yes, I know it's impossible to eliminate 100% of the child abuse. But why did the BSA try to keep the molestation in Idaho secret by sealing the files? Why didn't they give their OWN COMMITTEE reviewing their child protection policies THEIR data on abuse cases?? I'd also like to know if the two-deep requirement was followed for the Berkeley Sea Scouts.

You haven't pointed out any inaccuracies yet, Ed, so how could there be "others"? And yes, Ed, the city council has the authority to end the lease. And assuming they get someone who'll pay the $200,000/year rate, it won't be a tax burden, it'll be an asset.

Ed, the lease has always had a one-year cancellation clause. The city could have cancelled the lease after one year instead of 80. And the only reason the city council cancelled it was because the BSA insists on being a private, discriminatory organization and the city council refuses to support what the BSA has become. Feel free to point out any "inaccuracies", but back up what you say.