skeptic

Sorry you cannot see beyond the lines apparently, or simply choose not to. The fact that it is being advertised and that few make these types of things without expectation of profits, is my reason for comment. The price of $15 is not the issue, it is the fact that they are charging for it in the first place. As I said, if they were to guarantee those profits all went to your Trust, I would be less critical. I am not indicting those that watch the film; that is their option. You seem overly critical yourself, and that is not like you. Whatever; frankly this has carried on far too long and the continued appearance of people using the hype and controversy for profit is just as bad as trying to rewrite the past. Think what you will, I have never suggested the issue is not real, only that the approach is unbalanced and too often egregious efforts to make profit off the survivors, either as lawyers or just these kinds of "films". I hope the case soon comes to an end and the survivors or victims can maybe get on with their lives the best they can. This entire thing has just added more pain to most of you.

Will review the Hulu option, but I will NOT pay for what appears from the intro to be a biased hit piece simply preying on people to make money. IF they were to guarantee all their profits from this endeavor were to go to the Trust, I might have a different view. But the cost should be offset by their backers and advertisers, not by average Joe that just want a clearer perspective on the subject. JMHO of course.

As I stated before, I cannot make real comment unless I see the actual video. Where can we actually see it? I have seen no link as yet, only the intro? Way too many questions without actually viewing it. Glad to see your comment about "various levels", though I truly want to know how many others outside of CO or National chose to be part of the poor response or no response, as seems suggested? Again, we are dealing with different periods of history and different societal responses to what today is noted as unacceptible, period. Any lack of responsible actions is now seen as it should have been then, but often was not. Who besides the CO or Natiopnal or LC also knew but made decisions at the time? Back to the balance and perspective thing. The farther back in time we go, the more vague and skewed perspectives get.

I am already signed up or have on my calendar the webinar for tomorrow. I was sent a similar note from our local minister. My main concern, before seeing the webinar is the definition of Ownership and transferring it to the local council. That is a little bit of a concern for a century old unit with historical items and documents. Also, how that affects any banking situations? My nightmare would be the idea that somehow the Council could simply walk in and take our equipment and whatever else they chose. Would hope that was addressed in the agreement, but have to wait to see. Related could be how this will affect other Sponsor arrangements? IF this form is set in motion, will it become the new method for all?

It is truly a sad and upsetting scenario you present, though we still do not know why authorities chose to not pursue it. Neither here nor there, somehow the banning, which apparently WAS filed in the IV files did not show as he moved, or locals had no clear reason to suspect so they simply did not check with the resources in use at the time. And BSA has admitted that mistakes were made and poor decisions as well. I certainly am not condoning or forgiving those mistakes, only pointing out that they are convoluted over time and are being viewed through more than one mirror. IT should not have happened that way, just as so many similar incidents likely should not have occurred in other parts of the community over time. That does NOT take away from the generally safer environment of BSA, especially in the window of the era. Why someone beyond BSA did not follow through might be asked, but it does not make the wrong right, only less clear as to WHY. We cannot fix the past, but we can make the future better. And, just as the medical profession has evolved and become safer and continues to do so, it has made many errors both in judgments and in practice. That does not mean we should throw it away, only continue to monitor and work to use the tools at hand. Similarly Law enforcement. Few really think we should throw out the police, only find ways to make them better. And both of these enitities have continued to make errors and poor decisions. And today, they more often are held accountible in some manner.

Unless the video discusses the files as they were intended, and calls them IV files and not the perjorative of Mr. K and others, and also notes that most of the files were not abuse, and points out that that until fairly recently making the files open to others would have been a serious chance of libel issues, and notes the cases that are in the files that were not followed up on by authorities leaving BSA to just separate the individuals, and touches on the strong likelihood that many of the "82,000 claims are not vetted and resulted from legal manipulations, and notes the constant improvements in YP to the extent that BSA was looked at as a model not too long ago for modern YP plans, and points out that comparatively to know stats in other youth serving groups the incidences, even with the questionable ones is still low, and also notes that they have accepted responsibility and admit poor decisions in the past in some cases and are still working to improve protections even before the bankruptcy, or possibly puts forward known instances of BSA doing it right; then I will possibly see it as not a hatchet job. Back to those words, balance and perspective. Also, possibly note that we are making judgments in a different societal time and that in itself skews the picture.

I simply quoted the OP. Frankly, it is not worth my time to try to find it in the numerous pages of things on this forum. Most on here over the last year or more have surely seen some of the indicators of exaggeration and possibly supposition by K, as well as some other "legal" line walkers. Reality is that most of the legal people involved often make me pretty skeptical.

"Just wondering about this. I have seen several articles lately about LC owned camps being worth $10 Billion, apparently according to Kosnoff." And he is NOT the champion of the people some seem to think, as should be obvious from some of his actions and his meddling with parts of the procedure and being warned by the judge. I suspect you actually know this.

Oh stop being sensible. Just because ther majority of the World Scouting has little issue with coed, and we even have girls in cub packs with their own Den, why would we somehow think coed in regular scouts should be okay with proper precautions and rules. You would think we would want to draw as many youth as possible and make the needed adjustments.

The answer is fairly simple; Kasnoff .

This from the most recent: " Adult Supervision Two registered adult leaders 21 years of age or over are required at all Scouting activities, including meetings. There must be a registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over in every unit serving females. A registered female adult leader 21 years of age or over must be present for any activity involving female youth. Notwithstanding the minimum leader requirements, age- and program-appropriate supervision must always be provided.

Have to note; the police left your apartment and basically did nothing? Why, and are they also being sue? Simply trying to clarify this a little. Also, once again, we have the perjorative renaming of the IV files, most of which were not abuse records. Yes, too many were, and some were not handled well at all. Still, it has been shown that many other factors were involved, including people like the police noted above. Also not noted in this short is the fact that the IV files did on more than one occasion from the records themselves, stop someone. All this prior to the insta-check of the computer era. Can I again suggest, these things need to be balanced and put forth most of the broader information. Please, none of the calling me someone against fixing the issue, just want the window to have the broad perspective that is possible with a bit more investigation. Many are responsible, and some continue to be ignored due to the sensationalism BSA brings to the table. And, also due to how many public agencies are almost imposssible to hold accountible, and too many issues from the problem being viewed in a differewnt societal light. Withold further judgment

We have a local issue, or confusion perhaps, in regard to the use of the Lone Scout program to allow girls to join when they have not been able to find the minimum number, or their family location and schedules do not fit the limited options. I am aware that the program has been used in other parts of the country, and from what I hear, successfully. Those young women are able to work on their own schedules and also join in with other units as they can. I have read the explanation of Lone Scouting a number of times, and I do not see how this is not a viable option for these youth. But our local council executives refuse to allow the option, insisting we start a unit or they go to one of the three in the area. When we got three, briefly, they said we could have the unit, but after the year ended, that disappeared and our one still interested young woman is like in limbo. She meets with the troop, which her brother is in as well, and has worked with two of the nearby girl troops on occasion, but they do not fit their family dynamic, especially since she is comfortable with our group and her brother being there. The obduracy of the local executive seems to us to be foolish, as getting the young people into the program should be a priority, and discouraging them is not good optics, at least from my view. Of course, I found we actually have some Lone Scout girls at the other end of the council; but that leader just went directly to National when our local office said no. And those you women are doing well in that status from what I could see at a recent MB event for the council. Just looking for comments and possibly options. We are considering doing what was done at the other side of the council so as to keep the young woman involved; and we do have some girl cubs coming up, so we still might be able to start a unit. Of course, in my view, we should simply have one unit with a girl patrol anyway if enough are there; but assure we have the female adults in place as well, which we do.

Just a note. My "sad" emoticon is not about the comment directly, only that it seems to verify one of the early concerns I proferred; that ripping off the scabs and bringing it all back might be worse than leaving it alone and focusing onl the present to keep it from happening again. No easy answers, and this post seems to suggest that, as have a couple of others on here that are survivors.

"Is NRA good or bad?" My long time perception is that the original NRA was and still can be positive player in this issue. But, that status has been eroded by the politics at have taken over the organization. I have discussed rational and common sense ideas related to this with a number of NRA members and somewhat radical, in my view, gun owners. One of those is my older brother. He agrees almost whole heartedly that reasonable training and barriers are essential, and says he would have no problem with them. Then he turns around and starts with the corruption of the 2nd Amendment nonsense and goes off on the common tangent we hear about this. Yet he just agreed that training and restrictions are important for owning and using a firearm. He has taught his own sons, and their children how to safely use guns, and will absolutely stop them if they abuse the privilege. So, I find it even more difficult to understand this disconnect. Still, much of what NRA still offers is viable and positive. They just need to get back to the simple premise of responsibility and safety, and away from the noise about "taking our guns" and so on. That of course is part of the POL problem, as many use it to gain a foot hold of some sort over some who are not necessarily rational already. JMHO of course.

BTW it is a federal regulation that school district must give scouting the same access to students that they give to any other outside group. Every school district has at some point outside groups that come in to interact with students from speakers to book mobiles and so forth. Check out the BSA access law. As noted, this is in fact a "law". Yet if we confront the school or district with it, have we opened it up or simply made the possibility of cooperation more difficult? We have struggled in our council for years with this, more in some districts than others. Much of that falls on the individual school and its staff. When a school has a principal and or teachers that are positive on scouting, and who know how many Eagle projects, for example, are being used on the campus, they tend to be more open. But the media continues to poison the well, and that is something that is too often beyond an individual unit to fix, other than indirectly. One thing that appears to have been somewhat effective in our council is the actual recognition of educators using the Fretwell Award. It is now a part of our annual recognition, given at the same time as regular Scouter awards. What is crazy is that so few councils apparently really even know it exists. In our council, I specifically asked our district chair and scout executive WHY we were not using it? They were basically not even aware it existed. https://41zfam1pstr03my3b22ztkze-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/522-05918_EKFretwell_Guide.pdf Take a look.

At every camp I have attended, the issue of Gun Safety and so on has been major. Range access is monitored and anyone violation things either leaves or sits for a bit, dependenton the problem. No Scout or Scouter is allowed to shoot without the proper precautions, including ear and ey protections and, if unfamiliar with a gun, direct aid or monitoring. The merit badge includes a major protion on Gun Safety and I believe touches on the gun control issue, depending on the state. The NRA still isa major supporter of BSA, and part of that is because of the eductional elements of the BSA programs, which evolved from the original NRA structure and educative ideas. As we struggle in our seemingly impossible political morass over the Second Amendment and Gun Control and safety, what is our role in getting past the obdurance and foolish overreactions? Our youth and leaders do not seem to not understand the basic needs and safety issues, and again, they cannot handle the guns without proving they know how and can be safe. So why is that simple premise, in some broader form, not acceeptible to the political naysayers? Common sense should suggest that real testing of some sort should be a gun requirement, just as it is for driving a car and so on. It should not be this hard to put that idea of safety and VERIFIED QUALIFICATION into play. And all guns licensed in some manner seems prudent. Types of weapons possibly restricted based on certain factors of course also make sense to someone that looks beyond the hyperbole about "taking our guns". So, what do we do as responsible community mentors? How might we strengthen even more our BSA Gun program?

Once again we are experiencing the pain and suffering of a warped society with children killed in Texas. Most of us understand it is not the weapon itself, but the individual that uses it, that is the challenge. But, for whatever reason, and I personally lay it at the feet of the politicians on both "sides", nothing changes. Meanwhile, we see the BSA under continuing siege to be eliminated due to legal and emotional drama brouoght on by a very small group of sick members of society and some very poor reactions of BSA leadership. My point is not that the abuse issue in BSA is not real and does not need to be addressed, but rather, that the real premise of Scouting, the real foundatinal tenets of the Oath and Law, have proven for decades to help youth become active and valuable citizens that are positive parts of society. I would suggest that the BSA and its real foundation is sorely needed today, even more so thatn when it started over a century ago. Just saying.

Once again, the simple concept of local accountability and common sense are lost in the egos of too many adults. Meanwhile, the youth issue is not being properly addressed. I too often see the expectation that somehow someone from "on high" can dictate to those in the trenches. But real Scouting is local, which means the units directly. That is WHY there is a committee. And their option should be to get the input of the COR, if necessary, but try to find the solution within by actual adult discussion, not childish accusations and hysteria. Or so an old guy sees it.

I still have one from our trek in 1979. The crew honored me with it when we got off trail.

The story reminded me of our Philmont Ranger in 1979. He had a nickname, Bear Bait. He was sleeping outside while out with a couple other rangers, but he was first year and had been the target of a few jokes. So, when he felt like someone was trying to roll him over in his bag, he reached up and smacked at who he thought it was, one of the others tormenting him. The bear did not like getting slapped and proceeded to reciprocate. Fortunately, the bag was thick enough, and the ranger able to curl up within it; and his screams woke the others nearby who ran the bear off. But he ended up with some stitches, but otherwise no serious injuries. And he did not let it send him home. When we had him, it was his third or fourth summer.

Definitely a YP issue as discussed. IF the tale is accurate, it appears some individual has a problem with the color pink worn by a male. And that is very biased, or worse; IMHO. One way of course would be to ask the whole troop to wear a pink shirt; but not sure that would do anything but annoy someone. Still, it might help the young lad too, especially if the other troop members show their support somehow. Years ago, we had an 11 year old that was always in sine conflict with other youth, both at scouts and with peers in school and neighborhood. He had a really difficult time as he was very small and had two sisters that drove him crazy at home and he was the one in trouble. Also a domineering father. Anyway, he had ridden his bike to the meeting and got into it again and chose to go home. It was not dark, and his parents allowed him to ride, so I told him okay, but we would check to see he got home okay. We have a large hall in the church that we used for games, and we were up there near the meeting end. Here comes the boy with his bike, covered with egg and dirt. He had been jumped in the school yard next door; not hurt physically, just made a mess of. Well, the rest of the troop had to be restrained from running to the school to find those responsible, because he was part of the troop. That was a turning point for him. While he never bade it past FC, he stayed involved into JC. He is now a father with a GS and Cub and retired from the Army. Scouting works.

Wasn't there some type of atttempt by GS to attach their suit to the bankruptcy?

There goes one week of cookie profit. And into the pot for survivors I would think.

Thanks for sharing. More perspective on the evolving issue. I find myself wondering though is these suggestions are universal, or seriously tied to a small population or culture? There are examples historically of seemingly very opposite populations, especially with the early matriarchal groups dominated by strong women who appear to have been the dicision makers. I tend to think that the basic ability for women to do most things is tempered only by their physical limitations, and that their mental capabilities will often overcome those challenges, either by actual effort to change certain genetic factors, or by creating aides to simply overcome those physical challenges. So it seems to me that girls will adjust, as will boys, given the opportunity and as little adult interference as possible. JMO of course, as am not an expert, only a longtime observer.