skeptic

Balance and perspective, along with somehow also seeing beyond the outline to other lines of intersection. You cannot have that if somehow the subject is removed from its outliers, which in this case is society at the times these things occurred. As far as the video is concerned, I have yet to see it in its entirety, so perhaps that will alter my view. As far as you comment about my view being repugnant; it is not me that is using survivors.

It is simply sad that there is so much hate being displayed by a few on here. I have not ever suggested even that the abuse that happened was okay or should not be addressed. But I have said, and still point out that the level of sensationalism and exaggeration is beyond logic. That is especially in regard to the continued claims that BSA never did anything about it, when as has been noted enough times, they did more than was usual in those earlier years. They made huge errors, and they should be held accountable. But it was not the doing of the larger organization nor a larger percentage of members. It was the doing of people that took advantage of opportunity, and often was made worse by the scocietal norms of the time. Are you going to spend as much time maligning the authorities that also would not bring charges, or the families that chose to not make things public? If not, then you are hypocrits. As at least a couple of survivors have said on here, this whole media circus has made their pain worse, especially those that had to some extent found a little less of it over time.🙁

Until I find the real video and see it I cannot make judgment beyond the blatantly sensationalized trailer. But, the only thing I see is another case of using the survivors to make money, by prolonging their already overtaxed. As far as your number goes, we all should by now understand that a large number of those are very possibly not accurate, or simply not real. Until they actually vet them, we will not know. And for some reason, there appears to be a great many of the lawyers that would prefer that did not happen. Just my observation of course. And it appears that Netflix is also going to push this, again for profit since they will likely sensationalize it really well. What do I know. I am a product of the twentieth century and a society that still published stories of positive community things and at least made an effort to not allow blatnat cruedness and foul language. Another thing on the net earlier today is a short thing publicizing the "first" openly Gay executive in Scouting. Now why is that important, especially in the focus on the new merit badge?

If the trailer is any indication of the entire video, the "producers" have gone out of their way to focus on the worst, and ignore anything else from over a century of Scouting. And, the people in the trailer are seemingly chosen to look sleazy as adults, and helpless as children. Anyone that rad the book by the same name, should see similarities. This too is a dark reflection on our society, well beyond Scouting. We see little of the positive in the media, obviously simply preying on the worst and seldom if ever putting positive things in the forefront. Meanwhile, so called Reality TV and such make sleaziness and crudeness somehow okay, often in the same media that is pushing the sensational, even if it is only a small piece of the larger stories. We are living in a very sick society, and it is made worse by our apparent fascination with the worst rather than the best, especially in the media. The really sad thing is that it is likely to simply make things worse, as suggested here. Somehow, crassness is okay as long as it is bleeped in TV. Crude and often once considered foul language is shrugged off by most today. I challenge anyone here to be the proverbial "fly on the wall" within school out of class groups, or in many offices and listen to what type of language and stories are being shared casually, somehow considered okay. Yes, as had been beat to death, BSA and a minority of its adult and likely youth members, that we do not actually hear much about, have made poor decisions and even a few majorly blatant abuses. But, it is NOT the larger picture, and even the nay sayers surely understand that. What is it about our society that finds it necessary to try to destroy things, even as they look the other way a often worse actions? Tighten the barriers and the oversight, by all means. But stop with the burning down the forest.

To me, fortunate to NOT be a survivor, but understanding (as best as one can from outside) there are ambiguous feelings and views with this larger morass, I still feel Scouting is better than this and has a place in society and our country. Our duty and goals should be to correct the compass point and to NOT abandon the mostly positive place Scouting can play in our communities. While doing that though, we need to not wear blinders in relation to past mistakes and poor judgment, and to do all we can to keep the safeguards working and continually strengthen them as we are able. I found it interesting that in today's email notice for Bryan On Scouting, the subject relates to Child Protection and offers some perspective on what we already have available. I know for a fact that much of what is listed and available is not commonly in use, and that in itself might be a major opportunity. https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/04/15/child-abuse-prevention-is-woven-into-the-fabric-of-the-bsas-advancement-structure/ Thank you for your contributions to helping navigate this, and your patience with those of us that have different perspectives, but still real concerns that this has some positive outcomes.

Please try to be factual. The records, known as IV files, were not sealed, simply not open to public scrutiny. They were and are kept as one barrier to those that would try to prey on the members. Before computers, it was difficult to check unless a council had suspicions for some reason, as it was done by phone or mail. The easier access for that check grew with the advent of dependible computer files. During much of the mid twentieth century, there was a fefinite concern about legal issues related defamation, and if an entry was not well verified, it would not be something to make public. We know that there were, and actually still are, public entities tasked with follow up on abuse issues that often either cannot get enough real proof, or unfortunately choose to not rioritize, and simply shove it to the side as not important for myriad reasons. Did BSA also enter into these types of actions? Yes, and those choices were not for the best interests of victims, and very poor rationalizations or even CYA. That does not reflect well. But you cannot separate the issue from the larger public and societal responses from past eras, nor can you fault BSA while ignoring that the greater problems often came due to parental or law enforcement choosing to not pursue things for whatever reason. As far as the inuendo by some that post that it is black and white, and if someone looks at the broader picture and suggests it is/was not as bad "statistically" as outside the program, we are somehow okay with the abuse as discovered, or with some of the BSA decisions or judgements on how to respond. I have said many times that the abuse is not excusable, and the errrors and poor decisions are worth reviewing for better responses. My point though has been, and is, that we cannot take the BSA to task alone, as the issue is rampant across our society, and "statistically" worse in most similar groups, and especially bad within the very government entities meant to combat it. NO ABUSE IS ACCEPTIBLE, PERIOD. But that is the case with the myriad other groups in society that serve youth, and especially within the governmental entities that appear to have an even worse problem. So, if some choose to focus only on BSA, especially since this is in theory a BSA board, fine. But please try to look at the larger picture in a realistic manner, and do not paint those of us that see the larger problem and the "statistical" comparisons, as terrible and uncaring individuals. The village has a problem, and BSA is part of that village, but not the whole village.

So, I short search turned up this particular broad list of "camp" abuse cases. Note that there are BSA camps, but they are not the majority. And there is one 4H camp with multiple victims it appears. Also a number of Y camps, but most seem to be church related or community groups of some type. https://crime-stoppers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Spreadsheet-of-Camp-Molestations-8-5-2019.pdf And, while I could not get to see the article, as the Glade has a reader wall, there is a search record specific to 4H in at least one instance, plus the one on the list in the shared link. So, certainly this short search and share of results might suggest my comments are not out of the box, but rather on target. Note the title of the shared link. Addendum; It does appear from the search that overall the 4-H has a strong focus on abuse awareness and fairly in depth training for volunteers.

Ignoring the facts that the abuse is rampant in many areas of youth programs and especially in the very groups that are supposed to protect them does not serve anyone well. I have never said that some abuse did not occur, and that some was truly bad and should have been dealt with properly. But, putting the onus on BSA and the Catholic Church, while simply ignoring all the rest of the issues thoughout society related to youth does not serve children either. What I have said is that the actual percentages of abuse in BSA, based on proven data, is lower than in most other youth serving groups, and particularly less heinous than what continues in the very governmental agencies charged with protection of the children. The efforts undertaken by BSA to try to deal with the problem stem back farther than most such efforts by others. Those very efforts have been used as bludgeons to mislead and overstate the problem by yellow journalism and a lot of less than scrupulous lawyers. You cannot simply keep beating the BSA tragedy without taking on the larger one that still exists. And the ongoing circus of a trial has shown a lot of this, including the very questionable claims that seem to be waiting to be vetted, but no one want that, especially the lawyers that set the bait. Put all the already in place safety rules into play not just in the BSA, but in the wider communities of youth. Actually fix the criminal governmental agencies that allow foster children to have far more abuse than almost any of the worst BSA cases, and put in place real barriers to coaches and teachers, as well as even doctors. Of course, none of this really matters it seems, as long as you can continue to pound on BSA and not have to deal with the rest of the iceberg.

The potentiaol is always there, but that is reality for any group involved with youth, and is less likely in Scouting in reality,l as has been discussed numerous times. The real issue is the media putting the spotlight on certain grouops, even when statistically they are safer than others. It is a refelction of our societal fascination with sensationalism of negative images of negative things in normally postively positioned groups and people. And it also is relective our our broken legal system. With that in mind of course, BSA needs to do everything possible to adhere to its safeguards, period.

I would think that this particular report would be a major point of discussion and concern. Some things immediately stand out as already know, specifically that the largest percentage are family members, by far. Interesting to me, and a surprise, is that apparently this study anyway indicates that females are slightly more responsible for abuse. Age groups are not a huge surprise. I would think the takeaway from this particular study and report would be that more focus needs to be where the most perpetrators are; the family. We continue to demonize a small percentage of people at higher level than we do the worst offenders, or so it appears. No abuse is okay. That is a given. But we still need to have the courage to put the spotlight on the highest levels of perpetrators, rather than focusing on the sensational and actually lesser of the evils. Just an observation, and I am NOT the expert, only a moderately aware reader of the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabelmans#Production

Add this that attempts to explain points of Law; " A Scout is Friendly. A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own. A Scout is Courteous. A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows that using good manners makes it easier for people to get along. A Scout is Kind. A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing." These three points, as explained here, basically cover the CIS merit badge, or so it seems to me.

Today especially I believe that not allowing professed atheists to join would be problematic in some cases. Part of the issue for youth, those that are still in the younger ages especially, really are too young to have established that belief themselves. Their parent(s) may make that claim, but they really are at best searching agnostics. I have seen a couple of youth that were struggling with the Spiritual issue due to their maturing and wider exposure to other religious beliefs. But, as they experienced a deeper immersion with the realities of nature, especially dark skies and infinite stars, they grew in personal Spiritual growth. That is one of the often positive results of the outdoor program. I might add too, that IF part of a religious outreach is to bring in others, not allowing a nonbeliever seems counter productive.

This one continues to be a serious point of confusion for many of us I fear. Our leaders have touched on it once or twice, but nobody feels confident in how to approach it. The general consensus verges on making it a general group discussion for all the youth, or perhaps more than one, focused on THEIR perspectives and input. The vagueness and simply point that the subjects are controversial and bound to be viewed in widely distanced ways does not help. The one thing though, upon what most adults and even more senior scouts is that the intent has always already been part of the basic tenets, and this simply muddies that.

If the council is threatened by the cooperative efforts of the individual units, then they do not understand the program. For the first fity to sixty years, at least, that was what made the program. And, if we refacilitate that type of thing, it again will likely take off to some extent. But, the dedidcated Commissioners that were key back then no longer exist to any extent.

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2022/03/11/lets-get-some-bsa-representation-ages-15-29-on-the-uns-young-leaders-initiative/ This is a long shot, but there are some of our youth, especially those just recently moved to the first decade after high school, who might find this of great interest. But, as Bryan notes, this is very much up the alley of the best of Scouting.

Well, "spot on" may be a stretch. But it does show the realities of this and how it became the mess it is. Most of the problem, in my view, can be laid in the laps of the messed up legal system that has little rhyme or reason much of the times, and is too often the "the land of predator grifters" with often thin credentials. JMHO of course.

Not sure if this post suggests this article, which is spot on by the way from my perspective, is reason for censue. If so, I too would say not right, but in stronger verbiage. Almost from the beginning some, shall we say questionable legal persons, those for whom I was smacked for my descriptions, have played fast and loose with this. The real victims, or now survivors, have been summarily used as pawns to instigate a "big payday" for grifters and those certain oily legal gurus, while the real victims/survivors have been left in the mud. Again, just my view.

It just may be the curmudgeon in me, but at times I feel as if certain people in some of the National level decision groups think that the leaders in the trenches are all idiots or will be lemmings. They seem to not give us credit for being able to actually be "leaders" in that we actually can be aware and respond accordingly. But that may come from the fact that on occasion that has been exactily what transpired to cause an issue. But we all need to not forget we are all prone to human error. As long as we can accept our failings and work to avoid repetition and also "do our best" we should be fine. That particularly relates to some activities with tools and such. But, I rode in the backs of pickups and and climbed trees without ropes or something on which to fall. I also pretty much took personal responsibility for much of my teen activities with little parental interference. That was part of being a fifties era latch key kid. Those were the days when if we fell down and got hurt, we generally got up and went on our way if we could, often looking around to make sure nobody saw us. We learned to work things out on our own without constant parental involvement. My parents more than once told me that I needed to either stay away from somebody or some actiity, or learn to get along and do what was needed. Want to go to the Jambo in 1960? How much? $400 plus $50 for uniforming and recommended $50 spending money. Okay; we will buy your uniforms. They did, and I went. And I assure you that I enjoyed it more than a couple of guys at the time that just were sent.

This was in 1955 when I was 11 and brand new. Just for clarification. We are not a Lutheran sponsored unit, but another larger denomination. It is interesting that every year or so, there are training couses at PTC that relate to the coopertive nature of sponsors, especially the major churches. In those, they discuss how to integrate the program within the larger council and even area in relation to that specific sponsor. So, it is actually contradictory to meet at PTC in such discussions, then say we should not do it.

We simply need to do what works best for the individual units and their youth. The idea that two units working together is not allowed without permission is ludicrous. It flys in the face of the whole program, most importantly the brother/sister hood of the program. Efficiency, sharing resources, and so on. As noted here already, it allows smaller units to do things they might not do otherwise. As far as YP is concerned and liability, it should not be an issue. If all adults are following the rules, then if anything, it should make it easier to keep aware. Most of our issues with the lawsuit things is due to NOT following the in place protective rules, and Not sharing in group interactions. I was just asked by our CE to NOT try to work with other troops within our our council that share the same church as a sponsor. My first campout as a boy in 1955 was an all Luthern gathering for So Cal. That is what I want to try and implement here, both for the greater opportunity, but also strengthening our program in conjunction with the sponsor. Our church regions have access to a number of fine camps, for example. It is foolish in the extreme to limit cooperative efforts and those shared resources. Sort of like the GS mostly refusal to interact with the BSA. Adults being idiots, in my old man view.

Any others joining me in watching the flock of hooked beaked circlers?

Remember, the uniform is not required, only a tool. NEVER should lack of a uniform be a reason for a youth to not have the program should they want it. B.P. must have polished his bones well by now with all the foolishness that has gone on that does not help the youth, but is rather just a parady of the actual reason and direction of Scouting.

Sadly, the reputation of the main "experts" in this report and organization does not appear to be stellar. If you review the main author, there are numerous concerns about her methods and obvious bias, in her case towards the Catholic Church first, and now the BSA. Look it up and make your own decision.

When I sign on now, I cannot click the unread link, nor am I getting my personal link at the top?