skeptic

I am not a lawyer, only a rational human being with opinions based on longevity and personal experience, as well as a broad sampling of reading for decades. This entire thread if full of impossible expectations. My personal demons are not the same as yours, and I cannot comprehend yours. But they are personal, and no amount of manetary solice will make them go away, and I have mostly learned to live with them and keep them at bay. Your comment though, and "I know my opinion is not important apparently", suggest somehow that other emotional life experiences do not hold the same importance as these in this thread. That seem a bit odd, and maybe even hypocritical But since you suggest I have a legal argument, then it is simply that the scale of justice stays in balance. With that, I will try harder to not torture you with my "opinions". I still do have a group, two now actually, of young people that we need to mentor. Again, best wishes, even though you say I do not mean it. *deleted*

Please show where I ever suggested emotional damage was not real. You are making things up out of your own emotional cloth, and that is not anything money can cure. Perhaps it may salve your and your families phystical surroundings, but it will never "fix" the damage. Only your own personal spiritual healing can even salve it. As I noted before, most of us have had emotional damage of one type or another, and few are likely to say they completely healed. I have no answer for that. But I do feel that the idea take away the overall positive program and its support to somehow get even is not only selfish, but impossible. But we all have our own emotional and psychological challenges, and I cannot ever understand yours or others that have posted. It is tiresome though to continue to be made out to completely uncaring or somehow ignorant or stupid (they are different). It is even more galling to watch basically unscrupulous and greedy legal people steal money from their clients in the name of justice, when it is actually simply greed. Otherwise, they would not take the percentages they do, nor would they legal hypocrits. JMO of course, as you all know my view of most of them. Only in this country can they get away with it. I want to continue to see through the glass dimly, not have it completely opaque. I only wish the victims well, but I am not confident that the final outcome will leave them any less embittered or whole. Now back to watching mostly.

"the sky is the limit for their liability". This is the problem with this and similar law suits. It leads to drawn out court cases and often ruination of not only the entity sued, but very often peripheral groups or people. And, no one has yet explained to me how you put "a value or price" on emotional and psycological damage, since it will vary from personality to personality, and often is made worse by the very law suit that is being placed. Worse, in most cases, it is not the actual perpetrator that is being affected, but groups and people that had little or no control, or made poor decisions based on what seemed logic or reason. We come back again as to why insurance policies stipulate amounts for physical damages, wheter property or human. It is always going to not satify most claimants, and the litigation adds even more due to no limits on that cost either. JMHO of course. So please do not make comments about me not caring.

While there is no absolute way of proving many considerations on Council held properties, the truth is that most were given to councils with verbal stipulations for use by Scouts and the expectation that is what would happen going forward. Some, more careful donors, understanding greed and lawyers, specifically wrote those stipulations into their donations. Most though were the "old fashioned" hand shake agreement that today's legal system often chooses to ignore. That being said, IF certain camps and properties were put on the market, there likely will then be more legal ramblings from families, or even the original donors. Also, many of the properties border on federal lands or even are surrounded by them, as is our camp. Part of our camp has leased FS land for campsites, while much of it is not viable for much other than camping and hiking, as the location and expense to develop would be huge. So, those likely are major considerations. Of course, some states, like ours, California is also under the constant eye of the environmentalists, who we mostly get along with well, but could jump in should property be offered up, especially under these specific circumstances.

So, what is to disagree? IF they earned the skill award, then they pretty much did all the rank requirements as well. I believe that is what I noted. Of course, in the case of most merit badges, they still had more things to do besides the items in the skill awards. Now, for First Aid for example, they must have completed all the rank rquirement first aid items as a prerequite. That is the first requirement.

Skill awards simply allowed the scout to earn bling for various types of skill, getting one for first aid meant completing all the first aid requirements for the first three ranks. If a scout earned all the skill awards, he pretty much also learned all the ranks through first class, with a few additional things added in each level. Also, the skill award booklets were often very good for covering those various rank parts more easily. Or at least so I saw it.

All the kabitzing about "reliable", "fair", "equitable", and so on, especially in relation to assets, is simply legalese. Few involved, especially the lawyers, can agree on much, if anything. Greed is the guiding principle, especially with most of the lawyers. But, even with some claimants I suspect, as if vetting was done thoroughly, some would be shown to be pretty much made up. Reality suggests, at least to me, that there is no end result that will find large satisfaction. And the idea that somehow destroying the 95%+ positive elements of BSA, or for that matter, any youth serving groups, is fair to ALL is nonsense. Humans are not capable of total real acceptance, and many are simply unable to see beyond their noses. JMHO of course.

There is much to suggest part of the name issue also had to do with Low not having a great "fondness" for BP's sister, who was the developer of Girl Guides, though, Olave became more in control after the marriage, I believe.

Of course some are false. If you think they are not, then you do not live in our warped world and legal system.

Normally? Where does that figure come from? What is normal, and how did it pop up? There is no normal, only greed and lawyer hype.

Seems obvious to me that the facility use method is a done deal. We are already on notice of that being now in effect and will be so ongoing. But they also are not kicking us out.

Ours has already informed us that we will move to the facilities model. Other than that, they assure us that they still consider us part of their ministry, just under a different format. Since we have out centennial in December, and just got a girl troop started, that is a positive note. We had an event last Sunday in which we helped and had a small presence, and all the elder congregation were thrilled to see us, as they usually are. It will really not make a huge difference.

I am not the tech or stat guy, but it would be interesting to see the youth membership for the years as well. From my reading, the peak of membership was the two decades after WWII. Also, is the date for the claim when it was files, or the year the offense may have occurred? That can sway the stats I would think. Interesting to me that you can see the sharp decline starting in the 90s. YP, or membership loss, or both. Also, where does the changes in societal view fit in, as well as the way authorities responded?

Contribute to Scouting and receive your choice of popcorn thank you's depending on the donation level.

What is interesting, at least in our area, many of the girls in Scouts BSA continue in GSUSA. A number of the first female Eagles already had garnered all the GS high level awards, including Silver.

I continue to find it odd that Mr. K. continues to post on Twitter after being indirectly chastised by the court. Meanwhile, he claims he did not approve some of the claims with his signature and had not idea that the aggregator would do such a thing. Is that much different then than Scout officials suggesting that they did not know that some abusers might find their way into the program? There is a likelihood that Mr. K. knew full well that by pawning it off into their hands that cutting corners would occur, as he has dealt with these people for a long time, and they are known for pushing the envelope and getting away with things if they can. Still, Mr. K. is surprised at the suggestion? Where is that bridge?😬

Actually, the city stood behind the scouts to start, but suddenly, they decided to leave them hanging by paying off the ACLU threats. So, from my view, when it was thrown out for lack of standing, then the ACLU owed the city the bribe money. Reality is and was that the actual good to the city and the area the Scouts offered with their care and upkeep, including the summer swim access and options for those accepting the rules, was a positive element, and those bringing the suit cared less about the benefit to the city or community. Selfish and frivolous; but most of these types of attacks, as that is what they are, fall into that category. JMO of course.

I cannot help but be reminded that dragging out and stalling are standard practice in our messed up legal system here. One great example might be the seeming indefinite lawsuit against the San Diego Council about use of Balboa Park, and then later Mission Bay. It took over a decade of wasted time, and then it was finally thrown out be a judge that actually made a decision. Meanwhile, San Diego paid the ACLU a large sum to get out out of the suit, and many youth were negatively impacted by lack of use in Balboa and for a time Mission Bay. I have often wondered if the City of San Diego ever sued to get their money back. But, as noted, I am sure that many can contribute similar stories, not necessarily Scouting related, but legal grandstanding and foot dragging to wear the system down.

Yes, these things did happen and were dealt with as well, though maybe not as soon as they should have been in some cases. Over the years, there have been instances of drunk leaders, leaders carrying firearms with not proper licenses, leaders and parents doing caravaning, even after it was recommended not to, units still driving kids in the backs of trucks and with improper insurance, or even none. These are all things that have happened and often were likely not even reported. But they are also reflective of what many in the larger population do regularly as well, in their jobs, in their interactions with neighbors, and on the roads. Scouts and Scouters, and the parents of the scouts are all human beings and often fall very short of the ideal. That is what we try to fix with the proper programs. Failure is too often a fact. Does that mean we should simply give up? Does it mean that we attach those failures and errors in judgment to every unit now and to possibly come? While we hope we can possibly be a bit above the madding crowd, but too often we still are not. That does not mean we cannot be. IF you feel, or ever felt, that the overall idea of Scouting will make better citizens and young people, then you should remember that when reading the anomalous stories that media pushes with bias and attempts to sensationalize, and try even harder. JMHO of course.

Anyone with rational thinking that is. There obviously are a few that seem to think it is, and has been, a huge issue, even though the "stats" would suggest otherwise. The trouble is, of course, is that those that believe that, or at least claim it, are very loud bayers and not particularly rational. I am not speaking of the actual victims that have valid claims and do exist, but the larger picture in comparative society. And, as discussed over and over, our legal system allows a great deal of overreach and irrational claims. Those that choose to not agree, that is your right, but please do not accuse me of not having concern or empathy, as that is simply not true.

So, if simply the location puts them at risk, does that mean the Forest Service, or even the city that owns the park with its numerous dark and secret areas can be held accountable and sued when something happens there? It comes back to who is the "real" perpetrator and if somehow the property owner could logically know that someone would cause harm on their property. If the church or school does not offer the "place", the predator will find one if possible, as it is their nature and no manner of barriers will stop them all. And the truth is that the largest percentage of abuse occurs within family homes and under the noses of others known to the family and victim.

Sorry, but I believes in dollars, period. He could care less about damage today based on past issues. Again, I do not see him as a good guy, simply a greedy on on a power trip. JMO of course.

It is more of a statement to those suggesting that somehow carrying YP beyond Scouting should be in the YP material. Perhaps I misread a few comments, but I got the impression a few thought National actually needed to put that idea into the program. So, my circuitous thinking is simply that we do not need National or anyone to tell us to live the Oath and Law and other precepts of the program beyond Scouting. I am old and confuse myself much of the time. I mean, I still tend to use the left handed, three finger Scout Sign handshake. But I get confused when confronted with the OA options, particularly since as a Vigil, I guess there is a separate finger grip. I just let the other person decide how many fingers, but I draw a line at toes.

Does it make a real difference? IF we claim to "live the Promise", do we need an official declaration or statement to carry it beyond the program? Just asking, as my life view has almost always been affected by my Scouting experience.