elitts

You need to slow down and take a few breaths between reading and typing, you aren't even responding to the right point of outrage here. Eagledad was talking about the Scouting program and the patrol method being a "proven program" NOT the Youth Protections.

If you are talking about people questioning the "50% of abuse is youth on youth" statement, that's because history tells us that when someone gives a statistic, you can't know anything about what it means until you understand the definitions being used; particularly in the area of sexual abuse and rape where there is a distinct tendency among some advocates to keep expanding definitions to make their chosen issue seem more dire than it might be. I have no illusions about the BSA and their overall level of competence. Completely separate from this, any organization that publishes a guide to safe tool use saying a 7 year old can't use a hand-held paint brush safely gets nothing but contempt from me. But I've also seen situations as with the study on sexual abuse of women in college where the definitions end up SO broad the resulting number is meaningless.

The issue with some LCs is that they survive off the investments because donations and fees aren't enough to keep them running. I don't know exactly how compelling that need is for all of them, but for at least some losing even 50% of their investments would put them out of operation. Well, keep in mind the context of that defense. You and a few other people have the "anti-BSA" point of view very well covered and represented so for those points about which I agree with you, there's not really any purpose in my repeating you. That leaves me with those positions where I disagree with you and feel strongly enough about something to write about it. So I'm sure if you were looking at my posts as a whole, it would look like I'm an avowedly "pro-BSA" supporter. As others have said, it's never really talked about because parents don't like to think about possibilities like that. Just like how concussions are rarely discussed amongst football and soccer parents. Not the age per se, rather the stage of physical development. Pre-pubescent fixation (generally under age 10) = pedophile, Pubescent fixation (early adolescence, generally 11-14 or 15) = Hebophile. Post-pubescent fixation (generally 15-19) = Ephebophile and that's not even automatically considered a "disordered preference".

I don't see any issue with it at all. Two individual scouts wearing their uniform to a meeting like that isn't "being involved in political matters". First because there's a difference between two individuals doing something and a whole troop or a council; and second because the issue wasn't so much about politics as it was about censorship and religion. Plus, they weren't wearing the uniform to try and create some association between Scouts and their viewpoint, they were wearing the uniform in an attempt to be taken more seriously.

I just filled mine out and put "Childhood". I know I was vaccinated, but my docs got lost somewhere between the 1980s and now and my earliest health record is from like age 16.

One of my criticisms of the YP training material is that they spent as much time as they did getting experts and victims to tell us CSA is a problem and not nearly enough time discussing grooming techniques and other standard methods to be aware of. I had never heard of grooming up until I saw the training the first time and I have to think my experience with it is pretty typical. I would willingly exchange 1 or 2 minutes of telling me how bad it is to rape kids (Duh!) for 10-15 minutes of more detail on warning signs, common MOs and demonstrations of things like what "boundary testing" might look like.

I have no problem with an independent monitor or court supervised reporting, that's not what was being discussed. RememberSchiff was talking about an outside committee being in direct control of BSA Youth Protection policies. I wouldn't even have a problem with a court appointed receivership because at least that person would be neutral and independent and would have a fiduciary duty to the the organization (as well as a duty to comply with any court judgement); whereas a committee put together of survivors and experts and allowed direct control of BSA operations would not necessarily have the knowledge, skill or inclination to actually maintain the organization.

Just to be clear: Asking any claimants to come forward wasn't "on their own volition". Part of filing bankruptcy involves the requirement to inform any potential creditors that the bankruptcy is happening so that they can file notice of the debt with the court. Failure to do so when you know a creditor exists is one of the ways you can get a bankruptcy undone if someone comes forward later. Cynicalscouter explained how it would be theoretically possible to successfully defend against an abuse complaint, but in reality, with the way our courts work any incidence of abuse is going to essentially be considered "proof" of negligence. The American public has completely bought into the idea that if something bad happens you are entitled to be reimbursed and that means that SOMEONE with a big checkbook has to be held to blame. It's a nice idea, but it's not possible to operate a business (for profit or not) with a model like that. If an independent authority has the power to simply establish rules for an organization, it gives them the power to shut the organization down. All it would take is something innocuous sounding like "Youth must be accompanied by either a parent or 2 unrelated registered adults at all times".

It's possible I read more into this line than you intended: I read this to mean that you thought it would be unacceptable to just have a scout sit out of an event if they didn't wish to participate because of the clothing requirements and so the event just shouldn't happen. The bold part is one of those things that would depend entirely on the tone of voice and sincerity. (I understand you are using it sarcastically) But I would find that statement to be just fine (except the "out group") part if it was made with actual compassion and an invitation to "come watch with the rest of us".

Yes, I read it. I also read a number of other articles on the subject. The standards change does NOT make all cords illegal, they are only disallowed on "stock" products. Here's a slightly more competently written article published by the WMCA. https://windowcoverings.org/historic-safety-standard-removing-majority-of-corded-window-coverings-from-u-s-market-takes-effect/ This article specifically mentions that the standard only applies to about 80% of the blinds produced. I don't know why you would think all blinds are disposable items, they are household fixtures that most people don't replace until they are no longer functional. (which is why you still find homes with roller shades) Sure, the plastic 32" blinds may only cost $15, but higher grade blinds or custom blinds can cost hundreds of dollars per window and most people out there don't have thousands of dollars to replace all the blinds in their home unless they happen to have a small child that would actually be at risk. But if scouts learn about replacing the cords, they can learn that the best option (when replacement isn't possible) is to replace a looped cord or a multiple terminations cord with individual (and shorter) cords that drastically reduce the risk of strangulation.

The problem with this idea is that it sets the bar of acceptable at "whatever no one is uncomfortable with" and that's a standard that isn't functional. I wouldn't support a membership requirement for OA (or anything else) that was based upon a willingness to be shirtless in public but I draw the line at not allowing those who ARE willing to appear shirtless to perform or appear that way because we don't want some kid to feel excluded. If Ryan doesn't want to participate in an activity with their patrol for whatever reason, that's their choice, as is any resulting feeling of exclusion. I wouldn't allow a patrol to badger a scout into participating, or to tease them afterwards for sitting something out, but I'm also not going to tell any patrol they can't do something (that is otherwise acceptable) just because some patrol member is reluctant. Peer pressure (overt or not) and FOMO (fear of missing out) is often given a bad rap, it can also be an excellent force for getting kids to broaden their horizons and stretch their perceived limits by getting them to try things even when it might be a little intimidating or scary.

They still aren't illegal. The rule only applies to stock blinds sold off the shelves in retail stores. Custom order blinds, which are very common, can still be had with cords. (albeit shorter ones) There's plenty of stuff in homes that is no longer considered "safe" that aren't going to go away any time soon. The fact that something is no longer up to code for new installations or purchase doesn't mean it doesn't still need to be maintained. Though I have no issue with adjusting the requirements to add a requirement to find out if the item being repaired is still considered acceptable and what risks might be associated with it.

Nope. It's not inappropriate. I'm not quite sure why you would think it is. Young men and boys have been swimming, playing sports, mowing lawns and attending sporting events shirtless for at least the 45 years I've been alive. I would agree that wearing loincloths with nothing underneath is wholly unacceptable, but over shorts? If that bothers you the only conclusion I can come to is that you've seriously over-sexualized everything. That's the sort of attitude that gets us rules banning an unrelated adult from hugging a crying child and results in men being unable to be in a playground (without a child immediately in their presence) without being suspected of being a pedophile. Going without a shirt has never been generally inappropriate for boys. (Though it may be situationally inappropriate)

What on there is "New and innovative"? Spot Checks is the active component there that isn't done in some way right now. I suppose it is doable, but not really any different than the visits DEs are supposed to be doing with all units. Since CSA isn't something that happens where anyone else can see, I'm not sure how a spot check would be useful unless you are just looking to see if a pack/troop/crew is just violating "2 Deep" or "no one on one" as a matter of standard practice. Zero Tolerance is almost never a good plan anywhere I've ever heard of it being the rule of the day. Unless it's just talking about major violations. I'm all for zero tolerance of giving a kid porn or alcohol, but not so much for sending an (entirely appropriate) email without remembering to cc someone else. The rest of the stuff isn't about rules or actions taken to keep kids safe, it's either stuff we already have but you think somehow it needs to be better, or it's about reporting and oversight. (which I have no issue with)

My biggest problem whenever this topic comes up in a forum or article is with the headings. The heading is always "Increasing Youth Protection standards" or "Improving Youth Protection Training standards", but I have yet to see anyone offer a convincing argument about there being something insufficient about the basic Youth Protection rules within the BSA. All this heading does, when coupled with information about the 80k filings is give the impression that the BSA is still at step one with regard to implementing safety rules as opposed to being 40 years in. What people usually end up discussing is "Changes to YP violation reporting and accountability", which is certainly needed. But if we could start out the conversation there, we'd waste a lot less time.

Well, typically, prior results have no relevance to a current risk assessment (other than as a comparison) if the underlying conditions have changed significantly enough. If a particularly significant risk factor for a particular problem (say: one on one contact and CSA) has been mitigated then the statistical results from before the mitigating actions were taken are no longer relevant to assessing the current risk. Of course, it's still relevant to determining the effectiveness of the mitigation, but that's a different kind of analysis. Now, I'm not actually arguing that they shouldn't have given the data to their researcher for the historical context, but I would never think pre-YPT data is relevant to determining the current risks of Scouting.

Yep. I should have known to read the actual language. While it seemed odd to me that a state organization would implement hard and fast rules that would actually apply to organs of the state, I'm totally used to seeing half-baked legislation passed where no one bothered to turn to outside folks and say "Hey, anyone see a problem with this language?" Plus I see there's no teeth in the legislation either. I mean, from time to time during the day, lots of classrooms have two adults, but that's a whole different story from mandating it at all times.

Well, there's some problematic wording. Let's ignore scouts for a second.. How the hell does Newsom think school is going to work? He planning to double the staff in schools by having 2 adults in every classroom?

Usually the debtor organization remains in existence as a zombie more or less while the "new" organization moves on. My understanding is that it functions much like an estate. Well.. They've been putting values on injuries for centuries. I don't think you could really argue that all those valuations have been objectively determined and consistent.

Eh.. I have to wonder what kind of an "appraisal" was really done on that kind of scale. A true appraisal for a specialty property like a summer camp would run $5,000-$7500 minimum here in Michigan and I'm sure it would be higher on the coasts. (not to mention taking 6-8 weeks) Did some attorney or the TCC actually front 5 or 6 million dollars for 850 appraisals to be run? Or more importantly: Is 15% of all LCs a greater amount than 30%-50% of just the LCs that are in open window states? I think the other assumption is that LC finances look the same as a for-profit business where cash and cash equivalents are essentially a "rainy day fund" that can be spent down with impunity for operating needs. But in many of the LCs those investments, even if they aren't restricted, represent the source of the LC's operating funds (interest). Losing even a 25%-30% slice of that pot of money would be crippling if it meant the loss of 10%-20% of their annual operating income. More than that could easily put the LC into a death spiral since a regular source of funds to replace that revenue isn't likely to pop up quickly.

No, probably not. Most of these camps aren't selling for use as camps, they are selling to be logged and then developed, or even just developed. Eh.. I have to think it's a little bit of both. Outside of a new dining hall my troop's primary camp was entirely unchanged from the time I was a scout until my son was. (so about 25 years) That's an awfully long time for a camp to exist with next to zero capital improvements. And even the dining hall only got replaced because a couple trees fell on the old one during a storm. But during all that time, summer camp attendance had actually increased as other camps in Michigan had been shut down.

Moderator Note: And with that we are going to need to let the discussion of contingency fees die folks. That horse was beaten nigh unto to a puddle a few months ago and the most recent few posts have recapped that discussion pretty much in its entirety so anyone who might not have seen it can see the main points now.

So your response to the fact that many schools have a crazy and impossible to manage definition of bullying is to expand that definition to Scouts too? There's a twisted sort of logic in there, but man... That's like arguing that kids with mandatory school uniforms should have to wear a uniform all the time because we don't want them to be stressed out by having to switch between school clothes and home clothes. My experience with my son is that while the official "rules" do have objective standards for bullying, there is a solid contingent of folks who will bend the definitions into pretzels out of their desperate concern that someone might feel bad. (I assume it's the same group that thinks participation trophies are a good idea) My son's school had a poster on the wall that said "Bullying is any unkind word, gesture or look". All I could do was marvel at the stupidity of the concept of making every person who had a bad day a "bully". My son actually ended up in something of a mess in middle school because there was a kid whose parents complained my son's group of friends (3 boys) was "bullying him" because they wouldn't play with him. They weren't lobbying against him with others or badmouthing him, they just wouldn't play with him anymore. The reason was that the kid would throw a temper tantrum whenever he didn't get his way on game choice or if he started losing a game. But it's hard to tell a parent the problem is that they raised a spoiled little brat.

Functionally speaking, when an organization goes through bankruptcy it ceases to exist (or goes on only as a trust fund). What comes out the other side is a completely new organization that just happens to have the same name and some of the same assets. (barring a few select circumstances that can re-link the two organizations) I don't think your appraisal of people is realistic either. I've spent 20 years working with "the public" via phone calls, letters, mailings and in person visits. Even fairly intelligent people are regularly unwilling to read more than a few lines of a letter or document, especially if the wording is complex or if it uses legal or technical language. The "average" person is going to look at a page or two of documentation, get confused and then want to call someone for an explanation and likely doesn't even own a calculator or realize they have one on their phone. Think about what "Should happen" is really only useful if what "should happen" is in the realm of the possible. When what should happen is impossible, spending time worrying about it and being upset about it doesn't really do anything other than wear away at the emotional well-being of the worrier. National simply cannot "equitably compensate" the survivors and they cannot give each survivor sound information upon which to base their decision. The amount per claimant is useful as a comparison with other mass torts and it's useful as a way to discuss the amounts being contributed to the overall pool, but when it comes to an individual making a decision for themselves, that information is irrelevant to the point of being misleading without a complete understanding of how the claim rating is going to work with regard to severity and SoLs. It would be rather like having to pick a used car to buy and being told that the average # of miles of all the cars on the lot is 60k.