Cambridgeskip

Now you see that is a different question! What I mean is would they want to be seen as any of those things among those particular individuals that they go to school with? Does acknowledgement by those individuals mean anything to them? I can see it in a couple of the explorer scouts attached to my group. If you talk to them it actually matters to them that they are acknowledged as leaders in a scouting context. At school though? It simply doesn't matter. It's all about that teenage sense of belonging.

I'll turn this on its head. Would your scouts want to be the leaders at their school? The reason I ask..... in my days as a scout I didn't fit in well at school. In short I was the working class kid at the very middle class school. My dad got his hands dirty in a factory while most of my class mates had dads who were lawyers or doctors or something similar. And I was rarely allowed to forget it and I got a really hard time about it. My scout troop though was filled with kids more like me. And I fitted in there. I was PL of Bulldog* patrol. It was where I fitted in. Back at school where I didn't fit in I have to say that I don't think I would want to have been a leader. We had elections for Head Boy and Head Girl and their deputies (this may be a very British thing, apologies if you're not familiar with the concept!). It was inevitably a popularity contest and frankly not one I had any interest in winning. I was completely done with half of those I went to school with. I'd go so far as to say I actively didn't want to win it. So out of curiosity, would your scouts want to be the leaders at their school? Is it something they aspire to but don't get the chance? Or do they avoid it? *previously we'd been panthers. But the panther patrol badge looked more like a gerbil. So we changed to bulldogs. Turned out the bulldog badge looked more like a Scottish Terrier. Not quite the image we were looking for!

I read that first time as having been chartered by KFC. Would have been a different string to Colonel Saunders bow

Stosh, both of those claims have been debunked. Sweden was a mistranslation where 50 something areas were described as "vulnerable areas" which required intensive policing. Quite the opposite of no go. In France there wasn't any such designation, simply a selection of cities with particularly dangerous areas. Basically major cities with some dangerous areas shock horror! Fox news were forced to retract their comments. The idea of no go zones is a myth created by the right wing media. It's not been helped by the left wing media refusing to acknowledge that there are places where integration of the muslim/asian community is an obvious problem. But no go zones? Total nonsense. Are you seriously making a comparison between a blanket (albeit temporary) ban on people from 6 countries and a decision to leave a free trade area? Seriously?

I think you've missed my point. It's not an either or argument. It's not about hurting anyone's feelings or otherwise. The US government can of course do what it wants with regard to security. It may also, and indeed areas of the country that are highly dependent on tourism may like it, want to ensure that those who would otherwise not be turned away aren't scared off. It doesn't have to chose. It can do both. I am sure there are different branches of the executive there to do both. And if it chooses to do both a narrative, a story, something that makes it personal is a more effective method of doing so than dry statistics about all those people who have no doubt entered the country without difficulty.

Once again I accept your point, to a certain extent. However..... and bear with me if this sounds like it's going at a tangent, this is all tied in. Imagine, if you will, that you are an educated man living in Victorian London. You are appalled at the social deprivation you see in working class districts, in particular what becomes of the children there, many of who end up in work houses or get drawn into criminal gangs and the like and you want to do something about it. To get public attention. To get people to listen. You could go into politics, you could try telling people about the statistics. Of how many children die, how many are orphans. etc. Or you could do something far more effective. You could write a novel called Oliver Twist. Charles Dickens is a great hero of mine. His ability to make his point with a fantastic story packed with colourful characters and with a wry sense of humour. @@Stosh will have to forgive me if I sometimes find his brand of humour a touch Dickensian! That's a compliment by the way. What's this got to do with the price of fish? Human beings aren't very good with large numbers and what they mean. We haven't evolved that way. For most of human history we have only had to cope with numbers into the hundreds. Sheep in a heard, days in a year, people in the village. That's why when you start talking about millions of people coming in and thousands of trucks, planes etc the brain doesn't compute. Ironically it is (partly) why people struggle with the fact that terrorism is as small a risk as it is. They don't see the hundreds of millions that are never effected by it, they see the small numbers (comparitively) killed in individual incidents. Fact remains that you are more likely to be killed by your own alarm clock than by a terrorist in the western world. Back to those millions of passengers on thousands of trucks etc. All the stats in the world don't beat one really good story in terms of being influential. That story can be the story of an orphan in work house in Victorian England who runs away and gets taken on by a gang of thieves in London. Or it could be the story of a muslim man turned away from the USA shortly after the US president says he wants to stop all muslims coming in. The fact is that this story, and others like it, has got legs. And those legs will run. If the US government wants to sooth and alay the fears of those who wish to travel to the USA then they are going to have come up with as equally an interesting counter story. Statistics, much as the scientist in me wish they would, just don't cut it.

I see your point, but, and it's an important but the current US president, during his election campaign, called for a complete bar on muslims travelling to the USA. Now he is in power an individual of Bangladeshi descent, with apparently all the paper work in place (according to the media I'll grant you) has been turned around at the border. That does not of course prove that he was turned around for being muslim, but I think it gives excellent reason to ask the question. And if I was in his shoes it is the thought that would be at the front of my mind.

Given the temporary nature of the travel ban I think that the Canadian Guides are indeed jumping the gun. But as per Rick's comments it is something that organisations around the world, whether they be scouts or non scout groups are going to have to consider. My troop are going to Canada this summer. When we planned the trip we have two scouts who are Iranian in the troop. We also seriously considered flying into Buffalo as it is slightly nearer to our destination in Canada than Toronto airport is. Now as it happens neither Iranian signed up and we eventually booked to fly to Toronto anyway as its cheaper. But things could have been different and yours truly would have been left with some very difficult decisions to make as would their families. So it is a long way from being nonsense. You will also find that various countries will be begining their WSJ19 selection process this year, certainly we're expecting it to kick off for youth members in September. Again if the ban hasn't been lifted it is going to put families descended from the countries involved as well as national scout organisations in very difficult positions. I would like to think that WOSM are speaking to the relevant bits of the US government in that respect.

Looked away from this for a few days ago and it all explodes! Anyway, a thought about the difference in wearing neckers between USA and here in Europe. How often do you camp and there are other troops/units/packs in the same place? I ask because as I said earlier it is used symbolically here, more as a troop identifier than it is as a practical piece of kit. Population density means that wild camping is pretty rare and the vast majority of the time we camp on scout owned campsites and there will nearly always be other troops there. I've been a leader since 1997 and on racking my brains I can identify just 4 nights of camping (2 for cubs, 2 for scouts) where we were the only group at a given site and that is probably a common experience for most in Europe. Hence he need for an easily identifying symbol so I can spot one of mine the other side of the field and indeed they can spot each other. Equally when things start getting competitive it's a team bonding thing! And when friendships are made it's something to swap. If you are less used to seeing 6 other troops in the same area for the weekend maybe that's how culturally it's become less of the norm in the USA. Update - you can spot the site we'll be camping at in a couple of weeks time on Google earth here. I can count what looks like 5 different groups there on what is a 75 ish acre site. This is pretty standard.

Quite happy to hear from Webelos (Final year of cubs right?), and indeed from anyone else. My lot don't bite! If whoever left the comments on the video is lurking on here we're keen to hear from your scouts as well.

So.... a long time ago, well October time I think it was, I got a PM from another user of this forum (who shall remain nameless unless he chooses to reveal himself!) saying he had a member of his troop who needed to make some kind of international link for his Eagle Scout award, would my lot be interested in being said link? I bounced it off my PLs, they were keen, a few PMs later and we decided that as my lot are collectively curious about scouts your side of the pond, having already been twinned with a Canadian troop, we'd start it off by putting together a short video of questions that some of them had, send the link across and get something back. Alas! Three months after we uploaded the scouts of said forum member have been being a little tardy in putting their response together. Ie, so far, nothing.... so earlier today me and anonymous forum member (who is it? I can hear you all thinking) agreed that seeing as my lot have been asking after the response I'd stick the link on here and see if anyone else has a troop your side of the pond who are up for joining in. ie field the questions and ping a few questions back to us. Questions on Youtube here As a bit about us, I've got 35 scouts aged 10-14, mix of boys and girls. Pretty multinational, we have scouts where they or their parents were born in 13 different countries at last count. Feel free to sniff around the rest of our youtube channel to get a better feel. Anyway.... over to you......

I couldn't agree more. I've always thought that one of the successes of scouting, what makes it more than just another youth club, is that it taps into a very basic human need to belong, something which is particularly strong among teenagers. The uniform taps into that. It gives a sense of belonging at multiple level, from the patrol through to an international one.

To be fair on the logistics argument this isn't something we ever had to face in the UK. Historically The Scout Association and Girl Guiding UK have always cooperated a lot, probably more so before going coed. Girl Guides own very few campsites, they have a few but a fraction of what scouts have. So Girl Guides have historically camped at scout campsites. Similarly most sites get used by schools during term time as well. So those sites were already geared up for boys and girls toilet and shower blocks before we went coed. So there was no big bang need for change on that front.

Ditching the necker was seriously talked about in the UK in the late 90s as part of the big overhaul of uniform. They were kept in the end because the kids demanded it! The scouts themselves wear them with real pride at district and county events. There's always inter troop rivalry and the different colours of troop neckers helps reinforce that. From my perspective I like them as it helps distinguish my scouts from other troops at a distance.

In all seriousness can you list which programs you refer to? The majority of WOSM affiliated scout associations around the world are coed and world wide scouting is growing. So I'd be curious to see the stats you refer to. And with regard to the UK you simply can't pin the late 90s/early 2000s drop on going coed. There was simply too much else going on and the turn around that came as soon as the big changes in 2002/2003 happened suggests that girls weren't really the problem.

Question for you, do you have an equivalent of what we call Scouting Active Support Units? (SAS) They vary what they do across the country. Some are effectively social clubs for mostly retired leaders but what the best ones do is provide the really stretching adventurous activities. They are typically staffed by a group of like minded scouters and those who would like to be but who’s schedules don’t allow them to be somewhere every week. Typically each weekend they have a different troop or unit with them. SAS provide the equipment and the instructors. In some cases it’s to give a taster of what it is all about. In other cases they run a longer course to get qualifications at the end. There’s one close to us that offers Gliding that we’ve been to a couple of times, another one in the Peak District that offers rock climbing that we’ve used. Others that do caving, sailing, kayaking. It allows troops and units to get out and do things even when they don’t have scouters with the necessary qualifications or experience. They are a great way of being able to offer the really stretching stuff without every troop or unit needing qualified instructors. If you don’t have an equivalent it might be something that BSA should think about.

Stosh, I'll accept that there are some sensible arguments for having separate boys and girls scouting or youth provision of any sort, but seriously that is a tenuous argument. The term coed is being used to simply distinguish between a possible future position for BSA and the current position. Nowhere in the world that has coed scouting (which is the vast majority of the world, not just Canada) calls it that as far as I can tell. They are simply scouts. Or the local translation of the word. And there's a reason for that, it's not really different.

Certainly post First World War it's what he wanted. He seems to have had quite a change of heart after that. But if you look at the material pre First World War the emphasis is still obviously there.

In the UK girls were admitted to what was then Venture Scouts (15.5 - 21) in 1971. They were admitted to all age ranges on a local option basis in 1991. All groups became coed in 2007.

I think that the kids know more in terms of accessing what they want to access and filtering out the junk (the silly chain messages etc) than adults do. I do think though that the kids need more training in how to protect themselves on line. Some are really quite naive.

Agreed. On other hand it is a great tool for publicity. We have a website, public facebook page, a closed facebook group for leaders and parents and a twitter feed. We're heading to an era where if you aren't on the internet you don't exist.

You fall into the category of those find it depressing! I've always found it uplifting. No cheerful as such, it's about a pair of people living on the street, but they find comfort and companionship in each other. And that's where I think the thought for scouts lies.

We don't really have the concept of the scout master's minute here in the UK. Although I like the concept! So I was kicking round the idea of doing something like it as an occasional thing with the troop to use as a thought provoker, maybe in the evening on camp and came up with this. It's the lyrics to one of my favourite songs, One Better Day by Madness. I don't know if Madness ever really made it in the USA but they were big here in the early 1980s and are still touring now. I think the story the song tells is quite obvious but I've found that different people take different things from it. Some find it quite uplifting, some find it quite depressing. I think it might work as a thought and conversation provoker though. what do you think? For info "Arlington House" referred to in the first verse was the first hostel for the homeless in London in the area of Camden, with the reference to the lock referring to Camden Lock (there's a lot of Canals in that corner of London) Arlington house, address: no fixed abode An old man in a three-piece suit sits in the road He stares across the water, he sees right through the lock But on and up like outstretched hands His mumbled words, his fumbled words, mock Further down, a photo booth, a million plastic bags And an old woman filling out a million baggage tags But when she gets thrown out, three bags at a time She spies the old chap in the road to share her bags with She has bags of time Surrounded by his past, on a short white line He sits while cars pass either side, takes his time Trying to remember one better day A while ago when people stopped to hear him say Walking round you sometimes hear the sunshine Beating down in time with the rhythm of your shoes Now she has walked enough through rainy town She rests her bag against his and sits down She's trying to remember one better day A while ago when people stopped to hear her say Walking round you sometimes hear the sunshine Beating down in time with the rhythm of your shoes Walking round you sometimes hear the sunshine Beating down in time with the rhythm of your shoes The feeling of arriving when you've nothing left to lose

Or put another way; Why are some companies worth more than the total of their net assets? Goodwill. It’s that certain something that keeps people coming back to a certain product, and in most cases it is completely tied up with the brand name. It’s the reason why people pay more for Heinz beans than the supermarket own brand beans when they’re made in the same factory with a different label. It’s all about branding and goodwill. My hypothesis is that you can offer all the different programs you want for boys and girls and coed you want, but what the punters want is cubs and scouts. If that’s not what it’s called they won’t go for it. BSA may be losing members but my understanding is that it still has well over 2 million members. It clearly has a certain something to it that keeps people coming back. And as Ian pointed out, there are even more potential members outside of its traditional male market that want in. What it cause a net gain or net loss in the USA? I don’t know. As Ian rightly points out, be very careful about pinning the fall in members in the UK in the late 90s on going coed. There were simply too many other factors in play. The program, the uniform, the branding, the PR. It had all stagnated. I’m not going to say absolutely that there was no link. What I can say is I was a scout and a venture scout in the 90s. I knew a lot of boys that quit. I don’t recall any of them blaming it on girls.

When looked at from a detached perspective that may make sense. Trouble is that the people you are going to sell this to are not detached, Cubs is a very well known and successful "brand" for want of a better word. Your concept of tribe may have the same program as cubs, may have the same structure, the same uniform and awards even. Trouble is that mum and dad of the 7 year old approaching you want their child to join this thing that's been around 100 years, in most countries in the world, that dad went to when he was a kid. And that thing is called Cubs. And I suspect that will go for boys and girls. And that is what I mean by "Can't get there from here".