Jump to content

Cambridgeskip

Members
  • Posts

    1098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by Cambridgeskip

  1. Skeptic, it's simply a case of what constitutes news. Most people are unfamiliar with day to day life in Afghanistan where as they know what scouts do in the average American community. Simple as that.
  2. Packsaddle - no idea, but it's one I've liked for a long while!
  3. Never criticise a man till you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticise him you're a mile away and you have his shoes.
  4. New Scout parent "Will he have to do his own washing up on camp?"
  5. A lot of pride being shown for this leader this side of the pond. Atthe same time this was a truly ghastly event that really has left a lot of people stunned. It is a whole new level of brutality.
  6. The way I would be looking it is whether he is keeping anyone else from joining? How limited are you on space? Do you have a waiting list of other boys wanting to join? If so I'd say his parents need to be told that he needs to attend regularly or you will assumer he has left. If that's not the case though then I would let him come along as long as he has paid up. The consequences for him will of course be that he doesn't earn all the badges or develop the skills everyone else does and no doubt he will realise that as he goes along and will probably either come along more often or, more likely, drop out.
  7. The view from across the pond.... So as you know scouting in the UK is fully mixed. However it is still male dominated, about 85%. It is unlikely to really move from that. The reason that the programme is different to that which the Girl Guides offers. The result is that scouts appeals to a minority of boys. They tend to be far more robust than girls who go to Guides and are far more interested in getting out there and doing the adventurous programme which scouts offers. In the scout section, 10-14 year olds, we get very little of the "boy meets girl" side of things. It does happen from time to time, I have a couple sniffing around each other at the moment right now but so far it has not caused a problem. There is more of it in the 14-18 Explorer age range but again it is rare for it to be a problem. The fact is kids sign up to scouts to go climbing and canoeing rather than meet boys/girls. It does cause a few practical problems such as ensuring we have a range of tent sizes so that you can easily maintain the patrol system and still have single sex sleeping. While not compulsory I like to ensure I have a female leader with me for camps.
  8. Some local units do all kinds of things, and some local units shouldn't be Boy Scouts if they don't want to do things as proscribed. Boy Scouts exists because all over the Western world at the turn of the century men took an interest in the plight of young boys who weren't even their own, and decided to invest in them uniquely. They came from every background, from rough frontiersmen to clergy to wealthy progressives to cult of body idealists, not because they were setting out to "discriminate" or segregate, but because they saw a need for a particular sympathetic creature, the boy, and picked him for the philanthropy. Er.... where on earth do you get the bit about European scout associations being a branch of the government?
  9. You may not agree with me but just bear in mind I wrote from experience of what actually happens.
  10. You may not agree with me but just bear in mind I wrote from experience of what actually happens.
  11. Different country but similar concept. My troop is not stuck in that rut and I think it all boils down to balance. There is a lot of truth in the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" so if something is popular there is nothing at all wrong with doing it year it year out. BUT it must be balanced with variarty. Kids have a lot of options these days and a lot of new things they can try. If scouting isn't offering them something new on a regular basis they will go elsewhere. So be prepared to do something a bit left field sometimes. Every now and then just bin the official programme and do something off the wall. One Christmas rather than having the traditional trip to see a pantomime we went to the ballet instead. Certainly not your average scout programme but the scouts, especially the boys, loved it. They had no idea what to expect and were able to see the pure athleticism of the dancers. One night we had a local martial arts group come in to run a night. Again, completely different to the standard programme. But equally we have our annual pan cake making night, There would be a riot if we scrapped it! We have an annual inter patrol cook off as well. Also watch out for whole youth lead thing, but again with balance. If you give the scouts the opportunity to lead and influence the programme as much as possible then they will naturally end up doing the programme that they want. BUT..... scouts are, ultimately, children, They don't have the experience of the world that adults have. We do have that experience and can introduce them to things that they may not have even thought about doing or trying. In terms of links with the pack, we work on the basis of one night per term doing something with the cubs to get them into the mindset of scouts being what they naturally move onto. Also on most cub camps they ask for 2 or 3 scouts to go along with them to simply be a presence, to get to know the cubs and make sure they move on to us in due course.
  12. Thanks for sharing. You were lucky, in some ways, and unlucky in other ways, to catch the park when it's quiet. Being in Cambridge I am lucky enough to be able to take the scouts there quite regularly and it's often very busy. It has a certain magic all its own though. The amount of history there is staggering!
  13. Ok then, by popular demand it would seem..... First of I think people are arguing semantics here. Yes homosexuality is about sex, but no more and no less so then heterosexuality is. If a new leader arrives at your group and introduces himself by saying "hello, my name is CambridgeSkip, pleased to meet you all. A bit about me. I live on any street, any town, I work at any company, I'm married to Mrs Cambridgeskip and you have probably already met my children, scout 1 and scout 2" then the scouts can probably deduce that the new leader has a sexual relationship. Same way they can deduce that their own parents do, and their teacher does and pretty much every other adult in their life. Those adults don't discuss sex with those scouts. So there is no reason why a gay scout leader would do so. They would just introduce themselves as something like "hello, my name is CambridgeSkip, pleased to meet you all. A bit about me. I live on any street, any town, I work at any company, I live with my partner/husband/civil partner Mr Cambridgeskip" and leave it at that. And yes, a gay leader has been introduced to the troop. Although in that case she was not as upfront about it. Just introduced herself without refering to any relationship. Which is fine. Over time though it just became known that she was gay. She would refer to her partner in conversation in exactly the same way that I would to Mrs Cambridgeskip. None of the scouts had an issue with it. You will probably be surprised at just how accepting the scouts will be. Second lets talk numbers. A quick bit of googling reveals varying opinions on what proportion of the population are gay. Anywhere between 1% and 6%. This seems to very between country, gender, enthnicity and all kinds of other factors. The detail is not important. What is important is that gays and bisexuals are in the minority. So odds are that at any given time, unless you have an absolutely massive troop you are unlikely to have more than 1 or 2 scouts who are gay at any given time. The nature of random distribution means that you may well have bubbles. In BPs ideal troop of 32 you'll have times with no gay scouts, other times you may have 4 or 5. but 1 or 2 will be typical. So you have a very small number. What are the odds of two of them ending up dating? Slim. They would typically need to be of around the same age and also actually interested in each other. I have had gay and bi scouts in the troop and can say that I have never had an actual relationship form. Will it one day? Possibly it will. I will treat it exactly the same as when I have had a boy and a girl in the troop dating (which I have had). They are expected to be "hands off" at scouts and they sleep in seperate tents. So tenting arrangements. On many threads there seems to be a lot of worry about this but I have found scouts to be amazingly pragmatic. It has simply never been an issue. That might not actually sound very helpful but it's true. They organise themselves (and in some circumstances I organise them) in terms of tenting arrangements and get on with it. They don't worry about it. As I said above if a relationship formed I would ensure that they were in seperate tents. Also if I knew a given individual had issues with being in the same tent as someone that is gay then that can be dealt with. A descrete reshuffle of the tents is all that is needed, same as if there were any other personality clash. I can point to two lads in my troop who are kept seperated because I know they will come to blows if I don't. But those individuals who have a problem will be in the minority as well. In short, don't worry about it! Gay Pride etc. To be honest this has never come up. I've never had scouts that want to go. If I did I guess I would risk assess it like I would any other activity or event. What will happen there? What is the likely age range? What are the numbers like? How many adults will I need? Is it appropriate? I am aware of gay pride events that are relatively conservative in nature which I think I would be happy for them to attend and equally I know of events that are overtly sexual in their nature where I don't think I would happy for them to go as I don't think it is appropriate. Take it as it comes. Over all I think you need to remember that your average gay teenager is not really any different to a straight teenager. They join scouts because they want to camp, climb and canoe. They can be trusted to get on with it So that is my practical experience. I am happy to be grilled on it in more detail!
  14. Now then. I came close to writing a missive on this as I have practical experience of having gay and bi scouts and leaders in my troop. However I fear it may get boring if I write it all and I also fear coming across as some kind of arrogant European liberal. So if anyone does want to ask some practical questions feel free to PM me.
  15. Re: tenting arangements. I have had openly gay scouts in my troop, both boys and girls. Tenting has simply never been a problem either for them, the other scouts, or the parents. They simply slept in a 2, 3, 4 or 6 man tent with 1 or more other scouts of the same sex and no one batted an eye lid. If someone was uncomfortable sleeping in the same tent as them I would simply have ensured that there was a descrete reshuffle. Trust me. Tenting is not rocket science. In practice you will find it is the easiest part of the change to deal with.
  16. So anyway, as I said further up, I will now reply a bit more fully. I'll try not to express too much opinion as I don't think it's really my place to do so, but perhaps a few observations. The constitution - it seems to me that some people are putting the car before the horse here. It seems to me that as someone said it should be the "base line" it should set out basic rights and what the state can and cannot. In which case it seems to be that any given individual should be asking themselves "what should my basic rights be, what should the state have the right to do and not do and does the constitution adequately reflect that". But some people seem to be taking the view that the constitution is somehow something super natural, almost God like, that cannot be questioned, and just accept what it says without question. A constitution of any nation is, by definition, man made, so this seems an odd way to think. Changes to gun laws. If, and only if, significant changes to gun control laws are needed it strikes me that changes to the constitution will be needed. I think the pro gun control folks would more easily get people on side by openly stating this. Polarisation - both sides need to accept that there is no one easy answer to solve America's problem with gun violence. If there was a simple answer it would have been done by now. Gun control on its own wont do it. Mental health reform on its own wont do it. No other one measure on its own will do it. Attitude to government. It seems there is a massive difference here between USA and Europe. You seem to see government as something imposed upon you to be kept as small as possible and not as something useful. In Europe government is generally seen as the servant of the population, there to carry out useful tasks like education, health, defence etc on behalf of the population. This is best expressed in the UK where the House of Commons, directly elected, is the ultimate sovereign body. It can over rule absolutely anything that any other branch of government does or has done should they chose to do so. The only thing it can't do is prevent its own dissolution and re election every 5 years. It seems that there is a very simplistic view of "criminals" and everyone else. Legally owned weapons are sometimes used for crimes. illegal weapons are sometimes used for legal purposes. The situation is more complex and again I think sometimes both sides could do with acknowledging that. You are also stuck in a vicious circle. I have no desire to own a gun simply because I don't feel threatened. As I said earlier I know of only one person that owns a gun. I don't know a single person that has ever been a victim of gun crime. Many of you want to keep your guns simply because gun crime is so rampant. I don't know how you easily break that. Breaking vicious circles often involves having to do something which one or more party finds unpallatable. Look at every peace process that has ever happened.
  17. Hmmmm..... plenty to ponder there. Alas I don't have time to properly reply right now but will in due course. In the mean time maybe something for you to ponder. I know only one person who owns a fire arm. He is a turkey farmer and has a hunting rifle which he keeps for pest control. And equally I don't know one person who fears our politicians. Laugh at yes, despise yes, can't be bothered with yes, but fear? No. Different culture I guess.
  18. A bewlidered Englishman writes..... I've watched the dozens of threads about gun ownership in recent weeks unfold with plenty of interest but until now decided not to join in. At the end of the day it's USA's problem to deal with. I'll keep out of it. But...... I am confused. And please don't take this the wrong way, this is not some snooty Brit looking down his nose at America. This is just a Brit being confused. So three questions for you. Quite a few on here refer to the constitutional right to bare arms, alongside right to free speech, right to vote and also the fact that there is no constitutional right to a roof over your head. Do you consider the right to own a fire arm as important as the right to vote or the right to free speech? Second.... people keep saying a restruction is unconstitutional. If the majority of the population thought it needed changing couldn't you just change the constitution? Apologies if that seems a simplistic question. Finally. Folks talk about freedom from tyranny. Does anyone in the USA actually fear that the federal government would ever become tyranical? Really? You honestly think one day you mght become an Orwellian nightmare? We're talking about a country that is the ultimate democracy. From what I can see you vote on pretty much everything from The President through to your local Fire Chief. That is the culture you live in, or it is the one that I see as an outsider. Maybe the reality is different. So do you really fear government power?
  19. I don't ban phones from camp but we do have an appropriate use policy and we don't allow them to charge. A camp we did back in October saw photos appear on facebook while we were away. Lots of approving comments from the non scout friends of scouts. Got some great publicity there. More amusingly on a winter camp a couple of years ago a scout who had friended me on facebook posted that he was cold in his sleeping bag. I was able to comment on the spot, before his mum noticed, to put a hat, an extra layer and some socks on, as he had been reminded by me and his PL before he went to bed and only come moaning when he had done the things he had been trained to do. His status was deleted within 5 minutes, all without either of us having to leave our tent!
  20. The problem boils down to the internet. People have always trotted out utter nonsense. But 20 years ago it would just be some weird guy in a corner of a bar somewhere blithering on about his latest conspiracy theory. The regulars would humour him then call him a nutter when they got home. Now that weird guy at the bar has access to the internet and once something goes on the internet a lot of people, for reasons I can't fathom, decide that it has more credibility than if they were told it by a weird guy at the bar. Frankly I pity the people that trot this stuff out. They could really do with just getting a life.
  21. View from the other side of the pond is the scout who pulled the knife is dismissed. Regardless of whether it was a one off, out of character etc. Threatening with a knife is serious. It is for the protection of the rest of the troop, ie what if there is a next time and that time someone gets hurt or worse? It is for the protection of the troop leadership. If there is a next time can you imagine the fall out if it turns out it had happened before and the scout was still there? It is for the perpetrators protection. How so? If he had done that outside of scouts he could well be looking at being arrested and possible doing a spell in prison and getting a criminal record. Better that he learns now that doing things like that result in serious consequences than by learning it by landing in prison.
  22. I agree with the majority of what has been said here. But a cautionary tale, or part of one, it is not my place to divulge the entire story. Beware of eating disorders, anorexia and the like. They are a serious matter and more common in girls than boys but boys do some times suffer with them. Picky eating may not be a case of being obnoxious or fussy. I've dealt with a scout who I thought was just being fussy but eventually turned out to have much more serious issues. Missing a meal as a one off won't kill anyone but if it is happening on a regular basis for one individual keep your eyes open for something more serious and report it through whatever the appropriate channels are your side of the pond.
  23. How about also introducing things that may be a bit "icky" but emphasise the whole outdoor adventure side of things? We've trained ours on things like cleaning and gutting fish to cook on a fire and skinning and gutting rabbits again to cook outdoors. We've also got them making their own cheese (Paneer cheese is a doddle, you just need full fat milk and lemon juice) We're looking at maybe doing pheasent this year (although that may prove a bit on the expensive side. Formalising it may be provide the stick (still necessary) but making it fun also provides the equally necessary carrot.
  24. A note on the constitutional position of the monarch. The British monarch essentially wears a number of different hats and acts in different capacities while wearing them. The most important of these is head of state. Like in her other role she has no actual powers. Theoretically in the event of a hung parliament (ie no one party has an over all majority, as we have now) she can chose the Prime Minister however she would be obliged to chose the individual most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons. In practice what she would actually do is wait for two parties to form a coalition (as in the current parliament) or, if they failed to do so, act upon the advice of The Privy Council. So in effect she has no power! The idea is that she actually represents the people of the UK and when she asks someone to become Prime Minister and form a government she is doing so on behalf of the people of the UK. Its because of this that while I am a devout republican (in the European sense, republicans are generally pretty liberal) I have no problem with the scout promise because by promising to do my duty to the Queen I am in effect promising to do my duty to the people of the UK. Another hat that she wears is head of the Anglican Church. I have to confess to being less familiar with the governance procedures of the church but I am aware that again she is a figure head and has no actual powers. It is the Synod and the Bishops and Arch Bishops that actually run things and make the decisions. My understanding of the Guides consultation is that rather than having different promises for different beliefs like the Scouts they are looking to create one promise that anyone of any belief can make and be comfortable with. So same out come by a different method.
×
×
  • Create New...