BSA vs Other Programs/Society - Youth Protection Comparison

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

That’s why it would be useful if someone could tally the present list of complaints by estimated year of incident. Such data would serve as a good research tool.

I'm not sure if this is what you meant or a broader societal list of "complaints." These are the BSA Chapter 11 claims, of course.

[vol_scouter]

On 5/20/2021 at 11:27 AM, ThenNow said:

I'm not sure if this is what you meant or a broader societal list of "complaints." These are the BSA Chapter 11 claims, of course.

Just a note, the BSA and Scouting in Great Britain were both founded in 1910 so the claim in 1905 cannot be correct.

[Sentinel947]

14 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

Just a note, the BSA and Scouting in Great Britain were both founded in 1910 so the claim in 1905 cannot be correct.

Unless it was a claim against one of the organizations that merged into the BSA, like Dan Beard's group.

Edited May 27, 2021 by Sentinel947

[johnsch322]

24 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Unless it was a claim against one of the organizations that merged into the BSA, like Dan Beard's group.

And they were like 125 years old when thy filed the claim;

[qwazse]

48 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

And they were like 125 years old when thy filed the claim;

A typo, or his estate filed on the victim’s behalf.

When I get a chance to punch in the numbers, I’d probably just peg that at 2010.

[johnsch322]

11 minutes ago, qwazse said:

A typo, or his estate filed on the victim’s behalf.

I would go with typo.  

[Eagle1993]

6 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

I would go with typo.  

TCC mentioned that this is as a typo in one of their town halls.  

[CynicalScouter]

This "data" is based on your misreading and misinterpretation. We don't know how much of a difference. For one thing, you assume (wrongly) that there were ONLY 84,000 instances of child sexual abuse in BSA over that time period. That's a bad assumption for 3 reasons.

1. Those who were abused and opted to not to file a claim.
2. Those who were abused and were dead prior to the claim date.
3. Those who were abused and were unaware of the claim date.

Etc.

Taking 84,000 as "the" number of child sexual abuse victims and then attempting to do some back of the envelope math to "prove" BSA was 10-100 fold less likely to be abused is bad social science, poor math, and would get you laughed out of the Research Methods 101.

If you really, really, wanted to conduct social science research you'd draw a statistically significant sample of BSA members across the years/decades and compute an abuse rate based on that sampling. Not "who filed a claim in a bankruptcy case".

BSA is going to pay. You may not like tort claims based on negligence/duty to care for children. You may not like the extension of statutes of limitations to allow for such claims to be filed now.

But if that's your problem call your state legislature. In the meantime, BSA is going to pay for what they did (coverup) and what they failed to do (negligence).