Chapter 11 Announced - Part 9 - Confirmation Hearing

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

Denial of the dangers or feeling of comfort in the level of danger in the program also leads to a repeat of history. 

Ignoring the facts that the abuse is rampant in many areas of youth programs and especially in the very groups that are supposed to protect them does not serve anyone well.  I have never said that some abuse did not occur, and that some was truly bad and should have been dealt with properly.  But, putting the onus on BSA and the Catholic Church, while simply ignoring all the rest of the issues thoughout society related to youth does not serve children either.  What I have said is that the actual percentages of abuse in BSA, based on proven data, is lower than in most other youth serving groups, and particularly less heinous than what continues in the very governmental agencies charged with protection of the children.  The efforts undertaken by BSA to try to deal with the problem stem back farther than most such efforts by others.  Those very efforts have been used as bludgeons to mislead and overstate the problem by yellow journalism and a lot of less than scrupulous lawyers.  You cannot simply keep beating the BSA tragedy without taking on the larger one that still exists.  And the ongoing circus of a trial has shown a lot of this, including the very questionable claims that seem to be waiting to be vetted, but no one want that, especially the lawyers that set the bait.  Put all the already in place safety rules into play not just in the BSA, but in the wider communities of youth.  Actually fix the criminal governmental agencies that allow foster children to have far more abuse than almost any of the worst BSA cases, and put in place real barriers to coaches and teachers, as well as even doctors.  

Of course, none of this really matters it seems, as long as you can continue to pound on BSA and not have to deal with the rest of the iceberg.  

[johnsch322]

54 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Those very efforts have been used as bludgeons to mislead and overstate the problem by yellow journalism and a lot of less than scrupulous lawyers. 

Soo what came first the chicken or the egg? Or maybe I should ask this differently, did the abuse happen first and then journalism and legal issues arise from this or was it the reverse? I do not believe this issue has been overstated or misused by anyone, but the BSA definitely understated and misled the public (including congress) to the extent of the problem.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Ignoring the facts that the abuse is rampant in many areas of youth programs and especially in the very groups that are supposed to protect them does not serve anyone well.  I have never said that some abuse did not occur, and that some was truly bad and should have been dealt with properly.  But, putting the onus on BSA and the Catholic Church, while simply ignoring all the rest of the issues thoughout society related to youth does not serve children either.  What I have said is that the actual percentages of abuse in BSA, based on proven data, is lower than in most other youth serving groups, and particularly less heinous than what continues in the very governmental agencies charged with protection of the children.  The efforts undertaken by BSA to try to deal with the problem stem back farther than most such efforts by others.  Those very efforts have been used as bludgeons to mislead and overstate the problem by yellow journalism and a lot of less than scrupulous lawyers.  You cannot simply keep beating the BSA tragedy without taking on the larger one that still exists.  And the ongoing circus of a trial has shown a lot of this, including the very questionable claims that seem to be waiting to be vetted, but no one want that, especially the lawyers that set the bait.  Put all the already in place safety rules into play not just in the BSA, but in the wider communities of youth.  Actually fix the criminal governmental agencies that allow foster children to have far more abuse than almost any of the worst BSA cases, and put in place real barriers to coaches and teachers, as well as even doctors.  

Of course, none of this really matters it seems, as long as you can continue to pound on BSA and not have to deal with the rest of the iceberg.  

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not based on facts. There have been similar claims made here that scouting is somehow safer than other youth organizations and repeatedly that has been debunked. One of the largest youth organizations in the US is 4-H but if you google sex abuse claims and 4-H you come up with very few cases. There are unique characteristics in scouting that have made it more prone to infiltration by predators. This was recognized by organized scouting as far back as the 1920s; before we had the ineligible volunteer files they were called the red files.  Scouting has done a lot to clean up its act in the past few years which is good but no one should think kids are somehow safer in a tent on a scout campout than they are in the middle of a public ballfield in daylight with multiple kids, parents, coaches and spectators watching. That defies logic. 

[skeptic]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not based on facts. There have been similar claims made here that scouting is somehow safer than other youth organizations and repeatedly that has been debunked. One of the largest youth organizations in the US is 4-H but if you google sex abuse claims and 4-H you come up with very few cases. There are unique characteristics in scouting that have made it more prone to infiltration by predators. This was recognized by organized scouting as far back as the 1920s; before we had the ineligible volunteer files they were called the red files.  Scouting has done a lot to clean up its act in the past few years which is good but no one should think kids are somehow safer in a tent on a scout campout than they are in the middle of a public ballfield in daylight with multiple kids, parents, coaches and spectators watching. That defies logic. 

 

So, I short search turned up this particular broad list of "camp" abuse cases.  Note that there are BSA camps, but they are not the majority.  And there is one 4H camp with multiple victims it appears.  Also a number of Y camps, but most seem to be church related or community groups of some type.  

https://crime-stoppers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Spreadsheet-of-Camp-Molestations-8-5-2019.pdf

And, while I could not get to see the article, as the Glade has a reader wall, there is a search record specific to 4H in at least one instance, plus the one on the list in the shared link.  

So, certainly this short search and share of results might suggest my comments are not out of the box, but rather on target.  Note the title of the shared link.  

Addendum;  It does appear from the search that overall the 4-H has a strong focus on abuse awareness and fairly in depth training for volunteers.  

Edited April 10, 2022 by skeptic
Addendum added.

[fred8033]

3 hours ago, yknot said:

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not based on facts.  ...   Scouting has done a lot to clean up its act in the past few years which is good but no one should think kids are somehow safer in a tent on a scout campout than they are in the middle of a public ballfield in daylight with multiple kids, parents, coaches and spectators watching. That defies logic. 

Perhaps it's best to keep this thread to the lawsuit.   

Perhaps we can agree that predators abuse where there are youth and where there is opportunity.  We expect youth programs to be safe.

I've truncated my long, lengthy, multi-pronged response.  ...  I'll save it incase it's useful.  But it's a re-hash of three years of postings.  I'll limit to ...

• Let's avoid the flippant.  "You're entitled to your opinion but it's not based on facts."   Sadly, it's usually followed by a fact that someone said something, but what was said was an opionion.  Facts around CSA are extremely hard to find and even  harder to compare.
• 4-H is only one program, but it may not be a good match as it's very different and not well understood by everyone.  Even then, I question the reporting as 4H says it's the largest youth program with 6.5M members.  Three times larger than little league or GSA or BSA.  .  BUT, I've known dozens of youth in so many other programs, but not one that I know by name that was in 4-H.  I'm really amazed at that.  ... My gut feeling is 4H is very different and might not be a good comparison.  Perhaps it's better to compare scouts with school, music, sports, church, etc.  Programs that that parallel scouts with years of deeper organized involvement. 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by fred8033

[MattR]

We created another thread for this sub topic. This thread is limited to what we think the judge is interested in and I doubt where other CSA occurs is on her radar.

In the past I've tried to keep these threads separate. I gave up on that.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

We created another thread for this sub topic. This thread is limited to what we think the judge is interested in and I doubt where other CSA occurs is on her radar.

In the past I've tried to keep these threads separate. I gave up on that.

I have no wish to rehash these same topics that have been repeatedly and definitively discussed in other threads as you note. I would refer to them if I could find them. But I think anytime someone tries to claim that children have been safer in scouting the basic irrationality of that should be noted. The fact that we are in this thread talking about Chapter 11 is one of the more relevant and factual aspects of that reality. 

[MYCVAStory]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

We created another thread for this sub topic. This thread is limited to what we think the judge is interested in and I doubt where other CSA occurs is on her radar.

Can you provide some clarification?  How would that be different than a thread related to the confirmation hearing?  Thanks.

[SiouxRanger]

National KNEW child abuse was problem for about a CENTURY, DEMANDED that local councils send ALL abuse-related paperwork to National (so as to avoid embarrassment-whose? Lovely), SEALED all the records, AND APPARENTLY TOLD NO ONE.

"TRUSTWORTHY."

When was it last seen, and where?

Just what does "Trustworthy" look like?

Apparently, "Character Counts," but only selectively so.

Us volunteers were led by the "Judas goat."

And we are left with a hat full of rain.

[skeptic]

Please try to be factual.  The records, known as IV files, were not sealed, simply not open to public scrutiny.  They were and are kept as one barrier to those that would try to prey on the members.  Before computers, it was difficult to check unless a council had suspicions for some reason, as it was done by phone or mail.  The easier access for that check grew with the advent of dependible computer files.  During much of the mid twentieth century, there was a fefinite concern about legal issues related defamation, and if an entry was not well verified, it would not be something to make public.  We know that there were, and actually still are, public entities tasked with follow up on abuse issues that often either cannot get enough real proof, or unfortunately choose to not rioritize, and simply shove it to the side as not important for myriad reasons.

Did BSA also enter into these types of actions?  Yes, and those choices were not for the best interests of victims, and very poor rationalizations or even CYA.  That does not reflect well.  But you cannot separate the issue from the larger public and societal responses from past eras, nor can you fault BSA while ignoring that the greater problems often came due to parental or law enforcement choosing to not pursue things for whatever reason.  

As far as the inuendo by some that post that it is black and white, and if someone looks at the broader picture and suggests it is/was not as bad "statistically" as outside the program, we are somehow okay with the abuse as discovered, or with some of the BSA decisions or judgements on how to respond.  I have said many times that the abuse is not excusable, and the errrors and poor decisions are worth reviewing for better responses.  My point though has been, and is, that we cannot take the BSA to task alone, as the issue is rampant across our society, and "statistically" worse in most similar groups, and especially bad within the very government entities meant to combat it.  

NO ABUSE IS ACCEPTIBLE, PERIOD.  But that is the case with the myriad other groups in society that serve youth, and especially within the governmental entities that appear to have an even worse problem.  

So, if some choose to focus only on BSA, especially since this is in theory a BSA board, fine.  But please try to look at the larger picture in a realistic manner, and do not paint those of us that see the larger problem and the "statistical" comparisons, as terrible and uncaring individuals.  The village has a problem, and BSA is part of that village, but not the whole village.

[MattR]

1 hour ago, MYCVAStory said:

Can you provide some clarification?  How would that be different than a thread related to the confirmation hearing?  Thanks.

Has the judge ever discussed anything about CSA in other youth activities? Or how society has changed, anyone is picking on the BSA, the media or how the bsa is safe enough? I haven't seen it. She has no interest in "the files" so those posts that mention them likely don't belong here.

The judge is interested in the bankruptcy case. This includes the claimants, debtors and those getting swept into this like the insurance companies, the COs and the councils. That's it.

This may seem too restrictive to some of you but please think about how many posts are in this thread. This is part 9. There are roughly 100 pages per part and, I don't know, 20 posts per page? That's roughly 20,000 posts.

If you want to start another thread about the files, the media, and all the rest, go ahead. To be honest, I doubt anyone will and if they do it will quietly die. Every time I've pulled out a sub thread that's exactly what has happened. It doesn't appear that anyone's opinion has changed. Of course, that could be the vast majority of all social media so I'm not mad at anyone. You're all rather passionate about your views and they're all valid. And yet repeating the same arguments over and over again ... isn't going to get anyone outdoors.

[SiouxRanger]

1 hour ago, skeptic said:

Please try to be factual.  The records, known as IV files, were not sealed, simply not open to public scrutiny.  They were and are kept as one barrier to those that would try to prey on the members.  Before computers, it was difficult to check unless a council had suspicions for some reason, as it was done by phone or mail.  The easier access for that check grew with the advent of dependible computer files.  During much of the mid twentieth century, there was a fefinite concern about legal issues related defamation, and if an entry was not well verified, it would not be something to make public.  We know that there were, and actually still are, public entities tasked with follow up on abuse issues that often either cannot get enough real proof, or unfortunately choose to not rioritize, and simply shove it to the side as not important for myriad reasons.

Did BSA also enter into these types of actions?  Yes, and those choices were not for the best interests of victims, and very poor rationalizations or even CYA.  That does not reflect well.  But you cannot separate the issue from the larger public and societal responses from past eras, nor can you fault BSA while ignoring that the greater problems often came due to parental or law enforcement choosing to not pursue things for whatever reason.  

As far as the inuendo by some that post that it is black and white, and if someone looks at the broader picture and suggests it is/was not as bad "statistically" as outside the program, we are somehow okay with the abuse as discovered, or with some of the BSA decisions or judgements on how to respond.  I have said many times that the abuse is not excusable, and the errrors and poor decisions are worth reviewing for better responses.  My point though has been, and is, that we cannot take the BSA to task alone, as the issue is rampant across our society, and "statistically" worse in most similar groups, and especially bad within the very government entities meant to combat it.  

NO ABUSE IS ACCEPTIBLE, PERIOD.  But that is the case with the myriad other groups in society that serve youth, and especially within the governmental entities that appear to have an even worse problem.  

So, if some choose to focus only on BSA, especially since this is in theory a BSA board, fine.  But please try to look at the larger picture in a realistic manner, and do not paint those of us that see the larger problem and the "statistical" comparisons, as terrible and uncaring individuals.  The village has a problem, and BSA is part of that village, but not the whole village.

Child abuse is a crime. Then.  Now. Failure to report it consitutes being an "accessory after the fact;."

Quod est demonstrandum.  Q.E.D.

"And for all the rest, I vote that Carthage be destroyed."  (Some Roman Senator.)

Edited April 10, 2022 by SiouxRanger
added quote.

[MattR]

This thread has been locked until tomorrow morning. I asked nicely for people to get back on topic. As court is not in session, there's nothing to talk about so this shouldn't be a problem. If this makes no sense to you then please read my previous post.

[ThenNow]

22 hours ago, MattR said:

You're all rather passionate about your views and they're all valid. And yet repeating the same arguments over and over again ... isn't going to get anyone outdoors.

Footnote: I have been advised by counsel that there is a key Chapter 11 rule we may be overlooking. It is as follows:

In bankruptcy court, every single solitary thing may very well have been said already, BUT every single solitary thing may not have been said by everyone. In an effort to avoid any and all possible omissions, reruns are to be expected. Nay, required.

Please accept my recitation of this rule as a moment of levity.

 

[fred8033]

28 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Please accept my recitation of this rule as a moment of levity.   

Well taken and accepted.  Not sure whether to use a like, love or laugh emoji.