Export thread
THIS is why I hate the Boy Scouts of America
#1
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
#2
Krisken
Krisken
I think we've gone over this before. One asshole, even if he is part of the upper echelons, is not indicative of the thousands of troupes across the United States. The troop I was in never had any issues like this and would have been appalled at his statements.
#3
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
And while I don't know anything about any of this, there's nothing in that report that should make you hate even just that one official.
It seems like it could be pretty damn negligent to let your kids sleep over at some single guy's home.
It seems like it could be pretty damn negligent to let your kids sleep over at some single guy's home.
#4
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
The troop violated the "2 Deep rule", which means that any time a scout activity is going on, two adults need to be present. It's designed to prevent this kind of shit from happening, so it's actually the fault of the entire Troop. Still, blaming the parents of the victim publicly? That's not the kind of thing a real Scout would ever do.And while I don't know anything about any of this, there's nothing in that report that should make you hate even just that one official.
It seems like it could be pretty damn negligent to let your kids sleep over at some single guy's home.
#5
Kitty Sinatra
Butt anyway: Are you sure this was a sanctioned Scout activity? I really don't think sleepovers at some guy's home would be.
Kitty Sinatra
There's a joke in there somewhere . . .The troop violated the "2 Deep rule"
Butt anyway: Are you sure this was a sanctioned Scout activity? I really don't think sleepovers at some guy's home would be.
#6
AshburnerX
Butt anyway: Are you sure this was a sanctioned Scout activity? I really don't think sleepovers at some guy's home would be.[/QUOTE]
He was clearly involved with the Scouts in some manner or the Scout's wouldn't be issuing press statements for damage control. Even if it wasn't officially a Scout sponsored activity, it's still the fault of the local council for letting someone with a known history of sexual misconduct around minors.
AshburnerX
There's a joke in there somewhere . . .The troop violated the "2 Deep rule"
Butt anyway: Are you sure this was a sanctioned Scout activity? I really don't think sleepovers at some guy's home would be.[/QUOTE]
He was clearly involved with the Scouts in some manner or the Scout's wouldn't be issuing press statements for damage control. Even if it wasn't officially a Scout sponsored activity, it's still the fault of the local council for letting someone with a known history of sexual misconduct around minors.
#7
Cajungal
Cajungal
He was convicted in the 80s of doing similar shit? Background check anyone?
#8
Dave
Dave
So was this guy a scout leader or what? I guess I don't know his affiliation with the organization.
Do I think the Scouts are at fault? Maybe a little. As it's a volunteer organization, most of the leaders in our troop were parents of current scouts. So they should have known that something was going on. BUT, if this was not a scout activity, the BSA is NOT at fault. They can't police everything and everyone. BUT if the guy was an official leader AND he had not been checked out AND this gave him access to the boys...then yes, they are at fault.
Are the parents to blame? Maybe a little. If they knew that the boys would be staying at the guy's house I'd think it would be weird and I'd say hell no! BUT if the parents THOUGHT it was a sanctioned scout event and they'd been lied to, they are not to blame.
There's just WAY too much we don't know about here. But to denounce the guy for speaking out is wrong, too. He wasn't saying this in public. He was asked in court and he answered truthfully, just as any scout would do. Now, had he gone to the press BEFORE the trial and said this I'd agree with you. But he did nothing wrong. Classless and crass, maybe, but not wrong.
Do I think the Scouts are at fault? Maybe a little. As it's a volunteer organization, most of the leaders in our troop were parents of current scouts. So they should have known that something was going on. BUT, if this was not a scout activity, the BSA is NOT at fault. They can't police everything and everyone. BUT if the guy was an official leader AND he had not been checked out AND this gave him access to the boys...then yes, they are at fault.
Are the parents to blame? Maybe a little. If they knew that the boys would be staying at the guy's house I'd think it would be weird and I'd say hell no! BUT if the parents THOUGHT it was a sanctioned scout event and they'd been lied to, they are not to blame.
There's just WAY too much we don't know about here. But to denounce the guy for speaking out is wrong, too. He wasn't saying this in public. He was asked in court and he answered truthfully, just as any scout would do. Now, had he gone to the press BEFORE the trial and said this I'd agree with you. But he did nothing wrong. Classless and crass, maybe, but not wrong.
#9
Philosopher B.
Philosopher B.
Eugh. Who knows what he's got up to since the 80s.Grant says he did not know Dykes, who regularly invited boys to stay overnight with him by offering them games, exotic pets and a chance to play in his apartment swimming pool.
#10
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
He probably get real grungy in the 90s.Eugh. Who knows what he's got up to since the 80s.
#11
Shakey
Shakey
From what I could find about the actual trial, since the article doesn't really say much, is that the BSA knew about possible problems but didn't do enough.
From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...boy-scouts-sex-abuse-20100320,0,5672708.story
From http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...boy-scouts-sex-abuse-20100320,0,5672708.story
andHe held up file folder after file folder he said contained reports of abuse from around the country, telling the jury the efforts to keep them secret may have actually set back efforts to prevent child abuse nationally.
\\"The Boy Scouts of America ignored clear warning signs that Boy Scouts were being abused,\\" Clark said.
Charles Smith, attorney for the national Boy Scouts, said in his own opening statement the files were kept under wraps because they \\"were replete with confidential information.\\"
Smith told the jury the files helped national scouting leaders weed out sex offenders, especially repeat offenders who may have changed names or moved in order to join another local scouting organization.
\\"They were trying to do the right thing by trying to track these folks,\\" Smith said.
So it seems this is more about what the BSA was trying to cover up. Which is too much. I'm an eagle scout, and it does bother me that they did this. I hope they get held to the flame on this. People trust their children with them, doing anything less than everything they can to protect them is a shame.The Portland case centers on whether the Boy Scouts of America did enough to protect boys from Dykes.
The Mormon bishop who also served as head of the Scout troop, Gordon McEwen, confronted Dykes after receiving a report of abuse by the mother of one boy in the troop in January 1983.
In a video deposition played for the jury, the bishop said Dykes admitted abusing 17 boys.
But McEwen said he contacted the parents of all 17 boys and the boys themselves, and none would confirm any abuse.
Dykes was arrested in 1983 and pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children.
Clark told the jury Dykes continued with his scouting activities until he was arrested in July 1984 during a routine traffic stop while he was driving a van full of Scouts on a camping trip.
#12
Dave
Dave
I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
#13
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
#14
ElJuski
ElJuski
Don't be afraid to use your nails, boys!
#15
sixpackshaker
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.
sixpackshaker
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.[/QUOTE]I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.
#16
Snuffleupagus
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.
Snuffleupagus
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.[/QUOTE]I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.
#17
AshburnerX
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.
AshburnerX
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.[/QUOTE]I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.
#18
Snuffleupagus
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it was just my experience, but I'm pretty sure my troop was run completely by other kids parents. With that in mind I never heard of anyone being molested and I was not aware that some evil corporation was watching my every move waiting to touch my junk.
Snuffleupagus
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.[/QUOTE]I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it was just my experience, but I'm pretty sure my troop was run completely by other kids parents. With that in mind I never heard of anyone being molested and I was not aware that some evil corporation was watching my every move waiting to touch my junk.
#19
Shakey
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.[/QUOTE]
The difference is the BSA hasn't tried to protect the abusers. They should have been more pro-active, and let the police handle the investigation. Instead they tried to fix it themselves by kicking these people out as they found them, but that's not good enough.
I don't think the abuse in scouts is as wide spread as you think. The problem with covering this stuff up is when it comes out, it opens flood gates and make it look more widespread than it is. In all my years in the scouts I didn't see or hear of one case of abuse. I can't defend them though, what they did was wrong.
Shakey
Your assuming the truth always gets out. It's much more likely their are hundreds of other cases that never come to light because the BSA pays off the families or intimidates them with legal action.[/QUOTE]I always fail to see why this sort of coverups happen. Like the Catholic Church, was the BSA that much more willing to protect their reputation than the boys in their care? And since the information always gets out sooner or later, these people should know that it's worse if they try and hide it. That makes me very sad.
Or it is like it was in the second article, the kids would not speak out against the perpetrator.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm gonna go with embarrassed or ashamed kids rather than BSA conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
Come on, Conspiracy Theories? That's like claiming the Roman Catholic Church's systematic covering up of it's Child Abuse scandals is a conspiracy theory: both groups have well documented histories of child abuse, both have well documented histories of covering up said child abuse, and both are unapologetic about their actions to date.[/QUOTE]
The difference is the BSA hasn't tried to protect the abusers. They should have been more pro-active, and let the police handle the investigation. Instead they tried to fix it themselves by kicking these people out as they found them, but that's not good enough.
I don't think the abuse in scouts is as wide spread as you think. The problem with covering this stuff up is when it comes out, it opens flood gates and make it look more widespread than it is. In all my years in the scouts I didn't see or hear of one case of abuse. I can't defend them though, what they did was wrong.
#20
strawman
strawman
The people who do this, and those that enable them in any way should be flayed alive.
That is all.
That is all.
#21
Dave
Dave
Duhn duhn DUHHHHHHHHHHN!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/13/oregon.scouts.sex.abuse/index.html?hpt=T2
Jury holds Boy Scouts negligent in sex-abuse case
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/13/oregon.scouts.sex.abuse/index.html?hpt=T2
Jury holds Boy Scouts negligent in sex-abuse case
#22
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
... why are the Mormons being held responsible? They may sponsor the Boy Scouts in that region, but they weren't in charge of the organization as all. What's more, how would they be LESS responsible than the people who didn't investigate the leader enough to begin with?!While holding the Boy Scouts of America 60 percent negligent, the jury said the Cascade Pacific Council -- which oversees Scouting activities in the region -- was 15 percent negligent and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 25 percent negligent.
The church has sponsored a number of Boy Scout troops, including the one to which the plaintiff belonged.
#23
Kitty Sinatra
Kitty Sinatra
Considering the church settled before this case ever happened, it seems they agree that they had some responsibility.
#24
Shakey
Shakey
From my post above.... why are the Mormons being held responsible? They may sponsor the Boy Scouts in that region, but they weren't in charge of the organization as all. What's more, how would they be LESS responsible than the people who didn't investigate the leader enough to begin with?!While holding the Boy Scouts of America 60 percent negligent, the jury said the Cascade Pacific Council -- which oversees Scouting activities in the region -- was 15 percent negligent and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 25 percent negligent.
The church has sponsored a number of Boy Scout troops, including the one to which the plaintiff belonged.
So a Mormon Bishop who was the leader of a group that meets at the church, which is sponsored by the church, knew about possible abuse and did nothing. I don't know why they would be held more accountable than the scouts, but we don't have all the facts.The Mormon bishop who also served as head of the Scout troop, Gordon McEwen, confronted Dykes after receiving a report of abuse by the mother of one boy in the troop in January 1983.
In a video deposition played for the jury, the bishop said Dykes admitted abusing 17 boys.
But McEwen said he contacted the parents of all 17 boys and the boys themselves, and none would confirm any abuse.
Dykes was arrested in 1983 and pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children.
Clark told the jury Dykes continued with his scouting activities until he was arrested in July 1984 during a routine traffic stop while he was driving a van full of Scouts on a camping trip.
#25
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
It more likely they didn't want to be touched by the bad press of this than thinking they did any wrong doing.Considering the church settled before this case ever happened, it seems they agree that they had some responsibility.
Ahh... missed that part.So a Mormon Bishop who was the leader of a group that meets at the church, which is sponsored by the church, knew about possible abuse and did nothing. I don't know why they would be held more accountable than the scouts, but we don't have all the facts.The Mormon bishop who also served as head of the Scout troop, Gordon McEwen, confronted Dykes after receiving a report of abuse by the mother of one boy in the troop in January 1983.
In a video deposition played for the jury, the bishop said Dykes admitted abusing 17 boys.
But McEwen said he contacted the parents of all 17 boys and the boys themselves, and none would confirm any abuse.
Dykes was arrested in 1983 and pleaded guilty to attempted sexual abuse, received probation and was ordered to stay away from children.
Clark told the jury Dykes continued with his scouting activities until he was arrested in July 1984 during a routine traffic stop while he was driving a van full of Scouts on a camping trip.