Posted on 09/17/2012 9:38:36 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
ver two decades, the Boy Scouts of America failed to report hundreds of alleged child molesters to police and often hid the allegations from parents and the public.
A Los Angeles Times review of 1,600 confidential files dating from 1970 to 1991 has found that Scouting officials frequently urged admitted offenders to quietly resign — and helped many cover their tracks.
Volunteers and employees suspected of abuse were allowed to leave citing bogus reasons such as business demands, "chronic brain dysfunction" and duties at a Shakespeare festival.
The details are contained in the organization's confidential "perversion files," a blacklist of alleged molesters, that the Scouts have used internally since 1919. Scouts' lawyers around the country have been fighting in court to keep the files from public view.
As The Times reported in August, the blacklist often didn't work: Men expelled for alleged abuses slipped back into the program, only to be accused of molesting again. Now, a more extensive review has shown that Scouts sometimes abetted molesters by keeping allegations under wraps.
In the majority of cases, the Scouts learned of alleged abuse after it had been reported to authorities. But in more than 500 instances, the Scouts learned about it from boys, parents, staff members or anonymous tips.
In about 400 of those cases — 80% — there is no record of Scouting officials reporting the allegations to police. In more than 100 of the cases, officials actively sought to conceal the alleged abuse or allowed the suspects to hide it, The Times found.
In 1982, a Michigan Boy Scout camp director who learned of allegations of repeated abuse by a staff member told police he didn't promptly report them because his bosses wanted to protect the reputation of the Scouts and the accused staff member.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The writer was successful in convincing you of a pattern of behavior that has not been proven. My children are more skeptical than that and can recognize when they are being manipulated toward a conclusion that is not fully supported with evidence.
Got the zot, eh?
If we belive that you are a NY metro journo, I bet it’s the Village Voice!
What in your world would constitute suspicious of sexual molestation?
Would you trust your aforementioned children with an organization that's policy was to act upon suspicions of child molestation by amicable separation with the suspected offender without report to legal authorities?
It was a Penn State type atmosphere - thank God they have cleaned up their act - but the evidence is clear - they acted upon suspicions of sexual molestation of children by giving the suspected offender an ‘out’ and did not, in the majority of cases, make any report to law enforcement.
ZOT, and now:
for the main event!!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ-—OT!!!
BBQ! Some folks never learn!
Sizzling!
If you can’t get the ZOT you want,
Then love the ZOT you’re with!
(sorry - inside joke)
An ill-conceived zot. The guy was legit. He posted anti-homo agenda articles when other forum members had been badgered into silence. So much for social conservatism on this site.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Please address your pleas for reinstatement of a banned FReeper to someone who can do something about it, and that would be the moderators.
Press the “Report Abuse” button on any post and make your case to the mods. I did not and cannot ban anyone, nor can I reinstate. I am not a mod and do not have any more sway with them than you do.
Pardon me, but pshaw to that. You're a Freeper in long-standing, and you head the ping list for zotted "trolls." When you ping your list it's loaded with flashy graphics and remarks on why said zottee was banned. People take you at your word and rejoice when the air is cleansed.
That's a fairly significant power. Why not check out the posting history to make sure if the zottee was legit or not before dancing on their grave? A lot of erudite posters have been hit by lightning from mods with itchy trigger fingers and posters hitting abuse against someone who rails against their "pet" issue. Genuine conservatives have been zotted from this site for promoting right-wing politicians in a respectful manner (Santorum, anyone?); for hailing the value of human life over animal life; for promoting pro-life policies, but being anti-global war; even way-back-when, for being anti-illegal immigration, anti-Rove or anti-Bush; and now for being against the homosexual agenda which is part of a greater leftist anti-family agenda. Does that sound conservative, consistent or even sane to you?
If you have enough pull on this site not only to run a banned-poster ping list but also to state WHY THEY WERE BANNED you can't just dismiss it as, "I just ping the list; I don't zot."
Have you ever researched the zottee's posts and remarked, "Well, thanks for the alert on the zot, but maybe somebody jumped the gun on that one. I'll ping the list and see what everybody else thinks about it [instead of telling them what to think]."?
If a poster is a genuine troll, it's easy to tell who true disruptors are. Scottjewell was a "newbie" but if he was a "pro-homo troll" he sure was going about it oddly. (That's what you called him in your ping, isn't it?) There's a current poster who posts on homoagenda threads, and I know he's a flaming-troll because of his exaggerated, hysterical invectives. That guy should be gone; not scottjewell. So how about wagglebee, littlejeremiah, DBeers, massmike, scripter and countless others who have posted articles and comments against the pro-homosexualization of society?
Scott's comment on the BSA now being viewed like the Catholic church due to molestation charges was not pro-homo or anti-Catholic; it stated an opinion. He posted a lot of relevant articles on that certain issue, articles that came from both right and left outlets (know your enemy, right?). His posts were always informative, supportive of true marriage, never sarcastic or intended to have a double meaning. If that's what a troll is defined as, then this site needs more trolls like him.
On second thought, I have just come to the epiphany that this site does not practice what it preaches. So what's the point? Carry on.
Perhaps you should clarify this.
Are you suggesting that those of us who OPPOSE the homosexual agenda should be banned from Free Republic?
On second thought, I have just come to the epiphany that this site does not practice what it preaches. So what's the point? Carry on.
I see that your FR join date is 2004, but your posting history is somewhat sparse. I've got to wonder what anti-FReeper sites you frequent.
There is banning and there is suspension. In Scotts case which was it?
There is no denying that the Boy Scouts have had problems dealing with child molestation, however, the policy now is clear. All adults who work with Scouts must be youth protection certified. Any any attempts by adults to break the rules (two deep leadership, privacy, etc, etc etc) must be reported. Any report by a scout claiming abuse must be reported directly to the police first then to the scout leadership. No excuse. No tolerance.
As someone who was in the Cub Scout pack leadership, and is thinking about continuing forward in some official function at the Troop level, I say that I would rather that Scouting disappear as an organization if we can not stop this. The kids are more important than the organization and any or all of the leaders. That’s the kind of commitment I hope the rest of the leaders feel.
Personally, I’d like to see a new line of presentation prepared for the kids along the lines of what I told my son when I dropped him off at scout camp this summer. You are authorized to break any rule or refuse any instruction if you find yourself alone with someone or if you feel at all uncomfortable with a situation like that. If anyone touches you inappropriately, you are authorized to use any and all means of brutality to escape. No matter what happens, it’s not your fault, I love you, and you can talk to me.
If you have a problem with the decision by the Mods to ban a FReeper, you’ll have to take it up with the Mods. TOL is only the messenger.
My husband is an assistant den leader for our son’s Webelos II den. There are only four boys in the den, but there are two leaders. At the family campout over the summer, they were adamant that you could not be alone with a child that was not your own, even for a minute. Another adult had to be present.
I just went through my training recently to become a CCD teacher for the fifth graders at our parish. I’m not sure what we were talking about, but our pastor pointed out that the way the rectory is laid out, kids could not come unescorted through the rectory because they would go through his (Fr. Tom’s) personal living quarters—obviously a big no-no. I think we were speaking about using a part of the rectory for the high school youth group meetings when Father brought it up. (Speaking of which, I am going to get my fingerprints done today for my background check—both a state and FBI check. It costs the parish $85 for those checks.)
Blaming other posters for a banning is pointless and unfair.
Run the perverted homosexuals out of the BSA and the problem will cease.
What is ironic is that the people criticizing the Boy Scouts for this are the same ones demanding that homosexuals be allowed to take little boys to the woods overnight....
ahem...
Ladies and gentlemen, that comment is prima facie how good Frepers get zotted unfairly! You say you looked at my posting history and saw it was sparse. About 700 posts in 8 years, so, no I was never a prolific poster. But if you had actually read my posts you would have seen that I was a very adamant prolife poster. It's just so...sad, unfortunate and tiresome that one post can be so misread and a genuine conservative can be banned/suspended like that! I've seen it many times on this site, and no posters rise up to defend the unfairly zotted member.
I've got to wonder what anti-FReeper sites you frequent.
That comment is beneath you and uncalled for, but I will address it anyway.
Wagglebee, I respect you and your dedication to prolife profamily causes, I have been on the Moral Absolutes Ping List my entire time on this site. Yet you accuse me of being an anti-freeper, why? Of course, I am familiar with anti-freeper sites, but I have never posted, nor ever been a member of such forums. The only "anti-freeper" site that I would agree with in the slightest is Liberty Post, and the lack of moderation on that site allows for quite a few nutcases to post with great regularity.
The only political newsgroup I have ever posted on was this site. A stalwart site that stands for conservative values, God, Patriotism, pro-life, pro-traditional family rights, the right to self defense, you know, the good things in life... I respect Mr Robinson, the owner of this site, his views and what he has done, and have never, nor would I ever, malign him. The moderators, on the other hand, are inconsistent and need to called out for that. To my knowledge, the only moderator to do their consistently do their job in a judicous manner is the Religion Moderator.
Perhaps I am too idealistic, and it saddens me so to see people jump for joy when a member is zotted unfairly. This site is supposed to be about conservative political topics, be they social, religious, financial or military, or so I believed, and not a collections of cliques that band together to together to attack a perceived outsider because they haven't hit the magic post count/years of membership. Anyway, I made my case the The Old Lady and not the Moderator because I am just a peon on this site of no import.
Thank you for you understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.