pwa wrote:The two blokes who have been the backbone of the Scouts locally for the last fifteen or twenty years have not been in any way "militaristic" or bullying.
Nor did I say they were. What's militaristic is the organisation of troops, patrols, rank insignia, salutes and so on, and the bullying was mostly child-on-child but the organisation seemed to have no safeguards and do naff all about it.
Either you weren't in the Scouts or it was different in your area, at that time, but it isn't as you describe where we live today.
I was in the Scouts (although I'm not sure if I returned after I recovered from my injuries) and I've not checked if it's different elsewhere or now, but if so then I'm glad to hear it, but I'm surprised they've dropped the faux-military overtones.
arnsider wrote:Well my friend, I am turned seventy and I would not have missed my scouting for owt. Rough and tumble is what growing up is all about or was back in better times.
There is a difference between "rough and tumble" and a risk-taking bullying culture of serious injuries. I'm a few decades younger than you but I doubt it all went wrong in the time between us, so it's more likely that you got lucky and I didn't.
As for queers!
I said nothing about "queers". I suspect you would call who I meant "nonces".
You talk about Moral Culture and Shaming our nation! Really!
Yes, really. Britain is not (any longer?) a military state where the proles are ordered around by an officer class in the Scouts model and it is all the better for it. It really does seem shameful that anyone here would suggest the Scouts is the best place for anything other than uncontrolled micro repeats of the Stanford Prison Experiment. If that's really the best place to learn how to camp, then it would explain why it's a dying art.