Ethical Scouting
Kevin L Wright
However, most of the remainder of my time is spent on animal rights
actvities, and I'm a bit of an activist, as well as doing talks to
schools, clubs (including scouts on occasions) etc on the subject of
animal rights issues.
I first noticed The Scout Associations ignorance of vegetarianism long
before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by the
Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the option
for them was beans.
One day I was at an animal rights demonstration at a circus, which had
been thrown out of Blakpool Pleasure beech amid allegations of severe
animal cruelty. I was horrified to note a group of cubs visiting the
circus.
Of course, I don't hold the leaders responsible for this. I'm sure it
never crossed their mind that a circus is controversial, or that
vegetarians didn't eat battery eggs. However, I really do feel that
there is very little information available to leaders about ethical
diets and lifestyles. I'm preparing an FAQ on the subject, which I will
post to headquaters, however I think the SA would do well to appoint
someone whose sole responsibility is to look into the ethics of scouting
activities. I'm not just talking animal rights. There is much
disscussion here about alcohol and smoking, and many have ethical
problems with those (not me, but some do!).
I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it.. If the group are
having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine. If
leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if as
part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal leader
might feel awkward.
I remember a summer camp a few years back, when the scouts went sea-
fishing. I object to this morally, so I was allowed to saty back at
camp, with another scout who objected, on our own. Whilst this didn't
bother me, for a younger member of the movement this could be a lonely
and isolating experience. Surly if we are encouraging children to reach
their spiritual potential, we should be encouraging ethical thoughts,
not isolating them. On one occasion a leader even made fun of my
vegetarian principles in front of the cub group. This is not
acceptable. (I explained this to him afterward, and he did apologise).
I doubt most leaders have ever considered the fact that some people
don't go to McDonalds, that some people would find woggle making with
leather offensive, or that to some people Sea-World is an animal prison.
I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
or will have nothing to do with weapons.
When The Scout Association launched its anglers badge, in a blaze of
publicity, many hardcore animal rights people were upset. "Why," one
asked me, "are children in a religious oranisation being encouraged to
participate in bloodsports, when there is no badge they can get for
attending an animal rights demonstration!"
I think it is time an ethical advisor was appointed to the SA. If there
already is one, then why is such information not being circulated to
leaders? Other than on shooting, there are virtually no ethical
guidelines I can find in scouting.
----
Kevin Wright
2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
My opinions, and no one elses
Email: tar...@talk21.com
Bloodsports Page: http://listen.to/your_countryside/ (update soon)
Ian Philip Douthwaite
Kevin L Wright wrote:
> As a Beaver & Cub helper, I spend much time involved in Scouting.
> However, most of the remainder of my time is spent on animal rights
> actvities, and I'm a bit of an activist, as well as doing talks to
> schools, clubs (including scouts on occasions) etc on the subject of
> animal rights issues.
>
> I first noticed The Scout Associations ignorance of vegetarianism long
> before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
> was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
> to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
> Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
> However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by the
> Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the option
> for them was beans.
>
More and more kids are vegetarians, and this is noted on their Medical Forms
which we ask them to complete before a camp. We cater for them, but it can
be difficult - just like religious differences for menu planning.
The thing is, most of them are only too keen to have a slab of beef rather
than their usual vegetarian option, as scout camp is the only time their
parents aren't watching them! Seems like its the parents' ethics that direct
the kids' diet, not the kids themselves (in the cases I have witnessed). We
end up persuading the kids to have the veggie dish which their parents have
requested!
I don't mind talking about the ethics of animal cruelty or whatever, but it
shouldn't take over from the principles of scouting. We are in a
multi-cultural, multi-opinioned society which undertakes a wide range of
leisure activities and tolerates an incredibly wide range of views - we need
to reflect this in our scouting. Let the kids make their own minds up, let
them choose the activities they want to do, and by all means point out
opposing views. But please don't turn your troop into a mouthpiece for your
pro-animal views: let them be known, but be graceful about it.
Balance.
Ian
Si Croall
If there is one thing no one likes on camp it's someone who winges about their
special dietary needs.
For example people allergic to nuts. Was this hell in France or what? In the
old hyper market trying to get food with no damn nuts in them...arghhh. This
also deprived some of chocolate! Diabetics (I hope this gets some response
:-)) they think they need to not consume any sugar substances and so do the
leaders, which is worse still. In my opinion this is wrong especially for a
camp with lots of activities....shove the sugar down them! Right now I could
do with a Mars Bar.
I have been on many camps with a boy from a strict Jewish family and he loves
the opportunity that being away from home brings to eat Bacon for breakfast
..It's just not a problem. [I'm serious about this para]
I continue....
Kevin L Wright wrote:
> I first noticed The Scout Associations ignorance of vegetarianism long
> before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
> was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
> to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
> Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
> However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by the
> Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the option
> for them was beans.
>
Veges...I'm glad there was never in my unit. Oh well there was but as they
weren't so madly obsessed we were able to remove the meet from the meals. I my
self became a 'vege' on one camp when we had to cook on open fires for over a
week. I survived without food poisoning by not consuming the meet offered
after the first two days. My vampire like urgings were also suppressed in
relation to the other members who required 'blood'.
How they loved there beef burgers..... without the beef.
I love beans..(especialy with Worcestershire Sauce) I'm a student, however I
also like Sausages and eggs and so do most of the scouters I know. Personally
though I like to start the morning with a fresh glass of Orange Juice and real
Swiss Alpan with milk from a cow with 10000 acres to graze in with un treated
grass and a farmer who has names for all his animals.
What next people who won't eat GM food.
>
> One day I was at an animal rights demonstration at a circus, which had
> been thrown out of Blakpool Pleasure beech amid allegations of severe
> animal cruelty. I was horrified to note a group of cubs visiting the
> circus.
>
That's it, deprive others of the opportunity to have fun due to 'allegations'.
I would though say it was not wise for a scout outing to an animal circus.
>
> Of course, I don't hold the leaders responsible for this. I'm sure it
> never crossed their mind that a circus is controversial, or that
> vegetarians didn't eat battery eggs. However, I really do feel that
> there is very little information available to leaders about ethical
> diets and lifestyles. I'm preparing an FAQ on the subject, which I will
> post to headquaters, however I think the SA would do well to appoint
> someone whose sole responsibility is to look into the ethics of scouting
> activities. I'm not just talking animal rights. There is much
> disscussion here about alcohol and smoking, and many have ethical
> problems with those (not me, but some do!).
>
That's it a cub can develop lung cancer from his filthy elderly leaders
smoking next to him but if an egg is laid by a hen in a battery then eaten
instead of being cast aside and bought by the next shopper we really have a
problem here.
>
> I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
> circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
> leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it.. If the group are
> having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine. If
> leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if as
> part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
> and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal leader
> might feel awkward.
>
A teetotaler who doesn't have a problem for religious etc. reasons has
hundreds of excuses, as well as just being honest, not to drink in a pub. If
the leaders make him feel guilty then hey they ain't a good a leader as you.
>
> I remember a summer camp a few years back, when the scouts went sea-
> fishing. I object to this morally, so I was allowed to saty back at
> camp, with another scout who objected, on our own.
Was this a voluntary objection by the boy?
> Whilst this didn't
> bother me, for a younger member of the movement this could be a lonely
> and isolating experience.
Just let him go and have a boat ride then, he doesn't have to get actively
evolved.
> Surly if we are encouraging children to reach
> their spiritual potential, we should be encouraging ethical thoughts,
> not isolating them. On one occasion a leader even made fun of my
> vegetarian principles in front of the cub group. This is not
> acceptable. (I explained this to him afterward, and he did apologise).
>
Ah I see a person who can't take a joke. People make fun of me, it ain't
serious we all know we're good friends and its all part of having' a laugh.
Did he apologize in front of the cubs or were they treated as untermention and
left blinded to your objection?
>
> I doubt most leaders have ever considered the fact that some people
> don't go to McDonalds, that some people would find woggle making with
> leather offensive, or that to some people Sea-World is an animal prison.
> I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
> or will have nothing to do with weapons.
>
No McDonalds now your taking the *****. Wednesday is normally wash day on
summer camp (we go swimming!) and there is nothing better than a trip to
MacyD's for some palatable food. The VS also get the opportunity to molest
Ronald, play games with the straws and ask for excessive amounts of barbecue
dip! Without this a valuable item in scouting is lost. If they don't want to
eat meat in MD's I'm sure there is an alternative. Personally I've never been
to examine the rain forest but I have been stuck in Austria when the only
'real' food place was MD's.
If I don't drink Nescafe/gold blend etc. how am I ever going to have one of
those exciting advertisement style relationships?
>
> When The Scout Association launched its anglers badge, in a blaze of
> publicity, many hardcore animal rights people were upset. "Why," one
> asked me, "are children in a religious oranisation being encouraged to
> participate in bloodsports, when there is no badge they can get for
> attending an animal rights demonstration!"
>
Religious yeh but to what? If it is a religious organisation (esoteric
ecclesiastical anachronism, thanks to KYTV for that) its members are
paradoxically not necessarily so.
We have had demonstrations of how to skin a rabid snaring (rural area) and no
one objected although it wasn't particularly nice. Although a lot of my unit
participate in hunting/shooting I still regard them as friends and don't wish
to break that up as they have opposing views to mine.
>
> Kevin Wright
>
> 2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
> My opinions, and no one elses
>
Not necessarily my opinions even, some bits are serious some not....cleaverly
mixed up to make it completely incomprehensible which is which.
Feel free to visit www.angelfire.com/hi2/firstleigh
Love
Si
John Trott
I wouldn't go as far as some of your respondents. If you have a genuine
belief which prevents you eating certain products for whatever reason thats
fair enough> I fail to see how you can be upset however if others are not
fully conversant with the fine details. That is surely your own
responsibility to inform them. I personally feel that if your dietary
requirements are so different form the "common" then it must be your own
responsibility to provide and arrange preparation.I have no idea what
various grades of vegetarians and vegans will or will not eat. The same goes
for an awful lot of religions. I will always try to have something on the
menu that people can eat but you cannot expect me to know everyone's
personal requirements if they have not made them clear.
As regards your political activism. Whether I agree with your views or
not I strongly believe that they should be kept out of Scouting.
Kevin L Wright wrote in message ...
>As a Beaver & Cub helper, I spend much time involved in Scouting.
>However, most of the remainder of my time is spent on animal rights
>actvities, and I'm a bit of an activist, as well as doing talks to
>schools, clubs (including scouts on occasions) etc on the subject of
>animal rights issues.
>
>before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
>was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
>to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
>Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
>However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by the
>Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the option
>for them was beans.
>
>been thrown out of Blakpool Pleasure beech amid allegations of severe
>animal cruelty. I was horrified to note a group of cubs visiting the
>circus.
>
>never crossed their mind that a circus is controversial, or that
>vegetarians didn't eat battery eggs. However, I really do feel that
>there is very little information available to leaders about ethical
>diets and lifestyles. I'm preparing an FAQ on the subject, which I will
>post to headquaters, however I think the SA would do well to appoint
>someone whose sole responsibility is to look into the ethics of scouting
>activities. I'm not just talking animal rights. There is much
>disscussion here about alcohol and smoking, and many have ethical
>problems with those (not me, but some do!).
>
>circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
>leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it.. If the group are
>having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine. If
>leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if as
>part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
>and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal leader
>might feel awkward.
>
>fishing. I object to this morally, so I was allowed to saty back at
>bother me, for a younger member of the movement this could be a lonely
>their spiritual potential, we should be encouraging ethical thoughts,
>not isolating them. On one occasion a leader even made fun of my
>vegetarian principles in front of the cub group. This is not
>acceptable. (I explained this to him afterward, and he did apologise).
>
>don't go to McDonalds, that some people would find woggle making with
>leather offensive, or that to some people Sea-World is an animal prison.
>I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
>or will have nothing to do with weapons.
>
>publicity, many hardcore animal rights people were upset. "Why," one
>asked me, "are children in a religious oranisation being encouraged to
>participate in bloodsports, when there is no badge they can get for
>attending an animal rights demonstration!"
>
>already is one, then why is such information not being circulated to
>leaders? Other than on shooting, there are virtually no ethical
>guidelines I can find in scouting.
>----
>
>2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
>My opinions, and no one elses
>
Adrian Randall
special dietary needs, thats what health forms are issued out for. We ask
about allergies, dietary needs,and medication etc.
Even though I am not a vegitarian, I do enjoy some meat free food myself
and do eat with veggie members of the unit myself. I did vegitarian
casserole and nearly got lynched!!!!
I also think that people with strong vegitarian or animal rights beliefs
should be respected for their views.
THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THRUST THEM UPON OTHERS IN THE
MOVEMENT! YOU DESCIBE YOURSELF AS AN ACTIVIST THEN KEEP YOUR ACTIVITIES TO
THE AREA THAT YOU HAVE SUCH VIEWS IN!
Goodnight.
John Ferguson
Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As a Beaver & Cub helper, I spend much time involved in Scouting.
> However, most of the remainder of my time is spent on animal rights
> actvities, and I'm a bit of an activist, as well as doing talks to
> schools, clubs (including scouts on occasions) etc on the subject of
> animal rights issues.
>
OK, no problem. I applaud your dedication. Just be careful to not try
and thrust your opinions on people who may not want to listen.
> I first noticed The Scout Associations ignorance of vegetarianism long
> before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
> was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
> to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
> Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
> However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by
the
> Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the
option
> for them was beans.
I can sympathise, I am vegetarian myself. BUT, people only know what
you choose to tell them. If your friend had made the camp leader / cook
aware before camp, then the problem with the stock should not have
arisen. Same with the sausages and eggs. What you are describing is not
a problem with food, but communication. Anyway, what's wrong with beans
and toast?
> One day I was at an animal rights demonstration at a circus, which had
> been thrown out of Blakpool Pleasure beech amid allegations of severe
> animal cruelty. I was horrified to note a group of cubs visiting the
> circus.
As I am sure the Cubs would have been horrified to see the way some
animal activists act?. Were the allegations proved? Or doesn't it matter
to you?
> Of course, I don't hold the leaders responsible for this. I'm sure it
> never crossed their mind that a circus is controversial, or that
> vegetarians didn't eat battery eggs. However, I really do feel that
> there is very little information available to leaders about ethical
> diets and lifestyles. I'm preparing an FAQ on the subject, which I
will
> post to headquaters, however I think the SA would do well to appoint
> someone whose sole responsibility is to look into the ethics of
scouting.
FAQ means Frequently Asked Questions - who is asking these questions
frequently?
Ethics investigator - Sounds like they already have a candidate.
> activities. I'm not just talking animal rights. There is much
> disscussion here about alcohol and smoking, and many have ethical
> problems with those (not me, but some do!).
>
So, its OK for young people to be exposed to alcohol and unhealthy
atmospheres, but not to watch a circus act involving animals?
> I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
> circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or
that
> leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it.. If the group
are
> having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine.
If
> leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if
as
> part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
> and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal
leader
> might feel awkward.
Does anybody know leaders that meet in a pub? I've never come across any
in 15 years. How can you decide things in a noisy, smokey atmosphere?
Oh, BTW most pubs sell non-alcoholic drinks. I know that from
experience.
> I remember a summer camp a few years back, when the scouts went sea-
> fishing. I object to this morally, so I was allowed to saty back at
> camp, with another scout who objected, on our own. Whilst this didn't
> bother me, for a younger member of the movement this could be a lonely
> and isolating experience. Surly if we are encouraging children to
reach
> their spiritual potential, we should be encouraging ethical thoughts,
> not isolating them. On one occasion a leader even made fun of my
> vegetarian principles in front of the cub group. This is not
> acceptable. (I explained this to him afterward, and he did apologise).
I'm glad he apologised. But he should have done so in front of the same
cubs, and explained (or given you the opportunity to explain) why you
are a vegetarian.
> I doubt most leaders have ever considered the fact that some people
> don't go to McDonalds, that some people would find woggle making with
> leather offensive, or that to some people Sea-World is an animal
prison.
I think most leaders would realise that some (a lot of) people don't go
to McDonalds - the food is awful. The only thing I could eat in there
(The beanburger thing) is disgusting.
> I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
> or will have nothing to do with weapons.
Now you've lost me - Nescafe coffee? Is this something to no with coffee
growers in the Third world? Do you also boycott all Nestle products?
> When The Scout Association launched its anglers badge, in a blaze of
> publicity, many hardcore animal rights people were upset. "Why," one
> asked me, "are children in a religious oranisation being encouraged to
> participate in bloodsports, when there is no badge they can get for
> attending an animal rights demonstration!"
I don't agree with fishing either, but I don't get upset by other people
exercising their legal rights. IMO Scouting is NOT a religious
organisation, and I suppose being concerned for animal welfare
could qualify under part of the Animal Lover badge.
> I think it is time an ethical advisor was appointed to the SA. If
there
> already is one, then why is such information not being circulated to
> leaders? Other than on shooting, there are virtually no ethical
> guidelines I can find in scouting.
Shooting? Ethical? I don't think the rules on shooting are based on
ethics, so much as the law and common sense.
Tell me, what's a '2nd Year Combined Honours?' Is this something you
have, or something you are doing? Should I be impressed?
Thanks for starting the debate.
> ----
> Kevin Wright
>
> 2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
> My opinions, and no one elses
>
> Email: tar...@talk21.com
> Bloodsports Page: http://listen.to/your_countryside/ (update
soon)
>
--
John Ferguson
CSL 1st Cove Otters
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Snip
>
>I first noticed The Scout Associations ignorance of vegetarianism long
>before I became involved in animal rights, when a good friend of mine
>was accused of "being difficuilt" because he refused to allow the cook
>to cook his food with beef stock. On one camp, breakfast consisted of
>Beans, eggs and sausages for most people, eggs and beans for veggies.
>However, what the leaders didn't realise, is that strict veggies, by the
>Veg Society definition, do not eat battary or barn eggs. So, the option
>for them was beans.
Bad planning by the catering team. We have to cater for all our
members and have vegetarian options for all camp meals.
>
Snip
>
>Of course, I don't hold the leaders responsible for this.
>I'm sure it never crossed their mind that a circus is controversial, or that
>vegetarians didn't eat battery eggs.
> However, I really do feel that
>there is very little information available to leaders about ethical
>diets and lifestyles. I'm preparing an FAQ on the subject, which I will
>post to headquaters, however I think the SA would do well to appoint
>someone whose sole responsibility is to look into the ethics of scouting
>activities. I'm not just talking animal rights. There is much
>disscussion here about alcohol and smoking, and many have ethical
>problems with those (not me, but some do!).
Woa. Hold on a minute. What you are asking, or suggesting is that a
code of ethics is drawn up, which is made available to Scouters, and
to which they are, by implication, supposed to comply with.
It is sufficient that each individual respects the beliefs and ideals
of another, no matter how at variance they may feel with them. That,
to me is tolerance.
>I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
>circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
>leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it..
But you are.
> If the group are
>having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine. If
>leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if as
>part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
>and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal leader
>might feel awkward.
>
>I doubt most leaders have ever considered the fact that some people
>don't go to McDonalds, that some people would find woggle making with
>leather offensive, or that to some people Sea-World is an animal prison.
>I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
>or will have nothing to do with weapons.
>
>When The Scout Association launched its anglers badge, in a blaze of
>publicity, many hardcore animal rights people were upset. "Why," one
>asked me, "are children in a religious oranisation being encouraged to
>participate in bloodsports, when there is no badge they can get for
>attending an animal rights demonstration!"
>
>I think it is time an ethical advisor was appointed to the SA. If there
>already is one, then why is such information not being circulated to
>leaders? Other than on shooting, there are virtually no ethical
>guidelines I can find in scouting.
>----
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to
disagree with anyone elses's point of view and we have had some
serious debates on this ng, but rarely have I seen such a poorly
presented and ill-founded case for anything.
Firstly, One of the prime requirements for all adults in Scouting is
that they do not attempt to influence the youngsters under their care
politically. There is a fine line between politics and pressure groups
and I think you cross it several times in the ideas you try to
present.
Secondly, Scouting is NOT a religious organisation. It is NOT a
religion itself. ONE of its aims is to promote spiritual awareness -
which IMHO adequately covers all your ethical issues. However I will
concede that there is an element of Holy Willies in Scouting who think
that Scouting belongs to Christianity. They can be as guilty as you of
imposing their ideals on the kids.
Thirdly, we are all human and fallible, and from the tales you tell
here it appears that your leaders are ill-mannered and inconsiderate
towards others. On the other hand, perhaps you , in your approach,
have so irritated people trying to help kids and offer them something
aside from TV and football, that they have lost their resolve to work
with you as a team member.
Fourthly, Angling, which is not particularly popular in my group, is
not a political demonstration, it is a modern pastime which reflects
on age old skills and traditions going back to the dawn of man. It is
not political activism - there are no badges for attending any
demonstrations and it would be wrong of Scouyts to be encouraged to
attend demonstrations for or against anything, although they should
never be stopped from being politically active - out of uniform and
not as Scouts.
I can assure you that many of us do have consciences about ethical
matters and sometimes those consciences conflict with what we do. For
instance I and my family eat meat, but boycott MacDonalds. However on
a Group outing the Group wanted to go bowling (oh dear they use
leather shoes), and then finish with a Coke and a Big Mac. Just
because I disapprove of supporting macDonalds should the rest of the
Group have to go without? Of course not. But did I sit outside in the
rain whingeing? No, I joined in the fun as best I could.
If the group wanted to go to a theme park - which I think is the
antithesis of what Scouting is about, then they can go and I will make
the most of it.
IOt appears to me that you want every little thing we do in Scouting
to be discussed and approved by an ethics committee, however somewhere
there will be someone with an ethical reason for not doing anything.
What clothes do you wear as an environmental - vegetarian. No manmade
fibres and no natural materials resulting in the death or cruelty to
an animal. Well that rules out wool and leather, so you are left with
cotton and linen - the growing of which in massive moncultures creates
an environmental problem in itself, so you are left wandering about in
the hude. Fine by me if you can stand the cold, because you haven't
got a scource of heat since there simply isnd enough deadfall to go
round and we can't chop down trees for firewood, or use coal, oil, gas
or electricity.
And what would you eat? And who would work to produce the food you
eat? Why are you at University? The structure is an affront to nature
and has created countelss levels of damage in its creation?
I'm not making fun of you, but you seem to have an extreme point of
view and wish to impose it by ethical committee on the rest of us.
Take a good look at where Scouting comes from, understand what
Scouting is about and then ask yourself if this is really where you
can best put your energies to efficient use. If the answer is yes then
great, but do so in the ethos of Scouting and in line with POR.
Ewan Scott
Kevin L Wright
>
>
>More and more kids are vegetarians, and this is noted on their Medical Forms
>which we ask them to complete before a camp. We cater for them, but it can
>be difficult - just like religious differences for menu planning.
>
let alone to understand the principles behind it.
>The thing is, most of them are only too keen to have a slab of beef rather
>than their usual vegetarian option, as scout camp is the only time their
>parents aren't watching them!
> Seems like its the parents' ethics that direct
>the kids' diet, not the kids themselves (in the cases I have witnessed).
In some cases certainly. I'm having an argument about parents ethics
imposed on kids in alt.activism.children if anyones interested. At
Beaver age, I would say this is often the case. However at cub, and
certainbly at Scout age, people are making up their own mind. Veggie
talks are aimed at 12-15 year olds normally, and they make the decision
to go veggie.
>
>I don't mind talking about the ethics of animal cruelty or whatever, but it
>shouldn't take over from the principles of scouting.
Agreed. However it is important that we consider the ethics behind what
we are doing. Baden-Powel encouraged a wide look on life, and a wide
look means understanding many different beliefs. Baden-Powell also
encouraged children to develop their ideas and opinions. Whether this
is animal rights, human rights, disabled rights, cancel third world debt
is irrelevant. We should encourage children to focus their energy
positively if they encounter a situation which they don't like.
> We are in a
>multi-cultural, multi-opinioned society which undertakes a wide range of
>leisure activities and tolerates an incredibly wide range of views - we need
>to reflect this in our scouting. Let the kids make their own minds up, let
>them choose the activities they want to do, and by all means point out
>opposing views.
Agreed. However, laughing at children for being veggie (which happens a
lot in scouting, all be it in bast of humour), or saying to a child:
"You come fishing, or you stay here on your own" is encouraging a child
to conform, and not develop a personal discipline.
> But please don't turn your troop into a mouthpiece for your
>pro-animal views: let them be known, but be graceful about it.
>
Certainly. I have no plans to impose my views on any one. However, see
above. If a child wishes to visit the circus, let him visit it.
However, one must be aware that many people oppose this, and it should
be decided by the leader, if not the district, whether they consider
this activity suitable for children.
Some activities are only vaguely controversial. For example, the
majority of people don't oppose fishing. However, circuses are opposed
by very respectable organisations such as the RSPCA. Therefore, leaders
should consider hard before taking children to see one. There is
currently no guidence available on this.
In any case, a child should not be made to feel, in any way, that he his
missing out by following his belief. I oppose McDonalds, on various
human and animal rights grounds. As a 20 year old I find it very very
hard to stand outside for half and hour whilst my friends go inside. I
have no problem with them doing so, if that is their decision. I will
inform them that I am against it, but they are quite welcome to go in.
I have developed my mind enough, that I can stick by my morals, and not
go in, despite temptation. However, if a child of cub age feels is
told: "Well, you can come in and not eat anything" he may well not be
able to resist, simply because peer preassure is very signifigant at
that stage in your life. We should be encouraging people to develop
mental discipline, not isolating those who wish to.
Kevin L Wright
allegedly wrote:
>Hi,
>
>If there is one thing no one likes on camp it's someone who winges about their
>special dietary needs.
>
>For example people allergic to nuts. Was this hell in France or what? In the
>old hyper market trying to get food with no damn nuts in them...arghhh. This
>also deprived some of chocolate! Diabetics (I hope this gets some response
>:-)) they think they need to not consume any sugar substances and so do the
>leaders, which is worse still. In my opinion this is wrong especially for a
>camp with lots of activities....shove the sugar down them! Right now I could
>do with a Mars Bar.
>
not think it is acceptable for me to be made to feel that I am 'being
difficuilt' because I believe it is wrong to eat meat.
>I have been on many camps with a boy from a strict Jewish family and he loves
>the opportunity that being away from home brings to eat Bacon for breakfast
>..It's just not a problem. [I'm serious about this para]
>
That's his decision. It is evident that his parents have simply imposed
views without explaining them. However, if he does not want to eat
bacon, he should not be made to miss out, simply because of that belief.
If the option is pork sauages and bacon and eggs, he should not "Oh,
you can just have eggs." This will encourage him to eat pork, despite,
perhaps, his own morals, just so that he doesn't "miss out".
>
>Veges...I'm glad there was never in my unit. Oh well there was but as they
>weren't so madly obsessed we were able to remove the meet from the meals.
You are a great example of what I am complaining about. Vegetarians are
not "madly obssessed" people. We believe that the consumption of meat
is morally wrong. We are entitled to this belief, and in an
organisation which is supost to encourage this, such comments make us
feel like there is something wrong with us. There is not. We should
not be made to feel like we are fanatics.
>I love beans..(especialy with Worcestershire Sauce) I'm a student, however I
>also like Sausages and eggs and so do most of the scouters I know. Personally
>though I like to start the morning with a fresh glass of Orange Juice and real
>Swiss Alpan with milk from a cow with 10000 acres to graze in with un treated
>grass and a farmer who has names for all his animals.
>What next people who won't eat GM food.
>
Many vegetarians won't, because animal genes are mixed in with plant
geners. Personally, I don't give a stuff about this, but people who do
are entitled to that belief. They should be encouraged to stick by
their morals, not made to feel stupid over it.
>
>That's it, deprive others of the opportunity to have fun due to 'allegations'.
>I would though say it was not wise for a scout outing to an animal circus.
>
Agreed. I would not try to stop them going. But I suggest that it had
not crossed the leaders mind that what he was taking his cubs to was
cruel. If this outing had been part of a summer camp (it may or may not
have been), a cub who wished to object to a circus would have felt very
lonely. Thus, such things should not be included in a summer camp
programme if cubs are likely to object.
As I said in a previous mailing, there are catagories of
controversialness. Thus, fishing, assuming no one out of those invited
to go fishing objected, would be fine. A circus on the other hand,
comes under critisim from many sources, some very renowned and
respectable, as do certain, but not all, zoos. Thus, I think a trip to
one of these should be considered very, very hard.
>>
>
>That's it a cub can develop lung cancer from his filthy elderly leaders
>smoking next to him
As I understand it, this practice is not allowed in the Scout
Association.
> but if an egg is laid by a hen in a battery then eaten
>instead of being cast aside and bought by the next shopper we really have a
>problem here.
>
Oh, for goodness sake. If a soldier in Nazi Germany had refused to
shoot a jew, the next soldier would have done it. However, surely, one
has every admiration for the few, few soldiers who stood up to their
leaders and said: "No! (or Nein!)" Surly living by your own principles
is something that should be encouraged. Scouting is not about getting
people to conform into socities little boxes. I don't want scouting to
breed animal rights anarchists, nor revolutionaries. Nor do I want it
to produce run of the mill conformists either. It should produce,
amongst many other qualities, a person who can think for themselves, and
live by their principles, as they have decided them. They should not be
made to feel awkward for this!
>
>A teetotaler who doesn't have a problem for religious etc. reasons has
>hundreds of excuses, as well as just being honest, not to drink in a pub. If
>the leaders make him feel guilty then hey they ain't a good a leader as you.
>
That is not much good. All too often scout meetings are arranged by a
couple of leader who say: "Hey, let's meet down the pub." For a
teetotaler, this would cause a feeling of isolation.
>>
>> I remember a summer camp a few years back, when the scouts went sea-
>> fishing. I object to this morally, so I was allowed to saty back at
>> camp, with another scout who objected, on our own.
>
>Was this a voluntary objection by the boy?
>
Yes. However, I feel that his tiredness kinda provoked it a little
more.
>> Whilst this didn't
>> bother me, for a younger member of the movement this could be a lonely
>> and isolating experience.
>
>Just let him go and have a boat ride then, he doesn't have to get actively
>evolved.
>
It was evening. There were no boat rides. This is the point, though,
he was just told: "Well, if you're not going to do this activity, then
you'll have to stay here." as if he was simply saying: "Nope, don't feel
like doing that."
>
>Ah I see a person who can't take a joke. People make fun of me, it ain't
>serious we all know we're good friends and its all part of having' a laugh.
>Did he apologize in front of the cubs or were they treated as untermention and
>left blinded to your objection?
>
No, he apologised in private afterwards. I can take a joke. However,
if I were black, should I have to put up with racist slander? If I were
a devout christian, should I have to put up with jokes about that?
Jokes at the expense of people living by their principles, something
which few people can do, are not funny.
Of course everyone gets jokes about sexism, about their race and their
belif from time to time. However a long a delibarate talk to cubs at
flag break about how stupid I was for not eating meat is not a quick
little personal jibe.
>>
>
>No McDonalds now your taking the *****. Wednesday is normally wash day on
>summer camp (we go swimming!) and there is nothing better than a trip to
>MacyD's for some palatable food. The VS also get the opportunity to molest
>Ronald, play games with the straws and ask for excessive amounts of barbecue
>dip! Without this a valuable item in scouting is lost.
I see you have no sensetivity toward people's belifs.
>If they don't want to
>eat meat in MD's I'm sure there is an alternative. Personally I've never been
>to examine the rain forest but I have been stuck in Austria when the only
>'real' food place was MD's.
>
Of course there are alternatives. I'm not suggesting no scouts should
go to McDonalds. However, if there is someone in the troop who objects
to it on moral grounds, then an alternative should be sought.
>If I don't drink Nescafe/gold blend etc. how am I ever going to have one of
>those exciting advertisement style relationships?
>
Ah! That's where I've been going wrong! I'll switch from the Kenco (I
was wondering why I was suddenly so good at running coffee companies).
:-)
>>
>>
>
>Religious yeh but to what? If it is a religious organisation (esoteric
>ecclesiastical anachronism, thanks to KYTV for that) its members are
>paradoxically not necessarily so.
>
According to POR, they must be religius in order to be members, and
scouting should encourage them to develop that. If you don't agree with
that, then I suggset we take it up in another thread, it is a long
topic. I don't believe that atheists should be excluded from the
organisation, but that's another story.
>We have had demonstrations of how to skin a rabid snaring (rural area) and no
>one objected although it wasn't particularly nice.
That's fine. However, if they had, they should not have been made to
feel bad for it, but should have been encouraged to do so.
> Although a lot of my unit
>participate in hunting/shooting I still regard them as friends and don't wish
>to break that up as they have opposing views to mine.
>
Certainly. I know plenty of people, and have some very good friends,
who participate in things I find less than savoury. All I would say, is
that if someone in your unit objected to it, the unit should not include
hunting or shooting as part of larger activity. If they wanted to have
a hunting or shooting day, and the VS in question couldn't come, then
that is one thing. However, if, as part of a visit to Highgrove, there
happens to be some shooting, the VS could feel isolated, if all others
take part. He may even be made fun of for it. If it is known that a VS
opposes shooting, then it should not be included as part of the
programme, or a sufficient alternative should be reached, whereby he is
not made to feel bad for his belief.
>Not necessarily my opinions even, some bits are serious some not....cleaverly
>mixed up to make it completely incomprehensible which is which.
>
:-)
>
----
Kevin Wright
2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
My opinions, and no one elses
Email: tar...@talk21.com
Kevin L Wright
<Jo...@pctrott.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>Kevin
>I wouldn't go as far as some of your respondents. If you have a genuine
>belief which prevents you eating certain products for whatever reason thats
>fair enough> I fail to see how you can be upset however if others are not
>fully conversant with the fine details.
I'm not upset by this, however, I feel that with particular reference to
vegetarianism, which is not a belief of one or two, but of aprox 8
million adults in this country (thats about 7% of the population), it is
something leaders SHOULD be clued up on.
> That is surely your own
>responsibility to inform them. I personally feel that if your dietary
>requirements are so different form the "common" then it must be your own
>responsibility to provide and arrange preparation.
In which case, it should be a females responsibilty to provide her own
toilets and tentage. If a person is to live by their principles, they
must be encouraged to do so, as this is surely part of what scouting is
about. To tell someone they cannot come on camp unless they supply
their own food is ludicrous. If someone is alergic to nuts, you cater
for them. If someone does not like cabbage, you provide them with an
alternative. If someone does not eat meat, the same should be the case.
>I have no idea what
>various grades of vegetarians and vegans will or will not eat.
>The same goes
>for an awful lot of religions.
Indeed, and thus guidance should be available for leaders.
>I will always try to have something on the
>menu that people can eat but you cannot expect me to know everyone's
>personal requirements if they have not made them clear.
However, when you get a camp form with "VEGETARIAN" on, you should have
a source where you can find out, at headquaters. You should also be
made aware of what some people, suprisingly, consider controversial.
> As regards your political activism. Whether I agree with your views or
>not I strongly believe that they should be kept out of Scouting.
Where possible. However, I personally object to fishing. I'm not
trying to enforce that opinion on anyone, if they wish to go, that's
fine. However, leaders should be aware that for an increasing amount of
people, especially young people, fishing is considered wrong.
Therefore, if they know that someone in the group has beliefs that are
inclined toward that way of thought (ie, a vegetarian is likely to be
opposed to fishing, though may not be), they should find out if they are
opposed, and if so, make provisions for an alternative arrangement,
other than simply saying: "Well, you can sit and watch then."
Certainly activities such as circus visits, which are, as I said in
other posts, opposed by the RSPCA and many, many others should be
considered long and hard.
Mikewhay
> If someone does not like cabbage, you provide them with an
>alternative. If someone does not eat meat, the same should be the case.
This is what the Health form is for that we send out, its fine you can plan for
someones beliefs or likes dislikes if told in advance, its difficult if they
tell you as they get to camp!.
But with proper notice vegetarians can be catered for.
>You should also be
>made aware of what some people, suprisingly, consider controversial.
>
I would expect parents to discuss this if they or the scouts had
objections..what we are not told about we cant avoid, good as Scout leaders
are, one thing missing from leader training is how to be psychic.
>people, especially young people, fishing is considered wrong.
Some of ours enjoy fishing some dont, so when on camp those that want to fish
have time , those that dont we dosomething else, its not something that
interests me.
I note none of them object to backwoods cooking ie gutting fish and rabbits
etc. Again if they did I hope we create an atmosphere where then can say no
without being sidelined.
I would be very weary of any advisors being created at HQ.
YiS
--
Mike Whay - SL 1st Stanford In The Vale Scout Troop
ADC(Scouts) - King Alfred District - Wantage, Oxfordshire - UK
david.may...@ukonline.co.uk
[I'm sure I promised myself that I was keeping out of this one!]
Kevin Wright wrote:
Firstly, congratulations on not rising to the bait. Si tends to be
somewhat provocative, and I hope that some of what he posts *is*
meant to provoke, rather that being a true reflection of his opinion
>I have no problem with a meat eater on camp eating meat. However, I
>do not think it is acceptable for me to be made to feel that I am
>'being difficuilt' because I believe it is wrong to eat meat.
You wouldn't on any camp run by me. You may however find that your
dietry needs were dealt with a couple of minutes later. First job is
to get the bacon out to the 90% that are eating Bacon, before the
couple who are not come and get what has been organised for them.
>>I have been on many camps with a boy from a strict Jewish family and
>>he lovesthe opportunity that being away from home brings to eat
>>Bacon for breakfast ..It's just not a problem. [I'm serious about
>>this para]
>That's his decision. It is evident that his parents have simply
>imposedviews without explaining them. However, if he does not want
>to eat bacon, he should not be made to miss out, simply because of
>that belief.
That is fine, although I'd be slightly wary of the parental reaction
if they find out. (as an aside, not really relevant but of interest,
a Jewish child is not forbidden to eat bacon. The religious law
exempts them from responsibility for knowing what they should and
should not eat. Only after the Bar Mitzvah does it become a problem)
>If the option is pork sauages and bacon and eggs, he should not
"Oh,
>you can just have eggs." This will encourage him to eat pork,
>despite, perhaps, his own morals, just so that he doesn't "miss out".
Not on our camp. We first plan the menu for the majority, and then
sit down with those who cannot eat everything on that menu, and
sort out what they will have instead.
>>Veges...I'm glad there was never in my unit. Oh well there was but
>>as they weren't so madly obsessed we were able to remove the meet
>>from the meals.
>
>You are a great example of what I am complaining about. Vegetarians
>are not "madly obssessed" people. We believe that the consumption of
>meat is morally wrong. We are entitled to this belief, and in an
>organisation which is supost to encourage this, such comments make
us
>feel like there is something wrong with us. There is not. We
should
>not be made to feel like we are fanatics.
Careful, you are taking the bait.
>As I said in a previous mailing, there are catagories of
>controversialness. Thus, fishing, assuming no one out of those
>invited to go fishing objected, would be fine.
I have found that fishing is an activity which some enjoy, some
aren't
interested in, and some object to. There are sufficient "don't
cares"
to ensure that a viable alternative would be provided
alongside.
However, we work with the resources available. It may not always be
possible to accomodate the one who wishes not to participate, and
I don't feel it appropriate that the rest should be denied the
opportunity. If a Scout feels excluded because he has to sit out
an activity, how much more excluded will he feel if the whole Troop
has to miss out on that activity because of his beliefs.
>>That's it a cub can develop lung cancer from his filthy elderly
>>leaders smoking next to him
>
>As I understand it, this practice is not allowed in the Scout
>Association.
You understand wrongly then.
>Oh, for goodness sake. If a soldier in Nazi Germany had refused to
>shoot a jew, the next soldier would have done it.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You started off so well, and you've gone
and blown it.
I invoke Godwins Law.
[Godwins Law is a Newsgroups convention, which starts by observing
that in any argument on a newsgroup, there is a tendency for
discussion to degenerate, and that this will eventually lead to
a comparison being drawn to Hitler or the Nazis. Godwins law states
that in any argument, of which the original subject was not Hitler or
the Nazis, the first person to bring up Hitler or the Nazis has
demonstrated that they have no further sensible points to make, and
has lost the argument]
>>Just let him go and have a boat ride then, he doesn't have to get
>>actively evolved.
>>
>It was evening. There were no boat rides. This is the point,
>though, he was just told: "Well, if you're not going to do this
>activity, then you'll have to stay here." as if he was simply saying:
>"Nope, don't feel like doing that."
Sounds like this case was badly handled.
>According to POR, they must be religius in order to be members, and
>scouting should encourage them to develop that. If you don't agree
>with that, then I suggset we take it up in another thread, it is a
>long topic. I don't believe that atheists should be excluded from
>the organisation, but that's another story.
We've done this one before!
The fact that Scouting has a policy on religious beliefs does not
de-facto make it a religious organisation.
>If it is known that a VS opposes shooting, then it should not be
>included as part of the programme, or a sufficient alternative should
>be reached, whereby he is not made to feel bad for his belief.
So, let's say 1 out of 12 opposes shooting. Your staffing will not
run to providing an alternative activity at the same time. Do you
suggest that the other 11 should miss out on an activity they want
to do because one opposes it. Do you not regard the restriction
placed upon the 11 to accomodate the one as slightly oppressive. Do
you not think that at least some of the 11 will be a tiny bit cross
with the one for preventing them from doing an activity they want to
do?
--
Dave Mayall
Please remove the AIMHYX before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
gareth...@ftse.com
Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<Snipped: a long diatribe on vegetarianism, blood sports and the like.>
I often find it interesting to look at the background of people who
take a high and mighty moral position, especially in relation to
Scouting. I took a look at your homepage, Kevin, and given your wish
that your minority views should be listened to and your protestations
that you don't wish to force your views on people, I was interested to
read the following:
"People may slag off students for being constantly pissed, and
generally being noisy at all hours of the night. But to be honest we
don't really give a fuck what they think, because we have worked our
asses off to get to this place in the first place, and deserve some
fun."
(http://www.westwind.demon.co.uk/kevin/NUS.HTM)
"It is morally wrong to kill an animal in an inhumane manor for the
purposes of human enjoyment and it is your moral duty to protest
against such an act, which hunting could be seen to be."
"Four good reasons why you really should care about hunting and the
issues. If you still don't I feel that you really do have a problem. It
will be when the hunt kills your cat, hurts your child, destroys your
garden that you will realise that you really should have cared."
(http://www.westwind.demon.co.uk/bsp/drc.htm)
Gareth Parker
ASL, 3rd Chalkwell Bay Sea Scouts
gareth...@ftse.com
David Allsopp
Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>What next people who won't eat GM food.
>>
>Many vegetarians won't, because animal genes are mixed in with plant
>geners.
Are you sure? Do you have an example? (Not doubting you, but I find
it very surprising!)
David Allsopp.
--
"It doesn't matter how fast your modem is if you're being shelled by
ethnic separatists." - William Gibson
Si Croall
What good material.....
gareth...@ftse.com wrote:
> I often find it interesting to look at the background of people who
> take a high and mighty moral position, especially in relation to
> Scouting. I took a look at your homepage, Kevin, and given your wish
> that your minority views should be listened to and your protestations
> that you don't wish to force your views on people, I was interested to
> read the following:
>
> "People may slag off students for being constantly pissed, and
> generally being noisy at all hours of the night. But to be honest we
> don't really give a fuck what they think, because we have worked our
> asses off to get to this place in the first place, and deserve some
> fun."
>
I'm a student. I'm a genius. I'm ace and don't forget this. Next door to me
lives the environmental officer for the SU. What a long greasy haired lazy
idiot he is. Always having 'fun' and never doing any work. This maybe due
to the fact he does an Arts subject degree. He is wasting *your* tax payers
money making use of his time to prevent the easing of congestion on todays
busy roads.
I give a F**K you extremist. It's lazy people like you who give student
(engineers scientists etc.) a bad name. If you were trained properly as a
scout I'm sure you would be able to get up early, plan your time
effectively and be able to squat for ages. If you have worked your ass of
(I question this as most who claim this have not but just have a guilt
problem) you are silly to waste it. Their is still plenty of fun to be had
though ;-)
>
> (http://www.westwind.demon.co.uk/kevin/NUS.HTM)
>
> "It is morally wrong to kill an animal in an inhumane manor for the
> purposes of human enjoyment and it is your moral duty to protest
> against such an act, which hunting could be seen to be."
>
Thanks you know best.
>
> "Four good reasons why you really should care about hunting and the
> issues. If you still don't I feel that you really do have a problem. It
> will be when the hunt kills your cat, hurts your child, destroys your
> garden that you will realise that you really should have cared."
>
Don't have a cat, child or garden so I haven't realized, what a poor
argument! Perhaps we should shoot the hounds and horses, that'll stop them!
BCNU
Si
Lynne Cattanach
beliefs is starting to create quite a few problems for him within his group.
As some previous respondants have noted these views are often best kept to
oneself (when held in such extremes).
However, there is always the need to know basis and the leaders were at no
fault other than the ignorance of the veggie for not fully informing them as
to their likes and dislikes.
I personally have a major aversion to cheese, eggs, tomatoes most cold meats
and tuna,(all make me sick) which can make training courses, buffets etc a
real nightmare.
Being the sheer bloody minded individual that I am, I choose not to starve
or be left with plain bread, I either inform in plenty of time giving a
couple of suggestions of what I can eat or I offer to make my own
arrangements and therefore expect to have the cost of training courses
suitably reduced to compensate (I said I was bloody minded).
Kevin do you honestly feel that fishing for food purposes is so bad when
essential fish oils are so good for the masses and our bodies are in true
fact designed for the consumption of a varied diet including meat and fish.
The reality of Kevin contacting this news group is that the majority of
respondants do seem feel he is foisting his views on other users and quite
probably his group members as well. I do feel that everyone should have
their "cause" but share your cause with your peers, offer publicity, recruit
but you should never leave people feeling as if you have imposed or intruded
upon.
Lynne Cattanach
PS does anybody know any holy willies because round here there is a dave,
steve and a richard but definitely no willies (sorry long day)
PPS
SI wrote
>Don't have a cat, child or garden so I haven't realized, what a poor
>argument! Perhaps we should shoot the hounds and horses, that'll stop them!
Our large pet rabbit sees off the local cats so should it be shot ? The
sport involved in watching a VERY large rabbit take on a mach smaller moggie
can be amusing however most of the cats sit just outside the garden now
lessons learned
My scouts think I should bring the said bunny to scouts but that is purely
because they enjoy making use of wild rabbitts as a resouce for troop
meeting, Backwoods cooking, Arts and crafts, tracking, Master at Arms badge
etc .............
Si Croall
John Ferguson wrote:
>
>
> So, its OK for young people to be exposed to alcohol and unhealthy
> atmospheres, but not to watch a circus act involving animals?
>
> > I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
> > circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or
> that
> > leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it.. If the group
> are
> > having a day out to the circus, and I don't want to go, that's fine.
> If
> > leaders want alcohol at the end of the day, thats fine. However, if
> as
> > part of a summer camp they go to the circus, I would be left on my own
> > and isolated. If a leaders meeting was held in a pub, a teetotal
> leader
> > might feel awkward.
>
> Does anybody know leaders that meet in a pub? I've never come across any
> in 15 years. How can you decide things in a noisy, smokey atmosphere?
> Oh, BTW most pubs sell non-alcoholic drinks. I know that from
> experience.
>
No I don't. From what I've seen it maybe a post meeting optional extra
that's all. Even our venture AGM is conducted in a very civilized manner in
the hut.
Some people have decided some pretty important things in noisy smokey
atmospheres before.
>
> > I remember a summer camp a few years back, when the scouts went sea-
> > fishing. I object to this morally
I object to this excitmently. I personally can't see the fun in dangling my
rod out in the hope I can catch something that has been nicely killed, along
with those pesky dolphins in Kwik Save.
> I don't agree with fishing either, but I don't get upset by other people
> exercising their legal rights. IMO Scouting is NOT a religious
> organisation, and I suppose being concerned for animal welfare
> could qualify under part of the Animal Lover badge.
When we did our animal lovers badge (I don't think it was called that) we
visited a zoo as a unit. I now feel obliged to email all those cubs and tell
them how they have sinned.
BCNU
Si
Adrian Lloyd
>
> Does anybody know leaders that meet in a pub? I've never come across any
> in 15 years. How can you decide things in a noisy, smokey atmosphere?
> Oh, BTW most pubs sell non-alcoholic drinks. I know that from
> experience.
>
> >
My leadership team meet after every Scout Meeting at the local pub. The pub
provides an ideal place to unwind after a Scout meeting. If any of the
leaders have had a problem during the evening, this can be discussed and
resolved. The following weeks plans are made in the pub, usually on a scrap
of paper provided by the land lord. The majority of our annual camp last
year was planned in the pub. Everybody knows who we are, partly because we
are normally in full uniform, and through the pub we have gained a massive
amount of support.
With regards to alcohol, a number of the leaders drive home afterwards, so
they don't drink alcohol, this isn't seen as a problem. If parents need to
get in touch with the leadership team, they have been known to ring us at
the pub.
In general I find that by meeting in a pub, it reduces the formality of
meetings and increases the flow of ideas.
I would agree that you need to find the right pub otherwise there are
drawbacks, such as the Pub Quiz.
Adrian.
SL
Ian Philip Douthwaite
Kevin L Wright wrote:
> We should be encouraging people to develop
> mental discipline, not isolating those who wish to.
>
Mental discipline works both ways - not just in the direction of those rebelling
against what they see. Don't isolate those who choose to agree with McDonald's,
circuses, smoking, bacon etc, just because they don't fit in with yours.
I'd love to see you in charge of a vegetarian troop where certain scouts chose
and wanted to eat a burger in a bun whilst fishing.
How would your ethical code work then?
Ian
ps
Humans are more important than animals. There, I've said it.
Stephen White
> > issues. If you still don't I feel that you really do have a problem. It
> > will be when the hunt kills your cat, hurts your child, destroys your
> > garden that you will realise that you really should have cared."
> argument! Perhaps we should shoot the hounds and horses, that'll stop them!
Hmm ... we have a cat, friends with chickens and live in the New
Forest. Our cat had a fight with a fox and I know of many, many,
chickens lost to them. Badgers dig up our garden .. if they aren't
beaten to it by moles Does this mean we should shoot all foxes. badgers
and moles? I haven't seen the hunt kill a chicken, a cat, hurt a child,
or damage a garden yet.
I thinks this is a bit off-topic.
I wonder if we could shoot the grockels^Wtourists? Could we make that a
Scout activity?
--
Stephen White A.S.L. 1st Sandleheath Sea Scout Group
<swh...@ox.compsoc.net> http://www.ox.compsoc.net/~swhite
Dave Mayall
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In which case, it should be a females responsibilty to provide her own
>toilets and tentage. If a person is to live by their principles, they
>must be encouraged to do so, as this is surely part of what scouting is
>about. To tell someone they cannot come on camp unless they supply
>their own food is ludicrous. If someone is alergic to nuts, you cater
>for them. If someone does not like cabbage, you provide them with an
>alternative. If someone does not eat meat, the same should be the case.
Good job that isn't what we do.
Firstly, Vegetarian can mean any number of things, from those who only
avoid red meat through to strict vegans through various grades of fish
eaters, chicken eaters and milk drinkers.
Because of this, it falls to the Scout concerned with the assistance
of parents to tell us what they can and cannot eat.
They give us the info and we use the info to cater for them.
--
Dave Mayall
SL 7th Stalybridge
Dave Mayall
<john.f...@eur.autodesk.com> wrote:
>Does anybody know leaders that meet in a pub? I've never come across any
>in 15 years. How can you decide things in a noisy, smokey atmosphere?
>Oh, BTW most pubs sell non-alcoholic drinks. I know that from
>experience.
We hold meetings in a pub (Stalybridge Station Buffet Bar for those
who are familiar with it). We use the back room, and have it to
ourself (FOC). We've found Group execs a much more pleasant
experience.
Ian Wilkins
discuss more "controversial" things. Perhaps this discussion might be
better off there.
Ian.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of Whitakers.
Kevin L Wright
>
>
>Kevin L Wright wrote:
>
>
>> We should be encouraging people to develop
>> mental discipline, not isolating those who wish to.
>>
>
>Mental discipline works both ways - not just in the direction of those rebelling
>against what they see. Don't isolate those who choose to agree with McDonald's,
>circuses, smoking, bacon etc, just because they don't fit in with yours.
>
food outlets, and another that objects to small local chippys, then you
will have a major dilemma on your hands. However, the latter is far
less likely than the former, which is, to be honest, more likely in
older scouts and ventures than in any other age group.
>I'd love to see you in charge of a vegetarian troop where certain scouts chose
>and wanted to eat a burger in a bun whilst fishing.
>
>How would your ethical code work then?
>
I'm not suggesting that scouts never go fishing, nor that all scouts
should suddenly have to eat Linda McCarntney burgers. All I am saying
is that all possible efforts should be made to encourage scouts to show
independant thinking. Thus, leaders should be made aware of potentially
controversial activities, so that they can be given consideration.
Certainly, if a scout objected to a camp where fishing whilst eating
burgers wasn't included, he should not be ridiculed for that suggestion.
Indeed leaders should attempt to meet a compromise - perhaps the veggie
scouts would be happy to eat veggie burgers, whilst collecting weater
plants (actually sounds nearly as dul las fishing ;-)) so that the scout
who wished to fish could do so, without feeling too isolated.
Obviously people with alternative beliefs will be isolated to a point.
In other words, unless they expect everyone around them to go veggie,
which is unreasonable, they will have to put up with some different
food. However this isolation should be kept to a minimum. They should
certainly not be ridiculed for their beliefs, and they should not be
given the option of: A - You participate in an activity you dislike OR
B - You sit on your own with nothing to do.
>ps
>Humans are more important than animals. There, I've said it.
>
We can have a huge debate on this, but let's try and keep on Scout
topic. I agree with you. That does not make animal un-important. If
we both have too much to drink tonight and get drunk, but I get utterly
paralytic, it does not make you any less drunk.
Seeing as you support human rights, you will be quite happy to
accomodate scouts who boycott McDonalds due to their exploitative nature
of human beings in southern America? You will welcome scouts who
boycott Nestle foods because of their exploitation of the third world?
I'm not just talking about scouts with animal rights principles. I know
about those, because I share many of those values. However, there are
many different beliefs and philosophies, and many boycotts and
activities which human rights campaigners would object to.
Kevin L Wright
nline.co.uk allegedly wrote:
>
>[I'm sure I promised myself that I was keeping out of this one!]
>Kevin Wright wrote:
>
>Firstly, congratulations on not rising to the bait. Si tends to be
>somewhat provocative, and I hope that some of what he posts *is*
>meant to provoke, rather that being a true reflection of his opinion
>
was kinda provoking of me anyway! ;-)
>I
>>do not think it is acceptable for me to be made to feel that I am
>>'being difficuilt' because I believe it is wrong to eat meat.
>
>You wouldn't on any camp run by me. You may however find that your
>dietry needs were dealt with a couple of minutes later. First job is
>to get the bacon out to the 90% that are eating Bacon, before the
>couple who are not come and get what has been organised for them.
>
OK, fine. As I pointed out, there will always be isolation to some
extent. I just ask that guidelines and advivce be drawn up and
circulated to leaders, so that such isolation will be minimised.
>
>That is fine, although I'd be slightly wary of the parental reaction
>if they find out.
Personally, if the parents found out it would be up to them to deal with
the child. If I were a leader in charge of a camp, I would expect it to
be the boys' decision as to what they did. Scouting is partly about
getting away from it all, and that can include parents. I do not see a
leaders role as policing parental rules that the child does not wish to
follow.
>
>Not on our camp. We first plan the menu for the majority, and then
>sit down with those who cannot eat everything on that menu, and
>sort out what they will have instead.
>
Good. And such advice should be given to leaders. On one camp (before
I was veggie) the menu was:
Roast turkey slives with mashed potato and peas
A veggie on camp didn't like peas. So he had mashed potato with a kraft
cheese slice. That is not catering for vegetarians. It is not the
leaders fault. It is lack of information.
> We
>should
>>not be made to feel like we are fanatics.
>
>Careful, you are taking the bait.
>
:-) Certainly am.
>
>I have found that fishing is an activity which some enjoy, some
>aren't
>interested in, and some object to. There are sufficient "don't
>cares"
>to ensure that a viable alternative would be provided
>alongside.
Fine. Again, I'm not insisting that no one fishes. However if one
scout objects, he should not be left to stand on his own. Therefore, if
no alternative can be arranged, the activity should not be included as
part of a summer camp, or other activity which the person would not
object to in the whole.
>However, we work with the resources available. It may not always be
>possible to accomodate the one who wishes not to participate, and
>I don't feel it appropriate that the rest should be denied the
>opportunity. If a Scout feels excluded because he has to sit out
>an activity, how much more excluded will he feel if the whole Troop
>has to miss out on that activity because of his beliefs.
>
I see the point you're making. However there are few enough activities
that any one individual will object to that there should be no need for
them to be included in a summer camp programme etc if no alternative can
be arranged. A good example comes from some years ago, when we were
camping on a shooting estate (this is before my time in animal rights).
We were invited by the gamekeeper to go on a rabbit shoot. However,
leaders had anticipated that this would be controversial when they
planned it, and thus had arranged a perfectly good alternative, which a
few scouts took up. If leaders had been aware that fishing was viewed
by some as equally controversial, no doubt they would have set up an
alternative for that too. However it never crossed their minds that
fishing might be controversial. Thus the need for better advice on the
subject.
>>As I understand it, this practice is not allowed in the Scout
>>Association.
>
>You understand wrongly then.
>
OK, I'll stand corrected. I dunno if that's a district or county rule
we have, but leaders round here are not allowed to smoke in front of a
child.
>>Oh, for goodness sake. If a soldier in Nazi Germany had refused to
>>shoot a jew, the next soldier would have done it.
>
>Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You started off so well, and you've gone
>and blown it.
>
I've taken the bate, sure. But I think I make a valid point, which is
that to simply say "We must do something because if we don't someone
else will" goes against much of what scouting stands for.
>
>Godwins law states
>that in any argument, of which the original subject was not Hitler or
>the Nazis, the first person to bring up Hitler or the Nazis has
>demonstrated that they have no further sensible points to make, and
>has lost the argument]
OK, I'll use a different example. My personal vote will not influence,
directly, the outcome of an election. That does not mean, however, that
I shouldn't vote. Th
>
>
[snip my thing about being left alone when I wouldn't fish]
>Sounds like this case was badly handled.
>
Yup. I'm not holding it against the leaders in any way. I just feel
that had they anticipated that fishing was controversial, they may have
planned differently.
>
>>According to POR, they must be religius in order to be members, and
>>scouting should encourage them to develop that. If you don't agree
>>with that, then I suggset we take it up in another thread, it is a
>>long topic. I don't believe that atheists should be excluded from
>>the organisation, but that's another story.
>
>We've done this one before!
>
Oooooh yes! Too many times ;-)
>The fact that Scouting has a policy on religious beliefs does not
>de-facto make it a religious organisation.
>
Ok. I'll settle for that.
>
>So, let's say 1 out of 12 opposes shooting. Your staffing will not
>run to providing an alternative activity at the same time. Do you
>suggest that the other 11 should miss out on an activity they want
>to do because one opposes it. Do you not regard the restriction
>placed upon the 11 to accomodate the one as slightly oppressive. Do
>you not think that at least some of the 11 will be a tiny bit cross
>with the one for preventing them from doing an activity they want to
>do?
>
Yes, I do. However there simply MUST be an alternative to saying: "Sit
here and rot" or making him feel like he is simply being difficuilt,
because he can't be bothered to shoot. This is not encouraging scouts
to be productive, or to think independantly.
What if your staffing doesn't run to allowing that scout to stay on
camp? Should that scout be forced to come and watch a shoot?
Personally, I have watched shooting and hunting as part of my animal
rights campaigning (and I'm not talkign about sabotaging, just
watching). I find the site very distressing indeed. What should be
done in that situation?
Kevin L Wright
<dna...@cus.cam.ac.uk> allegedly wrote:
>In article <YxhOJLBF...@westwind.demon.co.uk>,
>Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>Many vegetarians won't, because animal genes are mixed in with plant
>>geners.
>
>it very surprising!)
>
last better through freezing conditions. This is the only one I know
of, actually. But it enough for some veggies and vegans, who tend to
oppose GM food on principle anyway (not an opnion I totally share).
Kevin L Wright
>>alternative. If someone does not eat meat, the same should be the case.
>
> someones beliefs or likes dislikes if told in advance, its difficult if they
>tell you as they get to camp!.
Oh, no question about it. However, a leaders idea of veggie catering is
often not very appetising. Not their fault, but there should be some
advice circulated.
>
>I would expect parents to discuss this if they or the scouts had
>objections..what we are not told about we cant avoid, good as Scout leaders
>are, one thing missing from leader training is how to be psychic.
>
Agreed, and parents should. However, they may not realise that a
potentially controversial activity is planned for the summer camp. Not
many troops circulate the entire programme around parents in advance.
>>people, especially young people, fishing is considered wrong.
>
>Some of ours enjoy fishing some dont, so when on camp those that want to fish
>have time , those that dont we dosomething else, its not something that
>interests me.
>
Fine, if there is an alternative, I have no problem with that.
>I note none of them object to backwoods cooking ie gutting fish and rabbits
>etc. Again if they did I hope we create an atmosphere where then can say no
>without being sidelined.
>
Spot on. With advice on what people may consider controversial, and
suggestions for alternatives, this would be a great idea.
>I would be very weary of any advisors being created at HQ.
>
I agree. Maybe a ACC or ADC, such as the one for the disabled, might be
an idea. Not to legislate, so much as to advise.
Kevin L Wright
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>They give us the info and we use the info to cater for them.
>
Sounds good. However, if you fill in the form and say: "Vegetarian"
you would expect that no battery eggs would be included, because the
recognised vegetarian defintion says no battery eggs. In order for
leaders to know that, a fact sheet at the very least would be useful.
Kevin L Wright
<adrian....@virgin.net> allegedly wrote:
>When ever we go on camp,as a VSL I have always paid attention to peoples
>special dietary needs, thats what health forms are issued out for. We ask
>about allergies, dietary needs,and medication etc.
>Even though I am not a vegitarian, I do enjoy some meat free food myself
>and do eat with veggie members of the unit myself. I did vegitarian
>casserole and nearly got lynched!!!!
>I also think that people with strong vegitarian or animal rights beliefs
>should be respected for their views.
>THAT DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THRUST THEM UPON OTHERS IN THE
>MOVEMENT!
I agree.
> YOU DESCIBE YOURSELF AS AN ACTIVIST THEN KEEP YOUR ACTIVITIES TO
>THE AREA THAT YOU HAVE SUCH VIEWS IN!
Indeed I try to do so.
Kevin L Wright
ur.autodesk.com> allegedly wrote:
>
>> One day I was at an animal rights demonstration at a circus, which had
>> been thrown out of Blakpool Pleasure beech amid allegations of severe
>> animal cruelty. I was horrified to note a group of cubs visiting the
>> circus.
>
>As I am sure the Cubs would have been horrified to see the way some
>animal activists act?.
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I don't have control over
everyone at demos. I don't recally what the situation was at the demo
the cubs went through, but the majority of demos are pretty peaceful
(they only get covered in the media if they are not, remember).
> Were the allegations proved? Or doesn't it matter
>to you?
>
I use the word allegations because much of it was based on statements by
ex workers. For the Pleasure Beach to revoke their licence, proof of
some kind must have come about.
>
>Ethics investigator - Sounds like they already have a candidate.
>
;-)
>So, its OK for young people to be exposed to alcohol and unhealthy
>atmospheres, but not to watch a circus act involving animals?
>
No, quite the opposite. If someone objects to alcohol provision should
be made the same as if they object to meat.
>
>Does anybody know leaders that meet in a pub? I've never come across any
>in 15 years.
Many of our meetings are in pubs, and always have been.
>Oh, BTW most pubs sell non-alcoholic drinks. I know that from
>experience.
>
Indeed. I was simply using it as an example. I have never met anyone
who objects to pub meetings on ethical grounds either.
>
>I'm glad he apologised. But he should have done so in front of the same
>cubs, and explained (or given you the opportunity to explain) why you
>are a vegetarian.
>
Indeed. It was simply humour taken too far, I'm aware of that, thus I
didn't take it further.
>
>I think most leaders would realise that some (a lot of) people don't go
>to McDonalds - the food is awful. The only thing I could eat in there
>(The beanburger thing) is disgusting.
>
Yup, and not Veg Soc approved for a number of reasons. Quite often a
scout day on camp ends at McDs in my experience.
>> I doubt it crosses their mind that millions of people boycott Nescafe,
>> or will have nothing to do with weapons.
>
>Now you've lost me - Nescafe coffee? Is this something to no with coffee
>growers in the Third world? Do you also boycott all Nestle products?
>
I don't personally follow the Nestle boycott. Nescafe was singled out
because it is the flagship product. It is a combination of
exploitatvive conditions i nthe third world, and also something to do
with baby milk.
>
>I don't agree with fishing either, but I don't get upset by other people
>exercising their legal rights.
No, neither do I. However, would it not be nice if you could get some
award for work in animal, human disabled rights/welfare etc?
>IMO Scouting is NOT a religious
>organisation, and I suppose being concerned for animal welfare
>could qualify under part of the Animal Lover badge.
>
I think there should be an badge for work toward a cause of any kind
(even if it is pro hunting).
>
>Shooting? Ethical? I don't think the rules on shooting are based on
>ethics, so much as the law and common sense.
>
PoR says leaders should "consider the local views on shooting".
>Tell me, what's a '2nd Year Combined Honours?' Is this something you
>have, or something you are doing? Should I be impressed?
>
It is the degree I'm studying. Journalism with German.
You can be impressed if you want! :-)
Kevin L Wright
7.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:48:08 +0100, Kevin L Wright
><ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Woa. Hold on a minute. What you are asking, or suggesting is that a
>code of ethics is drawn up, which is made available to Scouters, and
>to which they are, by implication, supposed to comply with.
>
they do and don't find acceptable, is drwan up.
>>I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
>>circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
>>leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it..
>
>But you are.
>
No, I'm suggesting that alternatives and comprimises be found, and
isolations kept to a minumim.
>Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to
>disagree with anyone elses's point of view and we have had some
>serious debates on this ng, but rarely have I seen such a poorly
>presented and ill-founded case for anything.
>
>Firstly, One of the prime requirements for all adults in Scouting is
>that they do not attempt to influence the youngsters under their care
>politically.
Right.
> There is a fine line between politics and pressure groups
Certainly.
>and I think you cross it several times in the ideas you try to
>present.
>
Not what I'm trying to do. I suggest that we encourage children to
follow their beliefs, whatever they may be. If their belief is pro
fieldsports then so be it. They should not be made to feel isolated if
the rest of the troop went hunt sabbing (OK, that won't happen, I just
take an example).
>Secondly, Scouting is NOT a religious organisation. It is NOT a
>religion itself. ONE of its aims is to promote spiritual awareness -
>which IMHO adequately covers all your ethical issues.
Yes.
> However I will
>concede that there is an element of Holy Willies in Scouting who think
>that Scouting belongs to Christianity. They can be as guilty as you of
>imposing their ideals on the kids.
>
I don't intend to impose my ideals on kids in Scouting in any form
whatsoever. I just don't feel that there is tolerence toward any kind
of vaguely unsual beliefs.
> On the other hand, perhaps you , in your approach,
>have so irritated people trying to help kids and offer them something
>aside from TV and football, that they have lost their resolve to work
>with you as a team member.
>
I have only ever objected on one occasion to an activity, and that was
fishing. I have on a number occasions been more than accomodating by
providing my own food to avopid eating the nightmare which is our
leaders idea of veggie cooking. I just feel some advice would not go
amiss.
>Fourthly, Angling, which is not particularly popular in my group, is
>not a political demonstration, it is a modern pastime which reflects
>on age old skills and traditions going back to the dawn of man. It is
>not political activism - there are no badges for attending any
>demonstrations and it would be wrong of Scouyts to be encouraged to
>attend demonstrations for or against anything, although they should
>never be stopped from being politically active - out of uniform and
>not as Scouts.
>
I think that work toward a cause of any kind should be encouraged, and a
badge awarded for it. I'm not suggesting that the angling badge has
anything to do with the anti-angling argument.
>I can assure you that many of us do have consciences about ethical
>matters and sometimes those consciences conflict with what we do. For
>instance I and my family eat meat, but boycott MacDonalds. However on
>a Group outing the Group wanted to go bowling (oh dear they use
>leather shoes), and then finish with a Coke and a Big Mac. Just
>because I disapprove of supporting macDonalds should the rest of the
>Group have to go without? Of course not. But did I sit outside in the
>rain whingeing? No, I joined in the fun as best I could.
>
Fine. However a cub would feel like he HAD to join in, or would sit
alone and miserable.
>IOt appears to me that you want every little thing we do in Scouting
>to be discussed and approved by an ethics committee, however somewhere
>there will be someone with an ethical reason for not doing anything.
I don't want everything approved by any means. I want advice and
guidance given to leaders about popular boycotts, and diets, how to
cater for them, and suggested alternatives and comprimises. That's all.
>What clothes do you wear as an environmental - vegetarian. No manmade
>fibres and no natural materials resulting in the death or cruelty to
>an animal.
I'm not a vegan. I'm simply veggie. I do own some leather, and I don't
object to making woggles out of it. Some people I know, on the other
hand, would.
>
>I'm not making fun of you, but you seem to have an extreme point of
>view and wish to impose it by ethical committee on the rest of us.
>
I wish their to be advice, so that leaders can cater for my view point.
>Take a good look at where Scouting comes from, understand what
>Scouting is about and then ask yourself if this is really where you
>can best put your energies to efficient use. If the answer is yes then
>great, but do so in the ethos of Scouting and in line with POR.
>
Scouting is about getting us to develop mentally and physically, amongst
much else. As part of this we must form opinions, and some opinions
will mean that we cannot take part in some activities which others find
acceptable. I think that Scouting as a whole does not accomodate such
opinions well, mainly due to ignorance of them, and I have seen myself
and other scouts made to feel isolated and like they are being
difficuilt simply because they refuse to do something. I have seen
scouts opinions challenged by leaders, and I have witnessed bullying of
scouts because of their opinions on certain matters. I feel that
guidance for leaders in how to deal with 'extreme' view points, boycotts
and ethical diets should be included. I'm not suggesting any kind of
rule. But guidance.
Kevin L Wright
allegedly wrote:
>In article <sapzDFAo...@westwind.demon.co.uk>,
>generally being noisy at all hours of the night. But to be honest we
>don't really give a fuck what they think, because we have worked our
>asses off to get to this place in the first place, and deserve some
>fun."
>
attitudes. That is not really my opinion.
>"It is morally wrong to kill an animal in an inhumane manor for the
>purposes of human enjoyment and it is your moral duty to protest
>against such an act, which hunting could be seen to be."
>
I would stand by this opinion. My web page is designed to show my
opinion, and does not pretend to be anything else. i don't expect
everyone to share this view. I think that we all have a duty to protest
at what we don't see as right.
>"Four good reasons why you really should care about hunting and the
>issues. If you still don't I feel that you really do have a problem. It
>will be when the hunt kills your cat, hurts your child, destroys your
>garden that you will realise that you really should have cared."
>
>(http://www.westwind.demon.co.uk/bsp/drc.htm)
>
I believe this is part of the page for people who believe hunting does
not effect them. Indeed many people believe it doesn't, until it does,
and then come and say: "Well, why hasn't this been banned."
I'm not suggesting this opinion be shoved on anyone. Indeed when
teaching scouts and beavers about countryside issues, I have always
avoided covering hunting. If I have to, I simply point out that hunts
exists, and that they chase and kill foxes with dogs. I never seek to
impose this opinion on children in scouting. Certainly, as part of my
work with LACS I have given school talks on hunting, which may be
closer, if not as extreme, as the bits you've chosen above.
No doubt you looked at the web page as a whole. There are well over
5,000 words on it alltogether, you have chosen a few. Because it covers
bothe sides of the argument, it received some compliments from the then
Chief Press officer of the pro hunting lobby. You have picked a few
rather extreme quotes, whic hI will happliy debate, but not in a
scouting newsgroup.
Kevin L Wright
allegedly wrote:
>
>I give a F**K you extremist. It's lazy people like you who give student
>(engineers scientists etc.) a bad name. If you were trained properly as a
>scout I'm sure you would be able to get up early, plan your time
>effectively and be able to squat for ages.
That is pretty much what I do. That page is a satire and was quoted out
of context. Most people have contemplimented me on its humour. If you
don't sahre that sense of humour, that is fine.
Kevin L Wright
<ia...@teleord.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>There is a rec.scouting.issues newsgroup. I *think* it's aim is to
>discuss more "controversial" things. Perhaps this discussion might be
>better off there.
>
>Ian.
I wasn't aware of this group, but i think you may be right, thank you!
Kevin L Wright
<Ly...@catt17.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>Kevin do you honestly feel that fishing for food purposes is so bad when
>essential fish oils are so good for the masses and our bodies are in true
>fact designed for the consumption of a varied diet including meat and fish.
>
email if you wish, or on an appropriate newsgroup.
>The reality of Kevin contacting this news group is that the majority of
>respondants do seem feel he is foisting his views on other users and quite
>probably his group members as well.
I certainly avoid doing so as best I can. The web page quotes are out
of context, it is generally a balanced and moderate page. The extreme
one on studnet life is a satire. I have never caused problems within my
group, and most of the veggie catering problems came from a friend who
was veggie whilst I still ate meat.
I will state again: There should be guidance for leaders, so that
isolation of children with strict opinions is kept to a minimum
> I do feel that everyone should have
>their "cause" but share your cause with your peers, offer publicity, recruit
>but you should never leave people feeling as if you have imposed or intruded
>upon.
>
I agree entirely.
Kevin L Wright
trying to make everyone veggie, and causing cofrontations. Please let
me try and make some good the sour relations I appear to now have with
some people:
1 - I am not suggsesting that any ethical rules are introduced
2 - I am not suggesting people should not take part in controversial
activities (perhaps with the exception of circuses, which I did
suggest scouts should not take part in. I accept this is me
attempting to impose my belief, but I think that this is a belief
which is pretty generally accepted)
3 - The web page quotes were out of context. One was a satire, the
other two were selective. I stand by those opinions, but they do
not reflect the nature of the page, which seeks to provide fact
based information, in a non confrontational way
I AM suggesting a factsheet on how to handle people with 'extreme'
belifs be produced by headquaters. Does anyone think this is a bad
idea?
My ethical advisor idea was simply that I don't believe there is anyone
at HQ clued up enough about different ethical beliefs to be able to
produce such a sheet, and that someone could be appointed with that
role.
I am not in any way trying to prevent scouts from fishing, shooting or
eating meat. My idea is simply to minimise the isolation that can be
imposed on scouts with opinions differing from the majority. I think
such scouts should be encouraged, whereas at the moment, in my
experience, they are made to feel bad for it.
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <376a872e...@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
><david....@ukonline.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>>They give us the info and we use the info to cater for them.
>>
>Sounds good. However, if you fill in the form and say: "Vegetarian"
>you would expect that no battery eggs would be included, because the
>recognised vegetarian defintion says no battery eggs. In order for
>leaders to know that, a fact sheet at the very least would be useful.
>
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. We simply cannot cater for absolutely
everyone's miniscule needs, we all have to compromise somewhere along
the line and it looks to me like you want the compromise to be by
everyone except yourself. Well it's not on. You make sweeping
statements about how people react and then insist that we all use non
battary eggs. What next? Organic produce only?
Get real.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3768ba17...@news.mcmail.com>, Ewan Scott <ewan@scotia5
>7.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 11:48:08 +0100, Kevin L Wright
>><ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Woa. Hold on a minute. What you are asking, or suggesting is that a
>>code of ethics is drawn up, which is made available to Scouters, and
>>to which they are, by implication, supposed to comply with.
>>
>No, I'm usggesting that an explination of some philosophies, and what
>they do and don't find acceptable, is drwan up.
Just exactly who finds what acceptable. You are suggesting that
someone or some group draws up a series of ethical guyidelines which
suit you. If guidelines are drawn up the implication is that you
follow them, or else they are pointless.
If you took your leader training courses you should find that each and
every one of these considerations comes up. On one course we were
discussing the building of a new Scout/community facility and one of
the leaders pointed out that the toilets were orientated in the wrong
direction for use by Moslems. She explained that they found it
offensive to urinate facing Mecca. The CC pointed out that he had been
to Pakistan and noted whilst there that the strictly moslem population
did their business whichever way was convenient. So the ethical point
aboit the orientation of toilets was spurious and one created by self
seeking personalities in the local community.
>>>I'm not suggesting that Scouts should not be allowed to go to the
>>>circus, or the zoo, or to fish, simply because I don't like it, or that
>>>leaders should not drink because one doesn't like it..
>>
>>But you are.
>>
>No, I'm suggesting that alternatives and comprimises be found, and
>isolations kept to a minumim.
No, you are saying, I don't like it, so I won't go. Which is fine, but
then you whinge about being left behind. the implication being that if
no-one does it your way you they are isolating you, so they shouldn't
do it.
>
>>Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to
>>disagree with anyone elses's point of view and we have had some
>>serious debates on this ng, but rarely have I seen such a poorly
>>presented and ill-founded case for anything.
>>
>>Firstly, One of the prime requirements for all adults in Scouting is
>>that they do not attempt to influence the youngsters under their care
>>politically.
>
>Right.
>
>> There is a fine line between politics and pressure groups
>
>Certainly.
>
>>and I think you cross it several times in the ideas you try to
>>present.
>>
>Not what I'm trying to do. I suggest that we encourage children to
>follow their beliefs, whatever they may be. If their belief is pro
>fieldsports then so be it. They should not be made to feel isolated if
>the rest of the troop went hunt sabbing (OK, that won't happen, I just
>take an example).
I know of no group where anyone is made to do anything they don't want
to do, and if I ever came across a leader who forced kids to do things
against their will I would report them to the appropriate authorities.
>
>>Secondly, Scouting is NOT a religious organisation. It is NOT a
>>religion itself. ONE of its aims is to promote spiritual awareness -
>>which IMHO adequately covers all your ethical issues.
>
>Yes.
>
>> However I will
>>concede that there is an element of Holy Willies in Scouting who think
>>that Scouting belongs to Christianity. They can be as guilty as you of
>>imposing their ideals on the kids.
>>
>I don't intend to impose my ideals on kids in Scouting in any form
>whatsoever. I just don't feel that there is tolerence toward any kind
>of vaguely unsual beliefs.
In your experience. I think you will find a wide tolerance of
different beliefs. Some people's religions exclude them from
accepting other beliefs which they find conflict with their own. There
is a difference between not accepting and not tolerating. I don't
accept your argument, but I tolerate it.
>
>> On the other hand, perhaps you , in your approach,
>>have so irritated people trying to help kids and offer them something
>>aside from TV and football, that they have lost their resolve to work
>>with you as a team member.
>>
>I have only ever objected on one occasion to an activity, and that was
>fishing. I have on a number occasions been more than accomodating by
>providing my own food to avopid eating the nightmare which is our
>leaders idea of veggie cooking. I just feel some advice would not go
>amiss.
The advice is there in the factsheets, in the training courses and its
simple , plain everydau common sense for the most part. As I say, I
don't think what you have experienced is anything to do with the ethos
of Scouting, but rather a case of plain bad manners, perhaps on both
sides.
>
>>Fourthly, Angling, which is not particularly popular in my group, is
>>not a political demonstration, it is a modern pastime which reflects
>>on age old skills and traditions going back to the dawn of man. It is
>>not political activism - there are no badges for attending any
>>demonstrations and it would be wrong of Scouyts to be encouraged to
>>attend demonstrations for or against anything, although they should
>>never be stopped from being politically active - out of uniform and
>>not as Scouts.
>>
>I think that work toward a cause of any kind should be encouraged, and a
>badge awarded for it. I'm not suggesting that the angling badge has
>anything to do with the anti-angling argument.
Okay, where do you draw the line? you may wish to see the work being
contributed towards yopur own political ends. perhaps towards
improving the social conditions of the disadvantaged. Great. Except in
another area we may have a leader who is a member of the BNP and
encourages younger members quietly to chase his political ends and we
have scouts being awrded badges for campaigning to send blacks back to
Africa.
The only answer to that is to ban the BNP, but then you are infringing
on free speech and opening the movement up to true political bias and
control.
Anbsolutely no way should kids be rewarded within scouting for
political activism of any shape size or form. We must be in many ways
like the Red Cross, open minded and willing to talk to and work with
all sides at all times - as soon as we show political bias we are
finished as a movement.
>
>>I can assure you that many of us do have consciences about ethical
>>matters and sometimes those consciences conflict with what we do. For
>>instance I and my family eat meat, but boycott MacDonalds. However on
>>a Group outing the Group wanted to go bowling (oh dear they use
>>leather shoes), and then finish with a Coke and a Big Mac. Just
>>because I disapprove of supporting macDonalds should the rest of the
>>Group have to go without? Of course not. But did I sit outside in the
>>rain whingeing? No, I joined in the fun as best I could.
>>
>Fine. However a cub would feel like he HAD to join in, or would sit
>alone and miserable.
No he wouldn't. Not in a group where there was any decent form of
leadership. The leaders would be aware of the siruation and cope with
it, at least they do in our group.
>
>
>>IOt appears to me that you want every little thing we do in Scouting
>>to be discussed and approved by an ethics committee, however somewhere
>>there will be someone with an ethical reason for not doing anything.
>
>I don't want everything approved by any means. I want advice and
>guidance given to leaders about popular boycotts, and diets, how to
>cater for them, and suggested alternatives and comprimises. That's all.
Who decides they are popular boycotts? Who defines the criteria? How
far do we go? You just shot your ethics to hell. We are now only
talking about popular boycotts. So it might be popular to boycott
McDonalds, not that you's notice it any Saturday afternoon in
Huddersfield - but the boycott on Australian produce is less popular
so we'll ignore that one.
If we were to follow ethical guidelines to an extreme we would sit in
mud houses chewing grass. If you exclude produce from countries with
poor civil rights records alone, you would refuse to eat produce
from:- er, actually you'd starve within a fortnight.
You see, if you are going to wave an ethical flag, then you have to be
ethical. a bit like religion, it's not pick and mix in most cases, you
either take it or leave it.
>>What clothes do you wear as an environmental - vegetarian. No manmade
>>fibres and no natural materials resulting in the death or cruelty to
>>an animal.
>
>I'm not a vegan. I'm simply veggie. I do own some leather, and I don't
>object to making woggles out of it. Some people I know, on the other
>hand, would.
>>
>>I'm not making fun of you, but you seem to have an extreme point of
>>view and wish to impose it by ethical committee on the rest of us.
>>
>I wish their to be advice, so that leaders can cater for my view point.
The advice is available, you have a tingue in your head, use it. But
if you come on a camp with me I will ensure that you have a reasonable
selection of foodstuffs, but I may already have to cater for four or
five different faddy kids, don't expect me to do you a nut roast in
vegetarian sauce. If the rest are having Spag Bol, you'll get spag
Napolitan ( Meat free).
>>Take a good look at where Scouting comes from, understand what
>>Scouting is about and then ask yourself if this is really where you
>>can best put your energies to efficient use. If the answer is yes then
>>great, but do so in the ethos of Scouting and in line with POR.
>>
>Scouting is about getting us to develop mentally and physically, amongst
>much else. As part of this we must form opinions, and some opinions
>will mean that we cannot take part in some activities which others find
>acceptable. I think that Scouting as a whole does not accomodate such
>opinions well, mainly due to ignorance of them, and I have seen myself
>and other scouts made to feel isolated and like they are being
>difficuilt simply because they refuse to do something. I have seen
>scouts opinions challenged by leaders, and I have witnessed bullying of
>scouts because of their opinions on certain matters. I feel that
>guidance for leaders in how to deal with 'extreme' view points, boycotts
>and ethical diets should be included. I'm not suggesting any kind of
>rule. But guidance.
And if we follow the ethos of Scouting as best we can then we already
do that. Again you make sweeping statements. I think you find that as
a whole Scouting is very accommodating and that the people you are
having these experiences with are not representative of Scouts as a
whole.
If you have been made to feel isolated, then you must tell those who
isolate you. If not directly, through your DC, or your ACC
relationships if you have one. if you have seen kids bullied by
another leader, or a leader allowing bullying to go ahead, then you
must report that leader to the County Commissioner, or the DC if he is
in your own district.
Do not tar all Scouts by your own bad experiences. by doing so you
show your own ignorance of Scouting and of POR, and of Scouting for
Boys. ( Boys meaning Scouts in the widest terms).
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <376A1E82...@teleord.co.uk>, Ian Wilkins
><ia...@teleord.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>There is a rec.scouting.issues newsgroup. I *think* it's aim is to
>>discuss more "controversial" things. Perhaps this discussion might be
>>better off there.
>>
>>Ian.
>
>I wasn't aware of this group, but i think you may be right, thank you!
>
I think this discussion has every right to be here since it opens up
questions about leadership styles and ethics. The responses to which
may well be helpful to other leaders.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I appear to have come across as a rather extreme nutter, who goes around
>trying to make everyone veggie, and causing cofrontations. Please let
>me try and make some good the sour relations I appear to now have with
>some people:
>
>1 - I am not suggsesting that any ethical rules are introduced
By implication, you are.
>
>2 - I am not suggesting people should not take part in controversial
> activities (perhaps with the exception of circuses, which I did
> suggest scouts should not take part in. I accept this is me
> attempting to impose my belief, but I think that this is a belief
> which is pretty generally accepted)
>
By implication, you are
>3 - The web page quotes were out of context. One was a satire, the
> other two were selective. I stand by those opinions, but they do
> not reflect the nature of the page, which seeks to provide fact
> based information, in a non confrontational way
That's politics, my friend.
>
>I AM suggesting a factsheet on how to handle people with 'extreme'
>belifs be produced by headquaters. Does anyone think this is a bad
>idea?
No, but I don't think its a good one either. Since extreme views have
little place in Scouting :-)
snip
>
>I am not in any way trying to prevent scouts from fishing, shooting or
>eating meat. My idea is simply to minimise the isolation that can be
>imposed on scouts with opinions differing from the majority. I think
>such scouts should be encouraged, whereas at the moment, in my
>experience, they are made to feel bad for it.
>
You experience is very different from mine and hopefully of my Scouts
where they all know that they will be supported in whatever choice
they take, even the one to leave. My leaders have even been known to
go out of theor way to support kids who hold beliefs, ideals in
conflict with their own. But don't expect them to do the same for an
adult. Support there is limited to tolerance.
Ewan Scott
Adrian Randall
Dealing with dietary needs is covered by leader training, and camp menus
tend to be developed over many camps to be suitable for all. I have seen
scouts and guides declare that they only eat crisps, chips and pizza - by
the end of the week they are tucking in to anything and everything and
loving it.
There are far too many "guidlines" around as it is, they are throttling
scouting all the time.
Kevin take your pompus ideas and "recycle " them.
The Scout movement doesnt need any more of this crap. There are too many
do-gooders around already, talking rubbish and getting their ideas in by
talking loudly and attending more meetings than actually doing scouting!
Concentrate on giving the kids what it is all about, fun and training for
life in general.
Ewan Scott wrote in message <376b623...@news.mcmail.com>...
Bill Neobard
<adrian....@virgin.net> writes
>I agree with everything Ewan says,
>Dealing with dietary needs is covered by leader training, and camp menus
>tend to be developed over many camps to be suitable for all.
I am totally mystified.
Why on earth are scouters developing menus at all?
It's none of their business -apart from an overall interest to make sure
diet is balanced.
--
Bill Neobard
Ian N. Ford FRSH
the Cubs / Scouts get to know what the menu is prior to the activity in most
cases ... because the Sixers' Council or Patrol Leaders' Council is party to
the decision. Likewise if a member indicates a dietary need / preference I
would discuss it with him/her ( and with parents as appropriate.) Sure, you
can get unstuck ... I was working on a local authority children's camp and
had a kid who was allergic to albumin ... we took every precaution. I asked
him if he ate beefburgers, and he said he did. The trouble is, the burgers
we bought had albumin as a binder, and the ones he had at home didn't!
Fortunately the reaction was nothing more drastic than the regurgitation of
his breakfast, but I did learn to double check the contents on <everything>.
As for the ethics of food production, this may be something to discuss with
the Patrol Leaders' Council ...
Ian Ford
Special Needs Adviser, Greenwich District
Falco
Kevin L Wright <ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n7bhrJAv...@westwind.demon.co.uk...
> In article <37697F67...@dial.pipex.com>, Ian Philip Douthwaite
> <ian.dou...@dial.pipex.com> allegedly wrote:
> >
> >
> >Mental discipline works both ways - not just in the direction of those
rebelling
> >against what they see. Don't isolate those who choose to agree with
McDonald's,
> >circuses, smoking, bacon etc, just because they don't fit in with yours.
> >
> I agree entirely. If you have someone in your troop who objects to fast
> food outlets, and another that objects to small local chippys, then you
> will have a major dilemma on your hands. However, the latter is far
> less likely than the former, which is, to be honest, more likely in
> older scouts and ventures than in any other age group.
The problem is that it is dead easy to give a carnivore a veggie-burger and
he/she will eat it without problem apart from a whinge or two but the
reverse doesn't apply.
We have the unfortunate "problem" that our new VSU QM is a Vegetarian and
also a bit "dippy" to say the least.
She finds it very difficult to cater for meat eaters but also has extremely
odd ideas about food - e.g. First day Breakfast on site was "Bread 'n
Spread" - the spread being a plastic margarine substitute !!!! Lunch that
day was Cheese Sandwiches.
At least, that was the plan, until someone asked to see the rest of the menu
during the riot after breakfast................
The strange thing was that she had been assistant QM for 9 months alongside
her predecessor who had more usual eating habits.
Falco - AVSL Foxley VSU
Dr John Stockton
1999 20:53:10 in news:uk.rec.scouting, Kevin L Wright
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <376A1E82...@teleord.co.uk>, Ian Wilkins
><ia...@teleord.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>There is a rec.scouting.issues newsgroup. I *think* it's aim is to
>>discuss more "controversial" things. Perhaps this discussion might be
>>better off there.
>
The following copy, starting after "FYI:" below, is snipped; you should
read the whole original before posting to r.s.i or indeed r.s.*.
Remember that r.s.* is an international hierarchy; so, out of courtesy,
explain any purely British aspects of your topic or terminology.
I don't think that it would be wise to cross-post between u.r.s & r.s.*,
to judge by the subject lines I see there (I only get headers). Post a
"Let's move this one" here with follow-ups to there; or start a wholly
new thread there, and tell us here.
FYI: In article <scouting/welcome_...@rtfm.mit.edu> of Wed, 16
Jun 1999 13:12:43 in news:rec.scouting.misc, Bill Nelson
<nel...@aztec.asu.edu> wrote:
>PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE DOCUMENT BEFORE POSTING TO ANY
>REC.SCOUTING GROUPS!!!
>Subject: General Introduction
>
>Welcome to the rec.scouting hierarchy. This is an unmoderated
>Usenet news grouping aimed at Boy and Girl Scouts, Girl Guides,
>Cub Scouts, Venturers, Rovers, other scout-like organizations, their leaders,
>and all people interested in Scouting and Guiding around the world.
>
>IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU DO NOT POST ARTICLES IN
>THE WRONG GROUP. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS VERY CAREFULLY.
>
>No binary files are allowed in any rec.* groups. If posted they
>will be deleted.
>
>There are now four groups in the rec.scouting listing.
>
>Usually, an article should be posted to only one of the rec.scouting
>newsgroups.
>
>Rec.scouting.usa, is directed to the large number
>of participants that are directly or indirectly involved in
>Scouting (and Scout-like organizations) within the United
>States of America. This group is intended to be the primary
>place for BSA and GSUSA specific posts. If you don't know
>if your post is BSA specific, please post it on rec.scouting.usa
>However, if your post is at all controversial, please post it
>on rec.scouting.issues.
>
>Rec.scouting.issues exists as a forum for discussion of
>sensitive, religious and political issues relative to the
>various aspects of Scouting and Guiding.
>
>Rec.scouting.guide+girl is a group for members of organizations
>associated with the World Association of Girl Guides and
>Girl Scouts (WAGGGS). All parties with an interest in this
>aspect of Scouting and Guiding are encouraged to participate
>in this group. This is the international forum for Girl Scouting.
>
>Rec.scouting.misc is an *international* scouting and guiding forum
>intended for discussions of all aspects of guiding and scouting. It is
>not the place for posts specific to BSA or GSUSA, or where other
>relevant national newsgroups exist; but those without national
>newsgroups should use this one. Questions about and ideas for
>activities are most welcome. Be careful to explain local terms for
>international understanding. Use whatever language you think will be
>best understood.
--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME
Helper, 15th Wimbledon Scout Troop. Don't Mail News to me.
http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ scouting.htm - with links to elsewhere.
Standard signature separator is as above, a line comprising "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Andrew Ross
<i...@ford.dircon.co.uk> writes
>Sure, you
>can get unstuck ... I was working on a local authority children's camp and
>had a kid who was allergic to albumin ... we took every precaution. I asked
>him if he ate beefburgers, and he said he did. The trouble is, the burgers
>we bought had albumin as a binder, and the ones he had at home didn't!
>Fortunately the reaction was nothing more drastic than the regurgitation of
>his breakfast, but I did learn to double check the contents on <everything>.
I was just helping on a cub camp that had a cub who was allergic to all
dairy products and a lot else. Because of other medical conditions
(exmer etc.) and that he has bad reactions if he does eat dairy
products, his dad camped with us and cooked for him most of the time in
a separate tent and we had to be very careful about washing knives,
chopping boards etc. whilst preparing meals he would eat parts of.
--
Andrew Ross
Roger Thorne
issues these days - and seemingly more variants each week (are vegetarians
being genetically modified?). I don't believe I have any chance at all of
satisfying everyones ethical beliefs unless they are reasonably mainstream -
and I am certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. I 'do my best' to
provide valuable scouting opportunities to all the lads in my care, and also
'do my best' to make sure I don't offend anyone in the process. Sometimes my
best isn't good enough - so tough, go get someone more perfect than me to do
the job - perhaps you could take over my troop Kevin?
Dave Mayall
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <376a872e...@news.ukonline.co.uk>, Dave Mayall
><david....@ukonline.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>>They give us the info and we use the info to cater for them.
>>
>Sounds good. However, if you fill in the form and say: "Vegetarian"
>you would expect that no battery eggs would be included, because the
>recognised vegetarian defintion says no battery eggs. In order for
>leaders to know that, a fact sheet at the very least would be useful.
Except that a form which says vegetarian won't do for me. Some
vegetarians don't eat eggs at all, whilst some (e.g. my sister) will
eat battery eggs. It is about each person's personal ethics, not some
"official" definition of vegetarianism. I require a detailed
description of what cannot be eaten from the parents, as well as
suggestions of what could be eaten in place of our carnivorous meals.
--
Dave Mayall
SL 7th Stalybridge
Dave Mayall
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7kaq5n$bdc$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>, david.mayallAIMHYX@uko
>nline.co.uk allegedly wrote:
>>Godwins law states
>>that in any argument, of which the original subject was not Hitler or
>>the Nazis, the first person to bring up Hitler or the Nazis has
>>demonstrated that they have no further sensible points to make, and
>>has lost the argument]
>
>OK, I'll use a different example. My personal vote will not influence,
>directly, the outcome of an election. That does not mean, however, that
>I shouldn't vote. Th
I'm not sure that someone who has had godwin pulled on them is allowed
to try to get out of it like this, but I'll allow that you seem to be
capable of conducting a debate without using hitler as the example,
and let you off just this once.
Your new example is fine, and one I'd agree with. AFAIR, I have never
voted for the winning candidate in any election. I still think that I
should vote, indeed I think I have a duty to do so.
>>So, let's say 1 out of 12 opposes shooting. Your staffing will not
>>run to providing an alternative activity at the same time. Do you
>>suggest that the other 11 should miss out on an activity they want
>>to do because one opposes it. Do you not regard the restriction
>>placed upon the 11 to accomodate the one as slightly oppressive. Do
>>you not think that at least some of the 11 will be a tiny bit cross
>>with the one for preventing them from doing an activity they want to
>>do?
>>
>Yes, I do. However there simply MUST be an alternative to saying: "Sit
>here and rot" or making him feel like he is simply being difficuilt,
>because he can't be bothered to shoot. This is not encouraging scouts
>to be productive, or to think independantly.
I don't think that any Scout should be made to feel that they are
being difficult because they disapprove of an activity, and decline to
take part. OTOH, "A Scout is friendly and considerate", and that has
to work both ways. I would expect that Scout to understand and accept
that his peers wished to take part in an activity, and that it was not
practical to provide an alternate activity just for him at that time.
It is however swings and roundabouts. I always try to ensure that all
of them are catered for, and will try to include other activities
which that Scout enjoys elsewhere in the programme. You can't please
all of the people all of the time, but if I can achieve 90% activity
participation across the board, then I think I'm being fair.
>What if your staffing doesn't run to allowing that scout to stay on
>camp? Should that scout be forced to come and watch a shoot?
>Personally, I have watched shooting and hunting as part of my animal
>rights campaigning (and I'm not talkign about sabotaging, just
>watching). I find the site very distressing indeed. What should be
>done in that situation?
We are talking about air rifle target shooting. Even those who choose
not to participate rarely find others doing so distressing. In any
case, not having the staff to run an alternate activity need not
equate to a Scout sitting and watching. There are many things he could
be doing without direct supervision.
Dave Mayall
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed. I was simply using it as an example. I have never met anyone
>who objects to pub meetings on ethical grounds either.
I do.
We wanted to move our District Scouters Meeting to the pub where we
have the exec. One leader objected, and threatened to boycott the
meetings, so we are still in a draughty back room at a group HQ.
Dave Mayall
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I appear to have come across as a rather extreme nutter, who goes around
>trying to make everyone veggie, and causing cofrontations. Please let
>me try and make some good the sour relations I appear to now have with
>some people:
At first you gave that impression. However having stuck with the
debate through the early verbal punches, you have shown otherwise.
I don't share your views, I do respect them. I now believe that you
hold much the same position on this point.
Dave Mayall
<junk.fr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The problem is that it is dead easy to give a carnivore a veggie-burger and
>he/she will eat it without problem apart from a whinge or two but the
>reverse doesn't apply.
Try feeding me a veggie-burger and see if you still say the same.
I don't just eat to stay alive, I enjoy my food (those who have met me
can just keep their unkind remarks about my waist to themselves thank
you very much) I want to eat food that is both nourishing and
enjoyable.
Why should I be expected to eat food which I dislike/which makes me
want to heave, simply to avoid being seen as difficult.
Falco
news:37731b61....@news.ukonline.co.uk...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 19:32:22 +0100, "Falco"
> <junk.fr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that it is dead easy to give a carnivore a veggie-burger
and
> >he/she will eat it without problem apart from a whinge or two but the
> >reverse doesn't apply.
>
> Try feeding me a veggie-burger and see if you still say the same.
>
From what I have heard one needs to do this with a very long pole and
between steel bars :o)
Please Note that Minors should never try this at home or if unsupervised by
an adult "Form Z" holder.
:o)
John Trott
john.
Dave Mayall wrote in message <3770e69f...@news.ukonline.co.uk>...
Kevin L Wright
c...@btinternet.com> allegedly wrote:
>The problem is that it is dead easy to give a carnivore a veggie-burger and
>he/she will eat it without problem apart from a whinge or two but the
>reverse doesn't apply.
>
>also a bit "dippy" to say the least.
>
>She finds it very difficult to cater for meat eaters but also has extremely
>odd ideas about food - e.g. First day Breakfast on site was "Bread 'n
>Spread" - the spread being a plastic margarine substitute !!!! Lunch that
>day was Cheese Sandwiches.
>
that others don't, and have the right to eat that. If she doesn't want
to handle meat, she should take on a different executive role other than
QM, or arrange for someone else to handle meat meals.
Kevin L Wright
welcome a fact sheet on at least the mainstream, or should I say MORE
mainstream ethical diets, boycotts etc?
Kevin L Wright
freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>
>Sorry, but this is ridiculous. We simply cannot cater for absolutely
>everyone's miniscule needs, we all have to compromise somewhere along
>the line and it looks to me like you want the compromise to be by
>everyone except yourself.
I'm perfectly willing to compromise as well, to a point. For instance,
I am perfectly happy to advise on what I eat (as I do leaders, if I
don't bring my own food), and I am equally happy to pay slightly more if
I'm asking for more expensive foods. I personally make no fuss over
eggs. If I am buying them for me, or I am asking somone to supply them
for me, I will insist on free range. On scout events, I will eat
battery eggs without question. I will also eat things with geletine of
if I must. Contrary to the image I may have created, I am not an
extreme vegetarian. However, some people are, and have been discouraged
from scouting because people refuse to cater for them. I think people
must accept that they are being different, however they should not have
to compromise their moral beliefs. The more people know and understand
about differing beliefs, the less the isolation for people with them
will be.
> Well it's not on. You make sweeping
>statements about how people react and then insist that we all use non
>battary eggs. What next? Organic produce only?
>
>Get real.
>
I do know people who NEARLY insist on this. If they want this, they
must compromise by paying the difference, assmuing that the rest of the
troop can't pay more (which just isn't acceptable in most cases).
However, this kind of diet could be dealt with with the minimum of fuss.
Simply explain that this diet costs more, and because the child is the
only one eating it, they must pay more. That is compromise. The
leaders compromise should be that they spend a very small amount of time
buying organic produce (which is available in almost every supermarket).
That way, a little isolation occurs because he has to pay more, however
it is minimised by the fact that the leader understands what organic
produce is, and will get it. That's acceptable. I do know leaders who
would react with: "Organic produce? What's that then? Well, that's
weird, just eating that! You'll have to bring it yourself, and,
frankly, I have no time to cook separate things, so I'm not even going
to wait for you to offer, you must cook it all yourself!"
Certainly with the veggie diet, which is far more mainstream, I have
known people being basically told: "You will stick with what I cook for
you, or you can bring your own cooking equipment, including stoves, and
cook it yourself". That, I believe, is unnaceptable, as it maximises
the isolation, encouraging the child to conform against his wishes, and
develop little mental discipline.
Kevin L Wright
>Fortunately the reaction was nothing more drastic than the regurgitation of
>his breakfast, but I did learn to double check the contents on <everything>.
>
Right. Because of cases like this, leaders HAVE to find the time to
check ingredients. Some leaders refuse to find the time to do this for
ethical diets. I'm sure plenty of leaders DO do this for veggies - but
some don't, which is why I want a fact sheet to help them understand the
differing diets and requirements.
>As for the ethics of food production, this may be something to discuss with
>the Patrol Leaders' Council ...
>
Not a bad idea.
Kevin L Wright
<and...@ross-family.demon.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>I was just helping on a cub camp that had a cub who was allergic to all
>dairy products and a lot else. Because of other medical conditions
>(exmer etc.) and that he has bad reactions if he does eat dairy
>products, his dad camped with us and cooked for him most of the time in
>a separate tent and we had to be very careful about washing knives,
>chopping boards etc. whilst preparing meals he would eat parts of.
>
association with animals, including milk, eggs and honey), could the
same efforts not be met?
Kevin L Wright
>I agree with everything Ewan says,
>Dealing with dietary needs is covered by leader training,
Please tell your local leader trainer to spread the word then. If it
covered, then great, there is no need for factsheets etc. However, I
would say that none of the leaders in my district understand
vegetarianism in the least as a result of leader training. All whom I
have talked to this about feel that extra advice would be handy. Maybe
our district differs in this?
> and camp menus
>tend to be developed over many camps to be suitable for all. I have seen
>scouts and guides declare that they only eat crisps, chips and pizza - by
>the end of the week they are tucking in to anything and everything and
>loving it.
That is very different from an ethical ideal.
>There are far too many "guidlines" around as it is, they are throttling
>scouting all the time.
Agreed. However simple advice for people would make it easier. If that
is included in leader training to an adequate level, great. In my
experience, most leaders are un aware of what a vegetarian eats, and
vegetarianism is the most mainstream ethical diet.
> There are too many
>do-gooders around already, talking rubbish and getting their ideas in by
>talking loudly and attending more meetings than actually doing scouting!
I have spent many, many hours "doing" scouting. I have been a Beaver, a
cub, a scout and a venture scout, I have taken part in everything with
the exception of angling, and because I'm a poor swimmer, some
watersports. I have also had experience of the paperwork of scouting,
when I sat as the VS rep to the county scout council. As a venture
vice-chairperson (doing the job of the always absent chair) I quite
often tried to organise events for cubs and scouts and I know exactly
what you mean when you say that rules "get in the way".
>Concentrate on giving the kids what it is all about, fun and training for
>life in general.
Right. Surely training for life would include sticking by your
principles? How can you teach kids to ignore peer preassure and "Say no
to drugs" if you know they are wrong, but have to bow to peer preassure,
and say "yes" to mean, even though you believe it to be wrong? That
makes no sense. We are surpost to be encouraging kids to think
indepently, for themselves. If their principles involve killing animals
for a reason, or if they involve not killing them for a reason, they
should be encouraged to stick by their principles, and any isolation
they might feel for having that opinion should be minimised.
Understanding of their beliefs, even if you do not share them, aids the
minimisation of this isolation. If the issues are fully covered in
leader training (which in my area at least they are not), or if a fact
sheet is available and/or circulated, this will be the case.
I do not want a rule in PoR about veggies. All I want is some guidance,
so that leaders understand the situation that many young people have
placed themselves in.
Kevin L Wright
<bi...@neobard.demon.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>In article <7kgaqf$1a$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>, Adrian Randall
>>I agree with everything Ewan says,
>>tend to be developed over many camps to be suitable for all.
>
>
>Why on earth are scouters developing menus at all?
>
>It's none of their business -apart from an overall interest to make sure
>diet is balanced.
A good point. Remember that on cub camps at least, the menu is often
decided by leaders. As for scouting, the PLC should be made aware as
much as leaders. I did a training course as a PL. Diet, be it ethical
or medical, wasn't covered at all. It never crossed my mind. At the
time I ate meat, and someone in my patrol was veggie. I spent a few
minutes longer in the supermarket getting a veggie substitute for him.
However, I was mystified by the whole case at first. A little training,
or a fact sheet to look at, would have been very useful!
Kevin L Wright
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
Thanks for that! I think we're actually getting somewhere in this
thread now (such as the fact that some districts evidently cover this in
leader training, and maybe that should be actively encouraged), and so
I'll keep talking here. But I'll remember that, thanks!
Kevin L Wright
.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>3 - The web page quotes were out of context. One was a satire, the
>> other two were selective. I stand by those opinions, but they do
>> not reflect the nature of the page, which seeks to provide fact
>> based information, in a non confrontational way
>
>That's politics, my friend.
My web page is political, yes. It has nothign whatsoever to do with
scouting, either.
>>
>>I AM suggesting a factsheet on how to handle people with 'extreme'
>>belifs be produced by headquaters. Does anyone think this is a bad
>>idea?
>No, but I don't think its a good one either. Since extreme views have
>little place in Scouting :-)
Hmmmm. Do I rise to the bite or not?
>You experience is very different from mine and hopefully of my Scouts
>where they all know that they will be supported in whatever choice
>they take, even the one to leave. My leaders have even been known to
>go out of theor way to support kids who hold beliefs, ideals in
>conflict with their own. But don't expect them to do the same for an
>adult. Support there is limited to tolerance.
>
Agreed. From what you have said it appears your troop is tollerant, and
copes with the problems. However, from the differences I have seen,
there are widespread problems. If factsheets should not be intorduced,
and legislation binds hands (I agree on no legislation), then what can
be done?
Kevin L Wright
freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>Just exactly who finds what acceptable. You are suggesting that
>someone or some group draws up a series of ethical guyidelines which
>suit you. If guidelines are drawn up the implication is that you
>follow them, or else they are pointless.
>
OK, point taken. Maybe something simply expaining the "accepted"
definitions of various diets be included. For example, legally, the
vegetarian society defintion of vegetarians is accepted as the "legal"
definition. OK, it is slightly more extreme than some veggies are. But
it means that anyone faced with VEGETARIAN, knows what it means. It
could also explain, if it was appropropriate (I don't know if it is) the
basic thinking behind these diets, boycotts etc.
>If you took your leader training courses you should find that each and
>every one of these considerations comes up.
I know our ADC leader training pretty well, so when I see her next I'll
enquire as to what aspects of this are covered. Certainly, several of
the leaders in our district have shown suprise that veggies don't eat
fish. Evidently this diet, which is the largest alternative diet in the
world, which, according to the Veg Soc 7.5% of English adults follow.
If this is not understood, what hope is there for anything even slightly
more extreme?
> On one course we were
>discussing the building of a new Scout/community facility and one of
>the leaders pointed out that the toilets were orientated in the wrong
>direction for use by Moslems. She explained that they found it
>offensive to urinate facing Mecca. The CC pointed out that he had been
>to Pakistan and noted whilst there that the strictly moslem population
>did their business whichever way was convenient. So the ethical point
>aboit the orientation of toilets was spurious and one created by self
>seeking personalities in the local community.
>
OK. However this is different from the problems I encountered.
>>No, I'm suggesting that alternatives and comprimises be found, and
>>isolations kept to a minumim.
>
>No, you are saying, I don't like it, so I won't go. Which is fine, but
>then you whinge about being left behind. the implication being that if
>no-one does it your way you they are isolating you, so they shouldn't
>do it.
If they go fishing one day, that is one thing. If they do it as part of
a summer camp or another greater activty, then I am literally, left
twiddling my feet. If it is known in advance that this is part of a
camp, then something can be done. However, Scouts were not shown the
full programme before the start of the week. The scouts were aware of
the parts they'd organised, sure, but not all of the programme. This
tends to be the case on most camps I've been on, unless they are sole VS
or PL camps, or expeditions. It is unfair, after I have arrived, to
say: "From 20:00 - 22:00 on day X we are going fishing." When I say:
"Sorry, I don't believe in fishing" I then have to stay on my own.
That's not right, surely?
>>
>
>In your experience.
My experience in scouting comes from three differnent groups, in two
different counties, in three different districts. I consider that quite
wide. Not as wide as some, I'm sure.
> I think you will find a wide tolerance of
>different beliefs.
I have found that animal rights beliefs and human rights beliefs shared
by myself and others have NOT been tollerated in several situations. I
know people who have left scouts for this reason.
> Some people's religions exclude them from
>accepting other beliefs which they find conflict with their own. There
>is a difference between not accepting and not tolerating. I don't
>accept your argument, but I tolerate it.
That's fine by me.
>
>The advice is there in the factsheets, in the training courses and its
>simple , plain everydau common sense for the most part.
Well, certainly in my district, and to a point in my county, this has
not been put into practice.
> As I say, I
>don't think what you have experienced is anything to do with the ethos
>of Scouting, but rather a case of plain bad manners, perhaps on both
>sides.
>
>
>Okay, where do you draw the line? you may wish to see the work being
>contributed towards yopur own political ends. perhaps towards
>improving the social conditions of the disadvantaged. Great. Except in
>another area we may have a leader who is a member of the BNP and
>encourages younger members quietly to chase his political ends and we
>have scouts being awrded badges for campaigning to send blacks back to
>Africa.
>
That's a good point. I think your first suggesion is good idea, and
better than my own. A badge for improving the conditions for
disadvantaged people. The Animal Lovers badge would include this within
animal rights campaigns.
>The only answer to that is to ban the BNP, but then you are infringing
>on free speech and opening the movement up to true political bias and
>control.
>
>Anbsolutely no way should kids be rewarded within scouting for
>political activism of any shape size or form. We must be in many ways
>like the Red Cross, open minded and willing to talk to and work with
>all sides at all times - as soon as we show political bias we are
>finished as a movement.
>
Agreed, and point taken.
>>>
>>Fine. However a cub would feel like he HAD to join in, or would sit
>>alone and miserable.
>
>No he wouldn't. Not in a group where there was any decent form of
>leadership. The leaders would be aware of the siruation and cope with
>it, at least they do in our group.
Well, that appears to be the problem. In some peoples districts or
groups, ethical issues are evidently handled adequately, and thus no new
guidelines are needed. However, I do not feel this is the case in my
district, or county at all. I think in my former troop it was far more
the case, but there were still a few problems. Maybe in that situation
I'm simply being a bit fussy.
I haven't made this clear before, but, apart from the fishing incident,
and an incident of humilitation for my beliefs, my problems are not
based on my own beliefs. I have only been in animal rights for a few
years, and veggie for just under 2, most of which time I have been at
University, and not involved with Scouting. The problems I quote have
been with friends of mine, who have been veggie of have other such
ethical feelings on other issues.
My brother, who is veggie and goes to a different group in a different
district from me, suffers the same problems.
Maybe in some places this issue is covered well enough. However in
others it is clearly not. What can be done to remedy this?
>>
>>
>
>Who decides they are popular boycotts? Who defines the criteria? How
>far do we go? You just shot your ethics to hell. We are now only
>talking about popular boycotts.
No, I think all should be accomodated, but it would be hard to advise on
all boycotts, such as personal ones.
> So it might be popular to boycott
>McDonalds, not that you's notice it any Saturday afternoon in
>Huddersfield - but the boycott on Australian produce is less popular
>so we'll ignore that one.
>
No, certainly not. However, it is clear that leaders in some areas do
not even understand the most mainstream of these. I'm just trying to be
practicle, in how they can be advised. Ideally they should be advised
about everything, but that would fill books. Maybe no singular boycotts
should be included, but this would kind of defeat the purpose.
>If we were to follow ethical guidelines to an extreme we would sit in
>mud houses chewing grass. If you exclude produce from countries with
>poor civil rights records alone, you would refuse to eat produce
>from:- er, actually you'd starve within a fortnight.
>
:-) Well, if you believe some people, you couldn't even eat food you'd
grown yourself in that case! I can see how a list of boycotts is hard
to make, because there are so many. However, I am trying simply to
suggest a way that we can encourage leader awareness. If leaders are
not able to cope with the more mainstream alternative beliefs, as the
leaders of this county cleary prove, then what hope is there of them
coping with the more extreme ones?
>>I wish their to be advice, so that leaders can cater for my view point.
>
>The advice is available, you have a tingue in your head, use it.
OK. A friend of mine in Scouting wrote "VEGETARIAN" on a form. It was
assumed by this that she ate the following:
1 - Beef Stock
2 - Battery Eggs
3 - Things cooked in meat dripping
4 - Things cooked alongside (in other words touching) meat
It should be clear to anyone who understands vegetarianism in the least
that all of these (with the exception of 2) are the case. In fact, by
every definition I can find, all of these are outlawed. When she
explained the situation the leaders said: "Sorry, that's all we've
got." On the next camp no beef stock was used, however for one dinner
she and other veggies were fed mashed potato with a kraft cheese slice
on. Her brother had offered to bring his own food on this camp, but was
told: "There is no need, we'll cater for veggies". I know everyone was
doing their best. But they evidently had very little understanding of
what was going on, and on the first camp the poor girl had to go without
breakfast (I think she had some beans of cold bread, actually) and had
potato with no gravy for dinner. This kind of thing happens again and
again. Maybe we are being arrogant assuming that people know what veggie
means. However with 8 million full time veggie adults in England, about
5,000 people a week switching to veggie diet and another 4 million
eating part time veggie diets we are talking reasonably mainstream. i
think leaders should know, or know how to find out, the definition of
this.
> But
>if you come on a camp with me I will ensure that you have a reasonable
>selection of foodstuffs, but I may already have to cater for four or
>five different faddy kids, don't expect me to do you a nut roast in
>vegetarian sauce. If the rest are having Spag Bol, you'll get spag
>Napolitan ( Meat free).
>
Fine. That's OK. However, just the spag, with nout else, is not OK.
>
>And if we follow the ethos of Scouting as best we can then we already
>do that. Again you make sweeping statements. I think you find that as
>a whole Scouting is very accommodating and that the people you are
>having these experiences with are not representative of Scouts as a
>whole.
>
I take my observations from several groups, several districts and mainly
one county (though a little intolerance existed in my former county,
though maybe I'm simply being fussy there).
>If you have been made to feel isolated, then you must tell those who
>isolate you. If not directly, through your DC, or your ACC
>relationships if you have one. if you have seen kids bullied by
>another leader, or a leader allowing bullying to go ahead, then you
>must report that leader to the County Commissioner, or the DC if he is
>in your own district.
>
>Do not tar all Scouts by your own bad experiences. by doing so you
>show your own ignorance of Scouting and of POR, and of Scouting for
>Boys. ( Boys meaning Scouts in the widest terms).
>
In my experience, and from the experience of those I have talked to,
this problem IS wide spread. If it doesn't happen in your area, then
that's fine. However, I have noticed problems throughout Shropshire,
one case in Berkshire (though not serious), and I'm told by a leader I
spoke to that there are problems in Lancashire. Evidently there are
problems in various places, and therefore something should be done to
remedy it.
Dave Mayall
<junk.fr...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Dave Mayall <david....@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:37731b61....@news.ukonline.co.uk...
>> Try feeding me a veggie-burger and see if you still say the same.
>From what I have heard one needs to do this with a very long pole and
>between steel bars :o)
OK, who told?
Dave Mayall
<Jo...@pctrott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Am I alone in getting the urge to leap to my feet shouting Seig Heil?
Careful! I've already explained Godwin's law.
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Snip
>
>Please tell your local leader trainer to spread the word then. If it
>covered, then great, there is no need for factsheets etc. However, I
>would say that none of the leaders in my district understand
>vegetarianism in the least as a result of leader training. All whom I
>have talked to this about feel that extra advice would be handy. Maybe
>our district differs in this?
There you go with sweeping statements again. I simply don't believe
that in leader training someone has not brtrought this topic up for
discussion. Or if they have your colleagues have switched off for
whatever reason. But on every course I have been on, and I have been
on a few the topic of dietry needs, ethics, religious beliefs, and
family and personal beliefs has come up.
snip
>
>>There are far too many "guidlines" around as it is, they are throttling
>>scouting all the time.
>
>Agreed. However simple advice for people would make it easier. If that
>is included in leader training to an adequate level, great.
and who decides what is an adequate level?
> In my
>experience, most leaders are un aware of what a vegetarian eats, and
>vegetarianism is the most mainstream ethical diet.
So your level of vegetarianism would be the marker by which the
standards of the ethics guidelines would be set?
snip
>>Concentrate on giving the kids what it is all about, fun and training for
>>life in general.
>
>Right. Surely training for life would include sticking by your
>principles? How can you teach kids to ignore peer preassure and "Say no
>to drugs" if you know they are wrong, but have to bow to peer preassure,
>and say "yes" to mean, even though you believe it to be wrong? That
>makes no sense. We are surpost to be encouraging kids to think
>indepently, for themselves. If their principles involve killing animals
>for a reason, or if they involve not killing them for a reason, they
>should be encouraged to stick by their principles, and any isolation
>they might feel for having that opinion should be minimised.
>Understanding of their beliefs, even if you do not share them, aids the
>minimisation of this isolation. If the issues are fully covered in
>leader training (which in my area at least they are not), or if a fact
>sheet is available and/or circulated, this will be the case.
>
>I do not want a rule in PoR about veggies. All I want is some guidance,
>so that leaders understand the situation that many young people have
>placed themselves in.
>
It appears to me that your experience of Scouting is at odds with that
of many other groups, certainly mine. perhaps my late entry into
Scouting has saved me from the bad manners and the entrenched
opinions. But as an example, our ACC pulled up at the roadside after a
Challenge and addressed our Scouts, in uniform, asking the lads how
they got on that weekend. The Lads immediately responded, "and Lasses,
Scouting is for everyone".
The menu for the weekend was planned by the PL who took into account
the tastes of everyone and the medical requirements of one of our
members and ensured that he asked each member of the team if there
were any special dietery needs.
No-one is ever forced to do anything they don't want to do, and no-one
who doesn't want to do something for a medical or ethical reason is
made fun of - although, we do have a couple of lazy little b****** who
feign illness and injury to avoid games and jobs they don't like, and
they get the p**** ripped out of them.
The more you generalise, the greater your sweeping statements the more
likely you are to get an angry response, perhaps that's your game.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
>>Why on earth are scouters developing menus at all?
Our Troop is run by the leaders and the PLC. And camp menues are
developed as a result of a Troop discussion, refined by the PLC and
the leaders, the PLC do the shopping, and assist with the catering. If
we left catering solely to 13 year old Scouts we would end up with a
very dull menu. Doing it this way we have all sorts of different meals
and introduce children to new ideas and new foods.
>>
>>It's none of their business -apart from an overall interest to make sure
>>diet is balanced.
Its every part of the leader's business to ensure not only a balanced
diet but that the needs of everyone in the camp party is catered for,
and that practicalities and costs are met with.
>A good point. Remember that on cub camps at least, the menu is often
>decided by leaders. As for scouting, the PLC should be made aware as
>much as leaders. I did a training course as a PL. Diet, be it ethical
>or medical, wasn't covered at all. It never crossed my mind. At the
>time I ate meat, and someone in my patrol was veggie. I spent a few
>minutes longer in the supermarket getting a veggie substitute for him.
>However, I was mystified by the whole case at first. A little training,
>or a fact sheet to look at, would have been very useful!
You may have found that factsheet usefulk, but I'll warrant that 99
out of 100 Scouts would not read any fact sheet.
Fact sheets have a nasty way of turning into rules.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <376b623...@news.mcmail.com>, Ewan Scott <ewan@scotia57.
>freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>>
>>Sorry, but this is ridiculous. We simply cannot cater for absolutely
>>everyone's miniscule needs, we all have to compromise somewhere along
>>the line and it looks to me like you want the compromise to be by
>>everyone except yourself.
>
>I'm perfectly willing to compromise as well, to a point. For instance,
>I am perfectly happy to advise on what I eat (as I do leaders, if I
>don't bring my own food), and I am equally happy to pay slightly more if
>I'm asking for more expensive foods. I personally make no fuss over
>eggs. If I am buying them for me, or I am asking somone to supply them
>for me, I will insist on free range. On scout events, I will eat
>battery eggs without question. I will also eat things with geletine of
>if I must. Contrary to the image I may have created, I am not an
>extreme vegetarian.
Then why create that image if not to invite an argument?
> However, some people are, and have been discouraged
>from scouting because people refuse to cater for them. I think people
>must accept that they are being different, however they should not have
>to compromise their moral beliefs. The more people know and understand
>about differing beliefs, the less the isolation for people with them
>will be.
That is true, but it is unreasonable of someone with extreme and
possibly obscure beliefs to expect someone not holding those beliefs
to understand them.
>> Well it's not on. You make sweeping
>>statements about how people react and then insist that we all use non
>>battary eggs. What next? Organic produce only?
>>
>>Get real.
>>
>I do know people who NEARLY insist on this. If they want this, they
>must compromise by paying the difference, assmuing that the rest of the
>troop can't pay more (which just isn't acceptable in most cases).
>However, this kind of diet could be dealt with with the minimum of fuss.
>Simply explain that this diet costs more, and because the child is the
>only one eating it, they must pay more. That is compromise. The
>leaders compromise should be that they spend a very small amount of time
>buying organic produce (which is available in almost every supermarket).
>
>That way, a little isolation occurs because he has to pay more, however
>it is minimised by the fact that the leader understands what organic
>produce is, and will get it. That's acceptable. I do know leaders who
>would react with: "Organic produce? What's that then? Well, that's
>weird, just eating that! You'll have to bring it yourself, and,
>frankly, I have no time to cook separate things, so I'm not even going
>to wait for you to offer, you must cook it all yourself!"
And to be quite honest, if an adiult coming on camp made these sort of
demands I would say, okay, here's the money allocated, go and buy your
own food. When it came to cooking, you could cook your own carrots and
food separately, because obviously, even if we are all having the same
meal, your organic foods will have to be prepared and cooked
separately. Therefore you are not just asking our catering team to do
a little extra work, you are asking them to do double the work, plus
since you will need your meal at the same time as everyone else, will
require them to have double the amount of pots and pans and possible
even an extra stove.
>
>Certainly with the veggie diet, which is far more mainstream, I have
>known people being basically told: "You will stick with what I cook for
>you, or you can bring your own cooking equipment, including stoves, and
>cook it yourself". That, I believe, is unnaceptable, as it maximises
>the isolation, encouraging the child to conform against his wishes, and
>develop little mental discipline.
That is unacceptable, but as I have said elsewhere in this thread, I
no of no-one who is made to eat or do anything they don't want to do.
However in the extreme case you quote the extremist is the one who
must make the effort.
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
>
>If they go fishing one day, that is one thing. If they do it as part of
>a summer camp or another greater activty, then I am literally, left
>twiddling my feet. If it is known in advance that this is part of a
>camp, then something can be done. However, Scouts were not shown the
>full programme before the start of the week. The scouts were aware of
>the parts they'd organised, sure, but not all of the programme. This
>tends to be the case on most camps I've been on, unless they are sole VS
>or PL camps, or expeditions. It is unfair, after I have arrived, to
>say: "From 20:00 - 22:00 on day X we are going fishing." When I say:
>"Sorry, I don't believe in fishing" I then have to stay on my own.
>That's not right, surely?
I think in this paragraph we have the crux of the matter. Poor local
leadership, taking you atbyour word. There is absolutely no way Cubs
or Scouts should be taken on any camp without their and their parent's
having prior knowledge of the type of events and activities they are
to sample.
The programme may alter, but this should be after discussion with the
whole of the camp so that all know what is happening.
i think you are experiencing bad manners.
snip
>
>I have found that animal rights beliefs and human rights beliefs shared
>by myself and others have NOT been tollerated in several situations. I
>know people who have left scouts for this reason.
I'm truly sorry to hear that.
snip a lot of understanding and acceptance..
>
>Well, that appears to be the problem. In some peoples districts or
>groups, ethical issues are evidently handled adequately, and thus no new
>guidelines are needed. However, I do not feel this is the case in my
>district, or county at all. I think in my former troop it was far more
>the case, but there were still a few problems. Maybe in that situation
>I'm simply being a bit fussy.
I lied. I do not of groups where there is a higher level of
intolerance to certain ideas, usually on a religious basis, but it
just shows, you shouldn't generalise.
Snip
>
>Maybe in some places this issue is covered well enough. However in
>others it is clearly not. What can be done to remedy this?
More good people doing good work, more people prepared to stand up and
say, I will not accept your intolerance.
Snip slightly sarcastic discussion on boycotts.
>>>I wish their to be advice, so that leaders can cater for my view point.
>>
>>The advice is available, you have a tingue in your head, use it.
make that tongue :-)
>
>OK. A friend of mine in Scouting wrote "VEGETARIAN" on a form. It was
>assumed by this that she ate the following:
>
>1 - Beef Stock
>2 - Battery Eggs
>3 - Things cooked in meat dripping
>4 - Things cooked alongside (in other words touching) meat
>
Do your leaders suffer from some special type of awareness deficiency?
>
>> But
>>if you come on a camp with me I will ensure that you have a reasonable
>>selection of foodstuffs, but I may already have to cater for four or
>>five different faddy kids, don't expect me to do you a nut roast in
>>vegetarian sauce. If the rest are having Spag Bol, you'll get spag
>>Napolitan ( Meat free).
>>
>Fine. That's OK. However, just the spag, with nout else, is not OK.
Agreed
>>
snip
>
>>If you have been made to feel isolated, then you must tell those who
>>isolate you. If not directly, through your DC, or your ACC
>>relationships if you have one. if you have seen kids bullied by
>>another leader, or a leader allowing bullying to go ahead, then you
>>must report that leader to the County Commissioner, or the DC if he is
>>in your own district.
>>
>>Do not tar all Scouts by your own bad experiences. by doing so you
>>show your own ignorance of Scouting and of POR, and of Scouting for
>>Boys. ( Boys meaning Scouts in the widest terms).
>>
>In my experience, and from the experience of those I have talked to,
>this problem IS wide spread. If it doesn't happen in your area, then
>that's fine. However, I have noticed problems throughout Shropshire,
>one case in Berkshire (though not serious), and I'm told by a leader I
>spoke to that there are problems in Lancashire. Evidently there are
>problems in various places, and therefore something should be done to
>remedy it.
>
Okay, It may be that I have a scotoma about this, I don't have a
problem with it so I don't notice those who do. However, and forgive
me I can't remember the term, but you may have a heightened awareness
of the subject because it concerns you. A bit like when you are
looking to buy a particularly attractive and unusual rucksac, and
can't find them anywhere, then when you do buy one you discover that
every other walker you meet has the same rucksac on his back :-)
Picked that up from a GCA course :-)
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
>
>Hmmmm. Do I rise to the bite or not?
>
Go on, rise to it. I'd love to see how you can justify extreme
viewpoints and tolerance in the same sentance - there is a word for
it which we have all asiduously avoided using :-)))
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<Jo...@pctrott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Am I alone in getting the urge to leap to my feet shouting Seig Heil?
>john.
>
Careful, John. That debases the discussion, and from many years
observing these types of debates it is exactly the reaction that many
people of extremist viewpoints want to generate, they can then throw
their hands up and say , "See, look at the type of people we are
dealing with".
Ewan Scott
Ewan Scott
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7kgnub$mho$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>, Falco <junk.free.Fal
>c...@btinternet.com> allegedly wrote:
>>The problem is that it is dead easy to give a carnivore a veggie-burger and
>>he/she will eat it without problem apart from a whinge or two but the
>>reverse doesn't apply.
>>
>>We have the unfortunate "problem" that our new VSU QM is a Vegetarian and
>>also a bit "dippy" to say the least.
>>
>>She finds it very difficult to cater for meat eaters but also has extremely
>>odd ideas about food - e.g. First day Breakfast on site was "Bread 'n
>>Spread" - the spread being a plastic margarine substitute !!!! Lunch that
>>day was Cheese Sandwiches.
>>
>I think that even people who find meat ethically wrong should realise
>that others don't, and have the right to eat that. If she doesn't want
>to handle meat, she should take on a different executive role other than
>QM, or arrange for someone else to handle meat meals.
>
The only time our QM team get near food is when we throw it through
the bars of their cage. After handling all the canvas, poles, ropes
and what -not they are not fit to be allowed within 20ft of raw food.
Ewan Scott
gareth...@ftse.com
Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <7kb4ha$m2h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, gareth...@ftse.com
> allegedly wrote:
> >In article <sapzDFAo...@westwind.demon.co.uk>,
> > Kevin L Wright <REMOV...@THISwestwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"People may slag off students for being constantly pissed, and
> >generally being noisy at all hours of the night. But to be honest we
> >don't really give a fuck what they think, because we have worked our
> >asses off to get to this place in the first place, and deserve some
> >fun."
> >
> You may have missed the point that the page is a satire on student
> attitudes. That is not really my opinion.
Re-reading it, it isn't at all obvious to me that it's meant to be a
satire. Still, if it is, fine.
> >"It is morally wrong to kill an animal in an inhumane manor for the
> >purposes of human enjoyment and it is your moral duty to protest
> >against such an act, which hunting could be seen to be."
> >
> I would stand by this opinion. My web page is designed to show my
> opinion, and does not pretend to be anything else. i don't expect
> everyone to share this view. I think that we all have a duty to
protest
> at what we don't see as right.
But you are *telling* people who don't share your views that it is
their *duty*, that they *should* get out there on the fields,
trespassing and getting in the way of a lawful activity. There is no
ambiguity, you are forcing your views on other people.
> >"Four good reasons why you really should care about hunting and the
> >issues. If you still don't I feel that you really do have a problem.
It
> >will be when the hunt kills your cat, hurts your child, destroys your
> >garden that you will realise that you really should have cared."
> >
> >(http://www.westwind.demon.co.uk/bsp/drc.htm)
> >
> I believe this is part of the page for people who believe hunting does
> not effect them. Indeed many people believe it doesn't, until it
does,
> and then come and say: "Well, why hasn't this been banned."
This is another example of force. In fact, it's downright rude to boot.
> I'm not suggesting this opinion be shoved on anyone. Indeed when
> teaching scouts and beavers about countryside issues, I have always
> avoided covering hunting. If I have to, I simply point out that
hunts
> exists, and that they chase and kill foxes with dogs. I never seek to
> impose this opinion on children in scouting. Certainly, as part of my
> work with LACS I have given school talks on hunting, which may be
> closer, if not as extreme, as the bits you've chosen above.
So you tell Scouts and Beavers that hunting is *simply* chasing and
killing foxes with dogs. An admirably unbiased view. You've just
attempted to force a viewpoint on them.
> No doubt you looked at the web page as a whole. There are well over
> 5,000 words on it alltogether, you have chosen a few. Because it
covers
> bothe sides of the argument, it received some compliments from the
then
> Chief Press officer of the pro hunting lobby. You have picked a few
> rather extreme quotes, whic hI will happliy debate, but not in a
> scouting newsgroup.
>
> ----
> Kevin Wright
>
> 2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
> My opinions, and no one elses
>
> Email: tar...@talk21.com
> Bloodsports Page: http://listen.to/your_countryside/ (update
soon)
Gareth Parker
ASL, 3rd Chalkwell Bay Sea Scouts
gareth...@ftse.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
gareth...@ftse.com
<ewan@scotia57
> .freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
> >>3 - The web page quotes were out of context. One was a satire,
the
> >> other two were selective. I stand by those opinions, but they
do
> >> not reflect the nature of the page, which seeks to provide fact
> >> based information, in a non confrontational way
> >
> >That's politics, my friend.
>
> My web page is political, yes. It has nothign whatsoever to do with
> scouting, either.
>
> >>
> >>I AM suggesting a factsheet on how to handle people with 'extreme'
> >>belifs be produced by headquaters. Does anyone think this is a bad
> >>idea?
> >No, but I don't think its a good one either. Since extreme views have
> >little place in Scouting :-)
>
Rise to the *bait*, for crying out loud. (Or were you seeking to change
a piece of common English because of its fishing origins?)
> >You experience is very different from mine and hopefully of my Scouts
> >where they all know that they will be supported in whatever choice
> >they take, even the one to leave. My leaders have even been known to
> >go out of theor way to support kids who hold beliefs, ideals in
> >conflict with their own. But don't expect them to do the same for an
> >adult. Support there is limited to tolerance.
> >
> Agreed. From what you have said it appears your troop is tollerant,
and
> copes with the problems. However, from the differences I have seen,
> there are widespread problems. If factsheets should not be
intorduced,
> and legislation binds hands (I agree on no legislation), then what can
> be done?
Simple. You can leave the problem, (which the newsgroup ex you is in
agreement that isn't even a problem, just an issue), to the people on
the ground. Who if at all reasonable Scouts will say, when confronted
with a Scout who has a complaint about their food, their beliefs,
whatever: "No problem, thanks for pointing it out, we'll do better next
time." After all, I seem to remember renewing a promise a few weeks ago
that said "I promise to do my best."
Mike Parmley
<snip>
>That way, a little isolation occurs because he has to pay more, however
>it is minimised by the fact that the leader understands what organic
>produce is, and will get it. That's acceptable. I do know leaders who
>would react with: "Organic produce? What's that then? Well, that's
>weird, just eating that! You'll have to bring it yourself, and,
>frankly, I have no time to cook separate things, so I'm not even going
>to wait for you to offer, you must cook it all yourself!"
>
>Certainly with the veggie diet, which is far more mainstream, I have
>known people being basically told: "You will stick with what I cook for
>you, or you can bring your own cooking equipment, including stoves, and
>cook it yourself".
<snip>
Hmm - I'm going to have to stick my 2penn'orth in here - it's the second
point I've disagreed with in the thread, but somebody already covered the
first one.
Menu planning - done by the Scouts and PLs - NOT the leader. (However, as
already pointed out, the leader retains the power of veto to ensure a
balanced diet.) If something is unnacceptable to one of the Scouts it's up
to them to bring it out at this point. We've normally have to consider and
cater for specific allergies, dairy intolerance, and restricted diets - no
problem. If they haven't shouted out at the planning stage, then an
alternative will be found. The lateness of declaring something unnacceptable
and the range of acceptable alternatives will determine the availability of
substitutes.
Cooking - again done by the Scouts. Leader supervision/help according to
situation.
Your thread implies that everything needs to be done by the leader. Nope -
they are responsible for ensuring that things are done. Important
difference. A leader cannot be expected to know the detail of every
restricted belief/religion/diet - it's up to the Scout to make them know on
the camp form and by other means. If a leader is not letting the Scouts do
these things then it's something more fundamental than an advisor or fact
sheet needed.
YiS
Mike
--
Mike Parmley - ASL 1st Tupton, Chesterfield
These views are my own and do not reflect those of my employers or group.
John Ferguson
david....@ukonline.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 20:12:12 +0100, Kevin L Wright
> <ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>They give us the info and we use the info to cater for them.
> >>
> >Sounds good. However, if you fill in the form and say: "Vegetarian"
> >you would expect that no battery eggs would be included, because the
> >recognised vegetarian defintion says no battery eggs. In order for
> >leaders to know that, a fact sheet at the very least would be useful.
>
> Except that a form which says vegetarian won't do for me. Some
> vegetarians don't eat eggs at all, whilst some (e.g. my sister) will
> eat battery eggs. It is about each person's personal ethics, not some
> "official" definition of vegetarianism. I require a detailed
> description of what cannot be eaten from the parents, as well as
> suggestions of what could be eaten in place of our carnivorous meals.
>
> --
> Dave Mayall
>
> SL 7th Stalybridge
A form that just says vetegarian won't do for me either, and I'm a
'vegetarian'. I don't take any notice of any societies or organisations,
I just know what I am happy eating and what I am not happy eating.
As far as camps are concerned, I show all the parents, and Cubs, a copy
of the proposed menu (and programme) at the camp meeting a few weeks
before. They have the opportunity to discuss food requirements with our
'head cook' and come to a satisfactory arrangement for all concerned.
Most of the things are 'dislikes' or 'allergic to' rather than 'does not
believe in'.
--
John Ferguson
CSL 1st Cove Otters
John Trott
Ewan Scott wrote in message <376df097...@news.mcmail.com>...
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 13:17:38 +0100, "John Trott"
><Jo...@pctrott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Am I alone in getting the urge to leap to my feet shouting Seig Heil?
>>john.
>>
>Careful, John. That debases the discussion, and from many years
>observing these types of debates it is exactly the reaction that many
>people of extremist viewpoints want to generate, >
>Ewan
The problem of thinking that one is sufficiently intelligent to dictate the
"ethical responses" of other people of other times is that we aren't. the
options are usually far to complex and interrelated to compute. If i can
steal a little quiz from a lady called Diana Statt (thanks Diana)
Q1 If you knew a woman who was pregnant, Who already had 8 children, 3 of
whom were deaf, two were blind and one mentally retarded. Given that she has
syphillus would you recomend an abortion?
Q2 there are three political candidates for your area
1-Known to associate with crooked politicians, Consults astrologist , has
had 2 mistresses, chain smokes and drinks 8 - 10 martini's a day.
2- Has been kicked out of office twice, sleeps till noon, used hard drugs at
college and drinks a quart of whisky each evening.
3- A decorated war hero. a Vegetarian, Doesn't smoke drinks an occasional
beer and has not had any known affairs .
1 = Franklin D Roosevelt
2=Winston Churchill
3=Adolph Hitler
By the by the kid that you had aborted was Beethoven.
Just a thought
Y.I.S.
John.
>
Tim Jones
Kevin
First of all. May I declare a dual interest in this debate. I am a
Cub Leader and Livestock farmer, due to this i have sat on the
sidelines thus far and still intend (hope:-0) to keep my personal
eating habits and dietary opinions out of it . I have encountered
vegetarians in scouts, ventures and now cubs, they have all been
individuals with different reasons for their beliefs and different
levels of vegeterianism. I have worked to accomodate their beliefs
(as far as I know to their satisfaction in every case) and can only
say that I personally have learnt a lot and come out wiser for the
experience.
I think you have missed the fundamental point that all vegetarians are
individuals and should, as far as possible, be treated as such. I am
astounded at the idea of a legal definition of Vegetarianism (i think
this probably defines vegetarian food for trading Standards, as
opposed to vegetarians themselves) and can only see pitfalls in a
factsheet based on this. I know of one 'vegetarian' who eats Pork
Sausages and would be disappointed to find himself eating a vegetarian
substitute, surely the same could happen with chicken, fish, beef
stock etc etc.
IMHO the best thing we can do is allow the youngsters to develop their
beliefs without influencing them. The best way to do this is by
offering a friendly face and ear on which the can learn how to explain
their beliefs and overcome any problems this may lead to. We cannot
do this with a factsheet or guidelines, but only by adopting a
sensitive approach to all individuals and their beliefs.
As an example we have a nine year old Cub who has just turned
vegetarian ( in the long run I suspect it won't last, but that has to
be his decision hopefully without being affected by ANY outside bias
or influence) my approach is to provide a suitable alternative and
quietly enquire as to why he is vegetarian (his current answer is
"Dunno I just am") if we can help him to learn how to explain his
beliefs to others and how to help them accomodate these beliefs then
we will have achieved something that no factsheet ever will!
Please excuse this rambling post. The point is that Scouting should,
in my opinion, help every member to evolve as an valuable individual
member of a wider community, we cannot achieve this with factsheets
and gudelines. We can however achieve aa awful lot with common sense
sensitivity and a little bit of effort, after all we did all promise
to DO OUR BEST.
YIS
Tim Jones
CSL 1st tenbury Cub Scouts
PS Please could we all try to cut down on excessive quoting in
replies as 200 lines plus of quoting interspersed with the odd 2 line
answer will never make easy reading, however interesting the thread
may be!!!!
Roger Thorne
>As long as you do your best, no more can be asked. But would you
>welcome a fact sheet on at least the mainstream, or should I say MORE
>mainstream ethical diets, boycotts etc?
To be honest I wouldn't. All my scouts have got mouths in their heads (and
their parents certainly do!). If any of them have a particular problem I'll
listen and take whatever action seems right at the time.
As regards diets, its a personal choice people make and most things can be
accomodated.
Boycotts are another thing though - however you mix it up its politcial
action and I don't beleive Scouts should get involved here.
I don't want the SA getting involved in setting policies in this area - and
Factsheets today have a habit of being policy tomorrow.
Mike Parmley
>
>>>What next people who won't eat GM food.
>>>
>>Many vegetarians won't, because animal genes are mixed in with plant
>>geners.
I think some of our Scouts have both animal and plant genes already mixed
in. :-)
David Allsopp
Roger Thorne <Rog_T...@f-of-dean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Boycotts are another thing though - however you mix it up its politcial
>action and I don't beleive Scouts should get involved here.
There are also boycotts of specific companies, of course (Nestle, for
instance) which aren't political...
David.
--
"It doesn't matter how fast your modem is if you're being shelled by
ethnic separatists." - William Gibson
Dr John Stockton
1999 22:39:36 in news:uk.rec.scouting, Kevin L Wright
<ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <kL7HPTAm...@merlyn.demon.co.uk>, Dr John Stockton
><j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
|||||||||||||||
>
>Thanks for that! I think we're actually getting somewhere in this
>thread now (such as the fact that some districts evidently cover this in
>leader training, and maybe that should be actively encouraged), and so
>I'll keep talking here. But I'll remember that, thanks!
>
>----
>Kevin Wright
>
>2nd Year Combined Honours, University of Central Lancashire, UK
>My opinions, and no one elses
>
>Email: tar...@talk21.com
>Bloodsports Page: http://listen.to/your_countryside/ (update soon)
I wrote none of that; the word "allegedly" is at least mildly offensive,
especially in boilerplate; your signature is too long; your signature
separator is non-compliant, though your software is capable of
compliance.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct 4-line sig. separator is as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)
Keith Meredith
keyboard and created:
> Many vegetarians won't, because animal genes are mixed in with plant
So it's OK to use animals experimentally to extract their genetic material
to make vast profits for multinational chemical companies?
Hmm.
YiS
Keith
--
__ _ _ @ @ Keith Meredith me...@argonet.co.uk
|\/| |_ |_) |_) \/ /\ CSL 1st Grendon Sea Scouts
| | |__ | \ | \ / \__/ Castle Ashby, Northants
Keith Meredith
keyboard and created:
> No, I'm suggesting that alternatives and comprimises be found, and
> isolations kept to a minumim.
So you'd be prepared to compromise, then?
Hmm
Kevin L Wright
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>Except that a form which says vegetarian won't do for me.
That's fine. However that must be made clear BEFORE the camp. In a
number of cases, none of which involved me, people wrote VEGETARIAN on
their form, and leaders appeared to guess at what veggie meant.
>I require a detailed
>description of what cannot be eaten from the parents, as well as
>suggestions of what could be eaten in place of our carnivorous meals.
>
If this is made clear then, thats fine. However, generally, someone
writes veggie, and assumes, perhaps naivily, that people know what it
means. If they don't, then they should say. However leaders in my
district have repeatedly accepted forms which says "VEGETARIAN" and not
said a word, then on the camp it has been realised that they have not
catered for veggies.
Maybe my experiences are all isolated ones. However there seem to have
been quite a lot of them.
Kevin L Wright
.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>
>The only time our QM team get near food is when we throw it through
>the bars of their cage. After handling all the canvas, poles, ropes
>and what -not they are not fit to be allowed within 20ft of raw food.
>
I saw the only person who DIDN'T ransack, or even go near, the storetent
was the QM!
Kevin L Wright
<mike.p...@postoffice.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>Kevin L Wright wrote:
>>
>
>I think some of our Scouts have both animal and plant genes already mixed
>in. :-)
>
at them first thing in the morning, you would think so! Very green and
refusing to move.
Kevin L Wright
.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>>
>>Maybe in some places this issue is covered well enough. However in
>>others it is clearly not. What can be done to remedy this?
>
>say, I will not accept your intolerance.
>
>>
>Do your leaders suffer from some special type of awareness deficiency?
>
>>
>Okay, It may be that I have a scotoma about this, I don't have a
>problem with it so I don't notice those who do. However, and forgive
>me I can't remember the term, but you may have a heightened awareness
>of the subject because it concerns you. A bit like when you are
>looking to buy a particularly attractive and unusual rucksac, and
>can't find them anywhere, then when you do buy one you discover that
>every other walker you meet has the same rucksac on his back :-)
>
>Picked that up from a GCA course :-)
>
Right. Now we seem to be getting somewhere in this thread. Assuming
leaders are made fully aware, probably through training, that ethical
diets and boycotts exist, if they don't allready know, and are made
aware that some people might assume that leaders will know what
"VEGGIE" or "VEGAN" means, and that if they come across these they
should ask for a fuller explination, that is the main problem covered.
Leaders should also be aware that they should never poke fun at, or make
someone feel awkward or difficuilt for having such a belief. If this
happens the problem is solved.
yay!
Kevin L Wright
<t.j...@free4all.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
>Kevin
>
>First of all. May I declare a dual interest in this debate. I am a
>Cub Leader and Livestock farmer,
Well, I have to say I agree with every word you wrote!
As you being a farmer, so be it. Scouting is about Vegetarians and
farmers etc all coming together.
Kevin L Wright
<david....@ukonline.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:07:44 +0100, Kevin L Wright
><ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I appear to have come across as a rather extreme nutter,
>At first you gave that impression. However having stuck with the
>debate through the early verbal punches, you have shown otherwise.
>
>I don't share your views, I do respect them. I now believe that you
>hold much the same position on this point.
>
Thank you. I was beginning to think I'd marked my return to u.r.s. by
making enemies with everyone. That sincerely wasn't my intention.
YiS
Kevin L Wright
freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 22:33:31 +0100, Kevin L Wright
><ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>There you go with sweeping statements again. I simply don't believe
>that in leader training someone has not brtrought this topic up for
>discussion.
I don't know if it has been covered. But seeing as a number of leaders,
trained within our district, believe that vegetarians eat fish and beef
stock, and seeing as scouts other then myself have suffered as a result
of veggie diets and beliefs, I would say it isn't being covered well.
>
>So your level of vegetarianism would be the marker by which the
>standards of the ethics guidelines would be set?
>
No. As i have stated, I eat battery eggs (though if offered choice I
opt against them) and I eat products with geletine in. I don't fuss
about E numbers. However, a true vegetarian would not eat these. For
definitions you can refer to the World or English Vegetarian Society,
VIVA!, Compassion in World Farming, and every other vegetarian group, or
group which may come into contact with veggies I have ever seen. Even
Saibsbury's uses this definition in its guides.
>The more you generalise, the greater your sweeping statements the more
>likely you are to get an angry response, perhaps that's your game.
>
No, it certainly isn't. I really didn't mean to start this thread to
annoy anyone, in fact I've been personally quite upset at some of the
more personal attacks some posters have made. Admittedly, others have
made constructive and useful statements.
All I know is that in the years before I was veggie, I noticed several
scouts, some of which were friends of mine, suffer as a result of
leaders who evidently knew little about the diet. Several of them have
now left scouts, this was one of the reasons they left.
As my beliefs developed, and I became more interested in issues of
animal welfare, I realised that there were some activities I would not
take part in. I decided i would not shoot at live targets, or fish.
When I attended a summer camp, I was told on my first day there that
fishing was on the agenda for that camp. If I had been told before, we
could have come to an arrangement before. However, I was there, in the
middle of Wales. I pointed out that I was not going to go. I realise
that at the time I was a young Venture, and was perfectly capable of
being left on my own. However, there were also another few scouts who
didn't want to go. Despite the fact that we had three leaders on this
camp, I was left, as were the scouts, with nothing to do whilst the
others went fishing for over three hours. I felt like I was being made
to suffer because of my slightly extreme belief.
Now, since going veggie, I have realised that some (not all by any
means) scout leaders not only don't know how to cater for veggies, but
actually seem to resent doing so. Others are perfectly helpful.
However, it only takes a few to make life difficuilt. Other leaders,
such as my GSL, admits that she made some mistakes catering for
vegetarians in the past, but, thanks to the school where she works as a
cook who have to cater for veggie, she is now in a far better position
to do so. It isn't that they resent cooking for veggies, but that they
have no understanding, and thus are likely to get frustrated.
It occured to me that vegetarianism is the least extreme of many forms
of alternative beliefs. If veggies are not understood, catered for and
sometimes resented, then what hope is there for anyone with a more
extreme belief?
I did wonder whether this was confined to my area, so I did some asking
around. It appears that it has happened in other areas too. From
talking to people such as yourself, it has become evident that in other
areas the situation already IS in control, which makes me very glad I
brought the subject up here to disscuss, rather than sending a letter to
my CC, suggesting what I originally suggested.
From this disscussion I can see, quite clearly, that my ideas about
ethical advisors and activist badges were wrong. I can even see that
the case for a fact sheet could cause many more problems than I first
imagined. I had never thought about leader training, and I think that
leader training which includes good disscussion on these issues should
work as well as anything I've suggested. It seems that in many of your
districts this has been covered, and you feel that your catering of
veggies etc works, and from what you have said, it appears it does.
However, it is also clear to me that in some parts of the country at
least, warrented leaders DON'T cope with veggies, and a small number
perceive us as simply being people who are trying top be difficuilt,
like the Beaver who told me he was alergic to water and could only drink
coke.
stephen rainsbury
> The only time our QM team get near food is when we throw it through
> the bars of their cage. After handling all the canvas, poles, ropes
> and what -not they are not fit to be allowed within 20ft of raw food.
Don't you need two QM teams, one for raw food and one for cooked?
--
Stephen Rainsbury
ASL 8th Gillingham Scout Group, Kent
http://www.8thgillinghamscouts.freeserve.co.uk/index.html
stephen rainsbury
> As for scouting, the PLC should be made aware as
> much as leaders
we put out a medical form before camp which can contain some pretty personal
stuff. I don't think that the parents would be happy if we showed it to the
PLs who they would see as just other kids
Graham Drabble
>
> Kevin, you wrote..
>
> > As for scouting, the PLC should be made aware as
> > much as leaders
>
> we put out a medical form before camp which can contain some pretty personal
> stuff. I don't think that the parents would be happy if we showed it to the
> PLs who they would see as just other kids
As a PL I have tried to get access to some medical information before
camps / hikes etc before and always had the same response about it being
personal. However, why when I'm taking boys out for the night (or
sometimes longer) shouldn't I be told. Now I have to put out my own
medical forms before patrol camps and hope that anyone who is with me on
a troop night as the sense to say if he is likely to be ill. Personally
I would never have minded if relevant information was given to a PL of
any camp or expedition that I have been on.
YiS
Graham Drabble
1st Hassocks Scouts
Falco
news:7kimim$dvl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Am I alone in getting the urge to leap to my feet shouting Seig Heil?
> john.
One sincerely hopes so.....
Falco
Kevin L Wright
<Ste...@rainsbury.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>
No, point taken. As long as the leaders can give guidence, that should
be allright.
>
----
Kevin Wright
Kevin L Wright
<graham....@lineone.net> allegedly wrote:
> However, why when I'm taking boys out for the night (or
>sometimes longer) shouldn't I be told.
I think really this is one for leaders discreation and common sense.
Some conditions are more embarrassing than others, some PLs are more
liberal with entrusted information than others.
----
Kevin Wright
The above is my opinion, and not always that of my ISP or host.
Kevin L Wright
<me...@argonet.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
>On 18 Jun, Kevin L Wright <ke...@westwind.demon.co.uk> put fingers to
>keyboard and created:
>> No, I'm suggesting that alternatives and comprimises be found, and
>> isolations kept to a minumim.
>
>So you'd be prepared to compromise, then?
>
>Hmm
>
Firstly, I recognised that my original suggestion for ethics advisors
was inpracticle, and that even fact sheets would be hard to produce. I
have admitted that in some situations, though by no means all, it may be
impossible for alternative activities to be arranged, and I have learned
that in some scout areas the leaders appear to be very clued up on
vegetarianism. However, I know from my experience that there are many
problems for veggies in scouts, due to leader ignorance and/or
intollerance. It appears that the only practicle way to tackle this is
through leader training. The fact that a problem exists in some places
means that currently the training is not adequate in some places.
Kevin L Wright
Apologies I snipped the wrong thing.
> the word "allegedly" is at least mildly offensive,
OK, this is the first complaint I've had about it, but I'll remove it.
> your signature
>separator is non-compliant, though your software is capable of
>compliance.
>
Please explain this to me, as I don't understand what you mean.