Rucksack packing.

[Shaun]

To comment on these posts in no particular order.

I told Cubs and their parents not to buy rucksacks, a big hold-all is more suitable as it can get everything in it.

I tell Scouts the same things, as they are still growing so a rucksack that fits them, at 11, won’t when they are 12, 13 or even 14.

I use a hold-all myself and have no qualms with taking a full size pillow, quilt and bottom sheet when in a building.

I have been known to take a piece of carpet when I am camping!

At my age I have no need to be uncomfortable as I have discovered that no amount of practicing ever set me up for when I had to be uncomfortable for real.

I expect cubs to be there when the kit is packed and to have a ticked off packing list at the top of their bag so they know what they should have.

I don’t give the Scouts a packing list, by this age they should know what they need or want to bring, we have a discussion the week before, if they need something unusual we will them directly to bring it, if they don’t they sit out the activity they need it for.

I have been known to inspect tents. Everything is to be in their bag, with the exception sleeping bag/mat/pillow.

My emergency whistle is attached to the drawstring on my rucksack.

At then end of the camp, we check tents are empty, any clothing is presented for collection and then binned. We don’t take it home with us.

With regard to total kit inspections, I can understand why some bad experiences would put people off and that shouldn’t offend anyone, it is all down to language used when explaining what is done.

One time at the end of a camp, I was stood holding a young female cub’s sleeping back. I knew it was hers as it had her name in it. She swore blind that she had packed it....

When we are doing an expedition camp, we do cover kit, packing and the rest of it.


Sent using Tapatalk

[Shaun]

With regard to total kit inspections, I can understand why some bad experiences would put people off and that shouldn’t offend anyone, it is all down to language used when explaining what is done.

I’m going to add on to this comment.

Safeguarding tells us not to rely on our good name.

Sometimes we don’t realise how what we are saying can be heard, something that we say, that we fully understand is quite often not explained fully, for example we say pack for a camp.

For some of us it means 65l rucksack, everything put in it’s place, some a hold-all with everything lobbed in, for others open the boot of the car....

One posters experience of full kit inspection involved upsetting the YP and was quite rightly stopped and has been replaced with an informal kit check based on trust. Another’s opinion of a kit inspection is different, more akin to a check, without the trust.

What parents expect is managed by us, the parents of my Scouts are told that we are teaching them life skills and self reliance, key to which is looking after their stuff and if it goes wrong handling it and correcting it. We would not usually get involved unless we felt we needed to. This again is subjective (deliberately) as how we do stuff is different to others.


Sent using Tapatalk

[pa_broon74]

I’m going to add on to this comment.

Safeguarding tells us not to rely on our good name.

And adding to that comment. It's bad enough we have to put up with the usual lazy stigmas around Scouting, without creating more lazy stigmas ourselves.

[RisingStar]

And adding to that comment. It's bad enough we have to put up with the usual lazy stigmas around Scouting, without creating more lazy stigmas ourselves.

But you wont' help that stigma by acting in ways which will strengthen. Looking above at what some others have written, would it really help our reputation as leaders to have our young members tell their parents and friends that the leaders had been inspecting their underwear ?

Its very regrettable we live in a world where leaders are subject to innuendo, sniggers and slanderous comments. I was watching an old episode of Hi-De-Hi where one of the "humourous" characters was Spike playing the "naughty" scout leader, and sometimes I don't think we've moved very far from that. We just have to be very careful to do nothing to make that worse.

As Shaun said we act in the way we feel best in line with our own values and conscience. But so have quite a few leaders who are no longer with us because they misjudged how their behaviour would be construed.

[pa_broon74]

But you wont' help that stigma by acting in ways which will strengthen. Looking above at what some others have written, would it really help our reputation as leaders to have our young members tell their parents and friends that the leaders had been inspecting their underwear ?

Its very regrettable we live in a world where leaders are subject to innuendo, sniggers and slanderous comments. I was watching an old episode of Hi-De-Hi where one of the "humourous" characters was Spike playing the "naughty" scout leader, and sometimes I don't think we've moved very far from that. We just have to be very careful to do nothing to make that worse.

As Shaun said we act in the way we feel best in line with our own values and conscience. But so have quite a few leaders who are no longer with us because they misjudged how their behaviour would be construed.

Seriously.

WE'RE NOT INSPECTING THEIR ******* UNDERWEAR.

As I've already intimated, that you're even suggesting this is what we're doing is beyond reasonable. I'm not sure what else I can say to make you understand the concept of a full kit inspection, it's actual purpose and why we occasionally get the kids to do it if we're on camp.

Do you realise how offensive this is?

Precisely no parent ever has complained about full kit inspections in the nearly 35 years I've been involved as a man and boy. Precisely no parent has ever voiced suspicions about it - mostly because WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE CHILDREN'S UNDERWEAR. However, suggestions here that we do, is doing exactly what you claim we shouldn't being doing with regard to scouting stigma.

[RisingStar]

"....And we will check, if primed, for soiled nightwear and sleeping bags; a necessary invasion of privacy (and yes we are discreet)"

Shout as loud as you like that was written above.

Not sure whose post that was. And who primes?

As I said different values.

[pa_broon74]

"....And we will check, if primed, for soiled nightwear and sleeping bags; a necessary invasion of privacy (and yes we are discreet)"

Shout as loud as you like that was written above.

Not sure whose post that was. And who primes?

As I said different values.

Good work. You've taken that right out of context. I didn't write it, and I think, if you needed the context explained to you, you wouldn't understand anyway.

You know, I'm a fairly untrusting, cynical sort. But not even I can get to where you are on this. I don't know what section you lead, I'll assume it's scouts, since full kit inspection is a scout thing... Let me ask you a question - do you do inspection at Scouts? You line the kids up, make sure their neckers are straight, that their buttons and belts are all in order?

I could read all sorts of things in to that, but I don't. Nor do I make any assumptions about your motivations for doing inspections - if indeed you do them at all.

And for the avoidance of doubt. Full kit inspection was never about leaders inspecting scout's smalls (or anything else for that matter). It's about Scouts inspecting (if you like) their own stuff to make sure they do indeed, have all their own stuff.

But as you say, different values.

[Shaun]

Seriously.

WE'RE NOT INSPECTING THEIR ******* UNDERWEAR.

As I've already intimated, that you're even suggesting this is what we're doing is beyond reasonable. I'm not sure what else I can say to make you understand the concept of a full kit inspection, it's actual purpose and why we occasionally get the kids to do it if we're on camp.

Do you realise how offensive this is?

Precisely no parent ever has complained about full kit inspections in the nearly 35 years I've been involved as a man and boy. Precisely no parent has ever voiced suspicions about it - mostly because WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE CHILDREN'S UNDERWEAR. However, suggestions here that we do, is doing exactly what you claim we shouldn't being doing with regard to scouting stigma.

You have made it clear what you mean and how you conduct ‘checks’ at camp, but please go back to your first post about the inspections.

You talk about the SL holding up underwear whilst you cringed.

No matter how you think about it, it is everyone looking at it.

I know what is happening, wrong I can assume what is happening based on what I have seen happen at other groups and it is probably a pair of underwear before a sock and after the football shirt.


Sent using Tapatalk

[shiftypete]

You have made it clear what you mean and how you conduct ‘checks’ at camp, but please go back to your first post about the inspections.

You talk about the SL holding up underwear whilst you cringed.

Hang on Pa_broon mentioned that in relation to lost property after camp NOT as part of the kit inspection at camp

I remember the old SL standing at flag break the week after camp, brandishing lone socks and the odd pair of briefs. I always used to think; argh, just bin them.

(my bold)

[Shaun]

Hang on Pa_broon mentioned that in relation to lost property after camp NOT as part of the kit inspection at camp

(my bold)

All in the same post, so to split hairs about looking at underwear.

On camp bad
After camp good?




Sent using Tapatalk

[bigcheese]

"....And we will check, if primed, for soiled nightwear and sleeping bags; a necessary invasion of privacy (and yes we are discreet)"

Shout as loud as you like that was written above. Not sure whose post that was. And who primes? As I said different values.

It was me.

Who would possibly prime a Leader about A Scout with nocturnal enuresis? Oh yes that would be the parents. Never mind I can also jump to a conclusion, make an assumption based on................I don't know what.

Here goes!!!! You obviously would take the contrary position to mine by being more than happy, even if primed by a parent, and in the interests of maintaining privacy, to let a Scout suffer, have a miserable time on camp, just because you refuse to put your hand down a sleeping bag checking for wet. No doubt you wouldn't give them the opportunity to go and get washed either, or sort out fresh nightwear or spare sleeping bag for them. You would obviously be able to bat away any criticism from the parents with your giant yellow card

Most excellent

[shiftypete]

All in the same post, so to split hairs about looking at underwear.

On camp bad
After camp good?




Sent using Tapatalk

Rooting through Scouts personal kit and inc looking at their underwear as part of a kit inspection on camp is a totally different thing to holding up a pair of left behind pants and asking whose they are, yes. I don;t see a single person in this thread saying that looking through Scouts kit is in any way acceptable as opposed to doing things to encourage them to sort their own kit out on camp. We don't tend to hold up lost property in front of the Troop either mind, we just put of a box of it out for people to look through and make clear anything not claimed within 2 meetings after the camp will be chucked or donated to a charity shop.

[pa_broon74]

You have made it clear what you mean and how you conduct ‘checks’ at camp, but please go back to your first post about the inspections.

You talk about the SL holding up underwear whilst you cringed.

No matter how you think about it, it is everyone looking at it.

I know what is happening, wrong I can assume what is happening based on what I have seen happen at other groups and it is probably a pair of underwear before a sock and after the football shirt.


Sent using Tapatalk

Get your facts right. Learn to read properly.

I don't hold anything up. I said I thought the old SL at the time should just put the stuff in the bin. What I said was...

I remember the old SL standing at flag break the week after camp, brandishing lone socks and the odd pair of briefs. I always used to think; argh, just bin them.

Your assumptions are the problem here, you and others are inexplicably and willfully grasping the wrong end of the stick. You and other are casting very dangerous aspersions about the motivations of other leaders, you'd do well to think carefully about that - especially since you don't actually know what is happening, you only think you do.

You haven't got a clue what is or was happening, you just have your assumptions.

- - - Updated - - -

All in the same post, so to split hairs about looking at underwear.

On camp bad
After camp good?




Sent using Tapatalk

Again. Read what I am typing.

No one is looking at anyone's underwear. You even said above, that you read that part of what I was saying.

Seriously, this was supposed to be a lighthearted thread about packing rucksacks. But we have leaders casting aspersions about each other's motivations around just trying to make sure kids get all their stuff back (or don't lose it in the first place) toward the end of camp.

It's ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Hang on Pa_broon mentioned that in relation to lost property after camp NOT as part of the kit inspection at camp

(my bold)

And it wasn't even me doing it!

Good grief.



- - - Updated - - -

I'm moving on from this, neither wonder so many people don't want to chat on this forum.

As a Scout Leader, I don't even use nicknames. Reason being, you just never know - even if a kid is laughing along with it - you just never know how they're taking it. I take the time to ask the kids how they are - not all the time, but hopefully often enough so that they at least know that when I ask, I'm genuinely interested.

So the idea that I would be so insensitive to do the things people are making assumptions about here... Well, I think that says more about them, than it does about me.

We really need to read posts more carefully and express ourselves with a little more courtesy, or this forum is going to die.








(I'm still not packing a pillow for camp though... )

[Shaun]

Could you point out where I said you held things up? Then perhaps we can discuss who needs to learn to read, as I read very well thank you, what you actually wrote was:

I remember the old SL standing at flag break the week after camp, brandishing lone socks and the odd pair of briefs. I always used to think; argh, just bin them.

Now again, you have revised what you said and clarified that this was a previous Scout Leader, by adding - at the time

The old Scout Leader could mean the SL from a previous generation where this was considered acceptable, but is still there, adding “at the time” it now becomes clear this was a previous SL.

But thank you for helping prove my point, which is that:

Sometimes we don’t realise how what we are saying can be heard.

I made a lot assumptions, which I thought I had made clear by saying “I can assume what is happening” then to be really helpful I say what my assumption is based on. I do accept that the example isn’t clear.

I don’t think I have implied anything underhand is happening, but maybe I am wrong - if I have then I unreservedly apologise - what I attempted to show is that the what we say can be misconstrued unless we are clear.

Have you thought a pillow might stop you being so grumpy?



Sent using Tapatalk

[pa_broon74]

Could you point out where I said you held things up? Then perhaps we can discuss who needs to learn to read, as I read very well thank you, what you actually wrote was:



Now again, you have revised what you said and clarified that this was a previous Scout Leader, by adding - at the time

The old Scout Leader could mean the SL from a previous generation where this was considered acceptable, but is still there, adding “at the time” it now becomes clear this was a previous SL.

But thank you for helping prove my point, which is that:

Sometimes we don’t realise how what we are saying can be heard.

I made a lot assumptions, which I thought I had made clear by saying “I can assume what is happening” then to be really helpful I say what my assumption is based on. I do accept that the example isn’t clear.

I don’t think I have implied anything underhand is happening, but maybe I am wrong - if I have then I unreservedly apologise - what I attempted to show is that the what we say can be misconstrued unless we are clear.

Have you thought a pillow might stop you being so grumpy?



Sent using Tapatalk

I don't know if you read my last comment there, (obvs not).

Am oot.