Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Ah go on then...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    2,396
    Thanked 1,724 Times in 1,202 Posts

    Ah go on then...

    So TSA are 'in trouble' in Scotland. The SNP had a scout leader in a PPB. Tories are incandescently angry about it, but forgot Bear Grylls spoke (in uniform) at their 2017 conference.

    Personally? I don't care - it's a storm in a teacup, a mole hill being made into a mountain.

    It is interesting though because it's bringing up all sorts of wild accusations and all the usual stereotypes and misunderstandings. The latter two things I find, are always disappointing.


  2. #2
    Map Geek marcush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,542
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 43 Times in 36 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    So TSA are 'in trouble' in Scotland. The SNP had a scout leader in a PPB. Tories are incandescently angry about it, but forgot Bear Grylls spoke (in uniform) at their 2017 conference.

    Personally? I don't care - it's a storm in a teacup, a mole hill being made into a mountain.

    It is interesting though because it's bringing up all sorts of wild accusations and all the usual stereotypes and misunderstandings. The latter two things I find, are always disappointing.

    But the reason BG spoke at the Tory conference is being ignored by many to fuel that storm in a tea cup, they are two very different situations, one that if you read POR is allowed and TSA have confirmed that (BGs and numerous other scouts at a variety of different PCs there lobbying) and one that isn't (SNP PPB in this case)

    Rule 66. A map and compass offers no protection against getting horribly lost.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to marcush For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (14-10-2020)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    16,711
    Thanks
    687
    Thanked 3,579 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by marcush View Post
    But the reason BG spoke at the Tory conference is being ignored by many to fuel that storm in a tea cup, they are two very different situations, one that if you read POR is allowed and TSA have confirmed that (BGs and numerous other scouts at a variety of different PCs there lobbying) and one that isn't (SNP PPB in this case)


    14.1. Political Activities


    1. The Scout Movement is not connected with any political body.
    2. Members of the Movement in uniform, or individuals when acting as representatives of the Movement, must not take part in any party political meetings or activities that endorse any particular political party or candidate.








    Merely appearing on the platform at a Party Political conference infers endorsement. Bear was in the wrong. Scouts do not and should not wear uniform in a political setting as it can and will be considered as an endorsement.

    It is quite possible to lobby without a uniform. The Tories will have invited Bear to speak, he accepted. He should not have done so in uniform.

    As I said elsewhere. - when I took my Explorers to Area Committee meetings, they went without uniform, because once you step into that forum you cannot be apolitical. The fact that the Chair referred to them as Scouts was outwith my control. Had they been in uniform, their questions, their opinions would have been latched onto as "Scouts" supporting one side or the other.

    As for this incident, back, early in 2020, one has to ask, why has this resurfaced now?

    Did The SNP approach Scouts Scotland, as they say they did? Did Scouts Scotland respond? It looks like they didn't. Either way, the SNP is no more bound by POR than the Tories or indeed Labour.

    For what it is worth, I think the Leader should not have appeared in uniform - neither did I think that Bear should have. I also think that the SNP were a tad disingenuous in the use of the clip, but I doubt that it will do them any harm. What riles me is the faux-indignation of the Unionist opportunists. (especially those who also defend the actions of bear attending a Tory Party Conference and speaking, in uniform). - If the hat fits Marcus.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  5. #4
    Map Geek marcush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,542
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 43 Times in 36 Posts
    Euan you are missing one key point Bear was invited to lobby and as many other scouts have been invited to lobby as SCOUTS

    Rule 66. A map and compass offers no protection against getting horribly lost.

  6. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    2,396
    Thanked 1,724 Times in 1,202 Posts
    The lobbying argument is a technicality. He might have been lobbying, but it's not what they had him there for. If you believe that, then you'll accept the PPB was apolitical because it wasn't about voting for the SNP, it was about the UK constitution - which every party has a view on one way or the other.

    But I wouldn't split hairs about it.


  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,129
    Thanks
    25
    Thanked 239 Times in 132 Posts
    Without going inot too much detail, i would have thought there is a difference between Talking to a political group (as long as the content doesn't endorse anything) and campaigning with a political group.
    So standing on stage/addressing a group - not political ( as long as not endorsing something)
    making your presence known as a Scout leader/representative whilst campaigning and endorsing - political and not allowed.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Richard T For This Useful Post:

    shiftypete (14-10-2020)

  9. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    2,396
    Thanked 1,724 Times in 1,202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard T View Post
    Without going inot too much detail, i would have thought there is a difference between Talking to a political group (as long as the content doesn't endorse anything) and campaigning with a political group.
    So standing on stage/addressing a group - not political ( as long as not endorsing something)
    making your presence known as a Scout leader/representative whilst campaigning and endorsing - political and not allowed.
    I think that ignores association, there's a bit of a difference between writing to or meeting your MP or minister for whatever and appearing at any party conference. Political parties know what they're doing with this. The real issue is the faux outrage when it happens. I'm not sure what the SNP are saying about it, they're not denying it. On the other hand, there are lots of 'buts' about Bear Grylls' appearance.

    Grylls may have been there to lobby for Scouts, but he was also there because the Tories wanted him (and Scouts) to be there for their image. It would be easier to just own it. (I think as well, there's a big difference between Betty the SL and Bear Grylls the Chief Scout too.)

    Did the SNP do it deliberately? Of course they did. 'Scottish' Tories are gurning about it, it's all quite fake. No one cares. It wouldn't surprise me if some SNP wonk did it deliberately to troll the conservatives up this way.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    Bushfella (14-10-2020)

  11. #8
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    16,711
    Thanks
    687
    Thanked 3,579 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by marcush View Post
    Euan you are missing one key point Bear was invited to lobby and as many other scouts have been invited to lobby as SCOUTS
    Not the point. He breached POR.

    Either you have a rule or you don't. If it is okay for Bear to wear uniform to a party political conference - and thereby infer endorsement, then it is okay for a Leader to endorse a political party as was done in this video.

    They were both in the wrong. Either that, or Scouts need to revisit their rules in more detail.

    In today's world, attending a political meeting in uniform WILL be taken as a political statement by Scouts. (And there are arguably times when Scouts should make political statements, but they very rarely do in public).

    You cannot have it both ways.

    In case anyone was in any doubt - I an a member of the SNP, I can't vote for them but I can support them - However, I am saying that this Leader should not have appeared in the broadcast. Equally, Bear should not have been complicit in the Conservative Party machinations by appearing at their conference in uniform.

    You want one to be acceptable - because of your own political tendencies, and the other not, by way of those same tendencies. That is not the point here. It is either right, or it is wrong. It is a pretty much black and white thing.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bushfella For This Useful Post:

    dragonhhjh (15-10-2020),Ian Mallett (17-10-2020),pa_broon74 (14-10-2020),richardnhunt (14-10-2020)

  13. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    80
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
    I get why BG did the conferences, and wasn't this as part of a series of lobbying at all the major UK wide parties at the time? But to be honest doesn't sit well with me.

    Locally there is a split in a location, where Scouting is linked politically for totally innocent and understandable reasons with one party and an alternative youth organisation is being heavily promoted by prominent members of another party which in my view is not massively helpful to either side or scouting.

  14. #10
    Map Geek marcush's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    4,542
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 43 Times in 36 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    Not the point. He breached POR.

    Either you have a rule or you don't. If it is okay for Bear to wear uniform to a party political conference - and thereby infer endorsement, then it is okay for a Leader to endorse a political party as was done in this video.

    They were both in the wrong. Either that, or Scouts need to revisit their rules in more detail.

    In today's world, attending a political meeting in uniform WILL be taken as a political statement by Scouts. (And there are arguably times when Scouts should make political statements, but they very rarely do in public).

    You cannot have it both ways.

    In case anyone was in any doubt - I an a member of the SNP, I can't vote for them but I can support them - However, I am saying that this Leader should not have appeared in the broadcast. Equally, Bear should not have been complicit in the Conservative Party machinations by appearing at their conference in uniform.

    You want one to be acceptable - because of your own political tendencies, and the other not, by way of those same tendencies. That is not the point here. It is either right, or it is wrong. It is a pretty much black and white thing.
    Euan you are making a huge assumption of endorsement... which you cannot prove. You are saying he breached POR on YOUR assumption of what he did, where it has been investigated and found to not be an endorsement, therefore not breaking POR.

    TSA were at other party conferences that year as well lobbying.

    Rule 66. A map and compass offers no protection against getting horribly lost.

  15. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    2,396
    Thanked 1,724 Times in 1,202 Posts
    Unfortunately, it isn't for Bear Grylls to decide how his appearance at a conference will be interpreted by the roiling masses. Many people will have seen it as an endorsement because all they will have seen is Bear Grylls at Tory party conference. (It's also worth noting, Bear only appeared at the Tory party conference. There were scout contingents at other conferences - which most people would accept as lobbying, because loads of business/charities do that - no one from scouts gave speeches at any other conferences that year, at least not to the main hall.)

    I think this is moot anyway, or it is in swathes of the UK. Swearing allegiance to the queen and all the flag stuff is overtly political. While that might not be so in England, it absolutely is in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

    I suspect a lot of people in England (and other parts of the UK) will have blinkers on in this area or will just plain be refusing to see it.

    But. As I said above. Given everything else going on, a flag - to me anyway - is nothing more than a glorified tea towel. I really don't care. Governance? That's a different question however.

    I suppose the real question on this particular topic. We're gurning about a woman in a scout uniform appearing in a PPB, and Bear Grylls doing his thing. As a culture, or people, is it not incumbent on us to be able to look at these instances and decide for ourselves not to be offended or scandalised? Why do we so often assume we need to be protected? Why can't we all just be a bit more balanced about it? Is it really that important?

    Sometimes I think we're more concerned about others getting away with things, as opposed to actually addressing (then perhaps dismissing as unimportant?) the thing we're all so horrified they're getting away with.

  16. #12
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    16,711
    Thanks
    687
    Thanked 3,579 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by marcush View Post
    Euan you are making a huge assumption of endorsement... which you cannot prove. You are saying he breached POR on YOUR assumption of what he did, where it has been investigated and found to not be an endorsement, therefore not breaking POR.

    TSA were at other party conferences that year as well lobbying.


    Marcus, you are an intelligent person. However, your judgement is clouded by your enthusiasm for Scouting, and I guess, your politics. NB - I am open about my politics and I say a plague on both houses in this incident.

    If someone turns up to lobby, they are, well, in the Lobby, they discuss with the influencers, they try to sell their offer to the people who make the decisions. That is all fine, and I have no issue with Scouts, or anyone else turning up and taking a stand in the lobby to promote their offer - so long as they approach the different parties with the same strategy. So, they take a table and some pop up banners and flyers to the lobby of the Tory conference, the Labour, the Liberals, the SNP, Plaid etc... but then, where does the line get drawn? Do they also go to UKIP, who were the contenders that brought us to Brexit? (and who are really at the extremes of British politics and absolutely the antithesis of what we all stand for, surely?). As soon as you say we will lobby at X, Y and Z conferences, but not at A or B, then you have politicised your cause. (You become a distorted version of the Woodcraft Folks, who squarely post their politics under the Red banner.)

    However, for the Chief Scout, to accept an invite from ONE party, to speak, IN UNIFORM, is absolutely showing an endorsement of that party. Do you really think that there was no ploy there at party HQ to use Bear's appearance to attract a certain demographic to their cause? To influence younger voters? You are more intelligent than that.

    Mayhap you are not familiar with how subliminal PR works.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Bushfella For This Useful Post:

    Ian Mallett (17-10-2020)

  18. #13
    Senior Member Kastor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    3,489
    Thanks
    156
    Thanked 610 Times in 338 Posts
    I have no issue with Scouts lobbying the parties. I don't think it matters if they only lobby some of them as you are there to "ask for something" and if a party can't provide it (not in government, too small, wrong area etc.) then there's no point wasting your (and their) time lobbying them.

    BG at the Conservative conference is odd. He must have been cleared by HQ to do it so what was the thinking? What were they intending to get out of it that it was worth risking the breaching POR charges?

    As for the SMP PPB, I don't think it really matters either way. Who actually watches PPBs? How many people will change their votes because of something said in them? I view all politicians as untrustworthy so I don't care what they say as I automatically don't believe it.
    To get more kids we need more adults - are we getting the message yet?

  19. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    5,948
    Thanks
    2,396
    Thanked 1,724 Times in 1,202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kastor View Post
    I have no issue with Scouts lobbying the parties. I don't think it matters if they only lobby some of them as you are there to "ask for something" and if a party can't provide it (not in government, too small, wrong area etc.) then there's no point wasting your (and their) time lobbying them.

    BG at the Conservative conference is odd. He must have been cleared by HQ to do it so what was the thinking? What were they intending to get out of it that it was worth risking the breaching POR charges?

    As for the SMP PPB, I don't think it really matters either way. Who actually watches PPBs? How many people will change their votes because of something said in them? I view all politicians as untrustworthy so I don't care what they say as I automatically don't believe it.
    Yup.

    I think PPB's exist so that opposition parties have some fodder to criticise. As you say, they're doubly crap because they're marketing fluff, and marketing fluff for political parties. It's the food equivalent of a brussels sprout with horse radish on it, neither thing has any qualities that should allow them to exist individually - and less so when they're put together.

  20. #15
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    16,711
    Thanks
    687
    Thanked 3,579 Times in 1,938 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Yup.

    I think PPB's exist so that opposition parties have some fodder to criticise. As you say, they're doubly crap because they're marketing fluff, and marketing fluff for political parties. It's the food equivalent of a brussels sprout with horse radish on it, neither thing has any qualities that should allow them to exist individually - and less so when they're put together.

    I shall add Brussel sprouts and horseradish to pipe bands on your Christmas list.

    I don't mind Brussel sprouts, a I grow my own eye-wateringly hot horseradish, and I'm partial to the pipes...

    PPB exist because at some point someone thought that it would be a good idea to allow the three main parties access to the media - little did they ever think what was going to happen to British politics a century later (The first was broadcast in 1924 - so would have been Tory, Liberal and Labour - The BBC isn't clear on who took part.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Bushfella For This Useful Post:

    pa_broon74 (15-10-2020)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •