Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?

YIS Tony

On 27 Oct, 23:42, Paul Harris  wrote:
> In message <hc75jn$7s...@news.eternal-september.org>, Al
> <al@[nospam].invalid> writes
>
> >Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are
> >well past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> But you seem to be the one trying to find someone to argue with about
> single sex rather than co-ed Scouting and AFAIK no one is supporting the
> single sex option as a preference.

Yes, I'm starting to lose the plot too!

When I asked the question of myself: 'Am I in favour of the current
state of affairs of co-ed provision for yp'? And replied with: 'No'.
It seems that this was read as a backward reflection on the single-sex
debate in scouting. It wasn't. The question doesn't even mention
scouting!

I've mentioned the single-sex debate to put the debate in this thread
into context. (We have looked back at what this thread is called!!?)
The people who counter the proponents of single-sex provision (i.e.
those in favour of co-ed scouting provision) do so with the argument
that scouting and GG are separate organisations.

This, in my view, is a very weak counter argument which a single-sex
supporter will simply toss aside. Scouting and GG are separate
organisations - just like Huddersfield Town and Tranmere Rovers - but
that in the main is where the differences cease.

Some of those in favour of co-ed scouting provision promote their view
by simply dismissing the reasons for the current GG provision. I'd
much rather they promote a view for complete co-ed provision. If they
find single-sex provision in modern scouting to be an anathema then
they should find single-sex provision in modern guiding an anathema
too. But some don't because they simply ignore it by saying we're
separate. We need to bring those in favour of the past into the 21st
century. We won't be able to do that if some yp provisions remain
looking back into the past.

Now going back to the subject question of this thread. My answer, as
it always has been, is yes. That's yes to fully co-ed provision across
scouting and guiding. And it's why I believe that within 20-30 years
the single-sex argument will be finally put to sleep by the scouting
family uniting.

Actually what Al doesn't seem to have picked up on in my posts is my
argument that if the provision across the whole scouting family
(that's scouting and guiding) was co-ed then the single-sex promoters
would have hardly any get out argument. And some saying 'we are
separate organisations' would be meaningless.

Scouting and guiding were established at the start of the 20th
century. And through it they grew and developed. Now in the 21st
century I believe there'll be even more progress and newer
developments based on 21st, not 20th, century thinking.

>
> If there are other issues you would like to discuss please start a
> thread, I am sure some of us will soon join in.

Agree.

GAGS

On 27 Oct, 16:03, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
> "GAGS"  wrote in message
>
> news:f77af3f2-3c09-446c-915a-3998252de8b3@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 27 Oct, 14:10, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >> All these years on and some are still harping on about mixed sections.
> >> Can
> >> we move on please!
>
> >> snip
>
> > Is your entreaty solely directed at Dave?
>
> > GAGS
>
> By "Some"  I mean anyone still protesting the issue.
>
> I have far more important issues locally. We have a massive growth of youth
> in our town, 16 years ago the highest population growth per head anywhere in
> the country and this year they will all be 16. We have next to no provision
> for youth at all. Lowest educational standard in the county, highest violent
> crime in our county, lowest number of FE places, highest number of kids on
> the at risk register, 5%, low access to close open space, leisure
> facilities. Very high teenage pregnancy rate, high uptake recently of
> smoking, high percentage drink to get drunk regularly and high number drink
> every week to get drunk. Large percentage taking drugs, ketamine as its
> easier to get hold of then alcohol according to a policeman friend of mine.
> We also are incredibly socially diverse, with affluence and poverty being
> right next to each other, and I mean literally that neighbors. The endemic
> behavior of the youth is terrifying. The things they seem to find acceptable
> are upsetting, the crimes against some of them which they accept are the
> worst you can imagine. We are still however seen as an old peoples
> retirement town. The local youth services provision is appalling. I
> understand, but am not 100% certain, that the drop in youth places see about
> 120 kids a week. They are paid for by the council, have employed youth
> workers, and when doing outings have taxi's paid for or brand new minibuses.
> We have 1600 youth in our district, each being provided from 1- many hours
> every week of "Adventurous activity with an element of risk". Are front line
> are completely voluntary, with no money, buildings, vehicles, trips being
> paid for by membership subs, fees and fund raising. (I will add off topic
> that our salaried support staff are not impressing me one bit at the moment,
> they don't seem to have a department operating competently that I have had
> dealings with recently)
>
> For me its very important that the provision is for boys and girls!
>
> I cant save the world, much as I would like to, but I can do my bit to
> provide some form of "activity" a few times a week to help a handful just as
> many others here is trying to do. I truly wish I could get more adults to
> join us. I think its great that POL does have some material we can use to
> educate and inform our members about the life issues they may well face as
> well as the usual adventurous stuff. I wish more leaders would be willing to
> give it a try. I wish I could get more SA training on supporting my older
> youth with the issues they face. Short of changing my career not sure how to
> solve that one.
>
> Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are well
> past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> Al

No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
then.

YIS Tony

> > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are well
> > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> > Al
>
> No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> then.
>
> YIS Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

OK
I should be getting ready for camp now but the thought of Al been
Bloody annoyed has kept me up all night,so let me restate my position.
Co educational scouting is timeless and valid. Single sex scouting is
timeless and valid. They are not mutually exclusive and there should
be room for both. Central control of the youth service has reduced it
to a useless expensive mess and it would be far more use if it was
allowed to respond to local needs rather than goverment targets.
Scouting is at its best at local level where the volunteers are
enabled to develope their strenghts and on almost every time HQ has
tried to impose something from the centre it has been a expensive
mess. Up until last year my troops strengh has been provideing
'cutting edge' multi cultral boys work ( traditional scouting) and
gang busting, the scout group half a mile away provided first rate co
educational scouting no one made them they wanted to, and the guides
were doing excellent work particularly with the local muslim
community. Enter HQ with its grand plan to drag scouting kicking and
screaming into the 20th century and no idea of the local situation
telling us to do it their way or else but not willing to stand by
their principle of co education when it comes to co operation with the
guides, more a case of do as we say not what we do or else. Al you are
not the only one to be annoyed.

YIS Tony

"tony"  wrote in message 
news:06d752a9-96a5-4039-8bf9-88a4d4b5ece8@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are 
>> > well
>> > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>>
>> > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>>
>> > Al
>>
>> No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
>> am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
>> then.
>>
>> YIS Tony- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> OK
> I should be getting ready for camp now but the thought of Al been
> Bloody annoyed has kept me up all night,so let me restate my position.
> Co educational scouting is timeless and valid. Single sex scouting is
> timeless and valid. They are not mutually exclusive and there should
> be room for both. Central control of the youth service has reduced it
> to a useless expensive mess and it would be far more use if it was
> allowed to respond to local needs rather than goverment targets.
> Scouting is at its best at local level where the volunteers are
> enabled to develope their strenghts and on almost every time HQ has
> tried to impose something from the centre it has been a expensive
> mess. Up until last year my troops strengh has been provideing
> 'cutting edge' multi cultral boys work ( traditional scouting) and
> gang busting, the scout group half a mile away provided first rate co
> educational scouting no one made them they wanted to, and the guides
> were doing excellent work particularly with the local muslim
> community. Enter HQ with its grand plan to drag scouting kicking and
> screaming into the 20th century and no idea of the local situation
> telling us to do it their way or else but not willing to stand by
> their principle of co education when it comes to co operation with the
> guides, more a case of do as we say not what we do or else. Al you are
> not the only one to be annoyed.
>
> YIS Tony

Tony,

I feel your comments are for more explanatory of your local problem that 
your original post.

Please go and have some sleep your welfare comes before anything else, I 
myself have by coincidence been in my office all night, 2nd night in a row. 
I too am between camps, last weekend troop, tomorrow unit so probably 
unusually tired and irrational. Being extremely short of adults never helps, 
but at least with the Explorers I will be waited on hand and foot. :)

Girls are making Scouting work well locally in my troop and my unit. I would 
cite without a doubt that both are making the sections as successful as they 
are. In every recent event we have entered its the girls who have not only 
made up the majority of the teams but also had successful outcomes. Despite 
the percentage of girls in the troop being only 25%, when we enter an event, 
go camping they are always more then proportionally represented. In the unit 
I have 13 girls and 8 boys. Why don't I have the problems that others cite 
with their units being lethargic, I truly believe its the influence of the 
girls. Scouting is not for everyone, we all know that. I have to say that at 
this time, all of my girl scouts make good scouts, only some of my boy 
scouts make good scouts. As 14 is the age they move to Explorers, having 13 
year old girls to run patrols is very useful as its not a great age for boys 
to do likewise. Without the girls, I wonder how it would be?

Al

"Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hc73tg$ml3$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> However, many studies show boys did better at mixed schools. Some said 
> girls did better at girls schools.  Latest reports now say they all do 
> better at mixed schools. Is this because the earlier studies were wrong or 
> society has changed?

Really? I havn't seen that one. The lastI heard was that acedemically single 
sex girls schools do better that mixed for girls and mixed is better for 
boys that single sexed.

-- 
Stephen Rainsbury
DESC Gillingham, Kent
www.gillinghamscouts.org.uk

On 28 Oct, 13:22, "Stephen Rainsbury" 
wrote:
> "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:hc73tg$ml3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > However, many studies show boys did better at mixed schools. Some said
> > girls did better at girls schools.  Latest reports now say they all do
> > better at mixed schools. Is this because the earlier studies were wrong or
> > society has changed?
>
> Really? I havn't seen that one. The lastI heard was that acedemically single
> sex girls schools do better that mixed for girls and mixed is better for
> boys that single sexed.
>

As I said: '...evidence in this area can be confusing and
conflicting...' I would be wary of using it as 'evidence' to either
promote or counter single-sex or mixed-sex provision.

The sex-bias evidence can vary from LEA to LEA and with selective or
non-selective provision. Look at the so-called evidence one way and
you can get one result, but look at it another way and it can be very
different.

Even in scouting you have to be careful in using such 'evidence'. If I
look at two neighbouring groups in the district next door to me, I see
the mixed-sex one doing reasonably well but the single-sex one
struggling when I look at membership numbers. (And NO the leaders
there are not breaking any rules! They just don't have any girls in
their group - when I last looked.) However, if I had to look at the
success of the two group's programmes I would say that the single-sex
group comes out on top.

So why the dichotomy? Because trying to measure 'success' simply based
on sex-bias is almost impossible. There are many other factors at play
which have an input and trying to focus on one is like trying to score
ten golds with your eyes shut.

The evidence is largely anecdotal.

GAGS

On 28 Oct, 03:13, tony  wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 16:03, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "GAGS"  wrote in message
>
> >news:f77af3f2-3c09-446c-915a-3998252de8b3@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 27 Oct, 14:10, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> snip
>
> > >> All these years on and some are still harping on about mixed sections.
> > >> Can
> > >> we move on please!
>
> > >> snip
>
> > > Is your entreaty solely directed at Dave?
>
> > > GAGS
>
> > By "Some"  I mean anyone still protesting the issue.
>
> > I have far more important issues locally. We have a massive growth of youth
> > in our town, 16 years ago the highest population growth per head anywhere in
> > the country and this year they will all be 16. We have next to no provision
> > for youth at all. Lowest educational standard in the county, highest violent
> > crime in our county, lowest number of FE places, highest number of kids on
> > the at risk register, 5%, low access to close open space, leisure
> > facilities. Very high teenage pregnancy rate, high uptake recently of
> > smoking, high percentage drink to get drunk regularly and high number drink
> > every week to get drunk. Large percentage taking drugs, ketamine as its
> > easier to get hold of then alcohol according to a policeman friend of mine.
> > We also are incredibly socially diverse, with affluence and poverty being
> > right next to each other, and I mean literally that neighbors. The endemic
> > behavior of the youth is terrifying. The things they seem to find acceptable
> > are upsetting, the crimes against some of them which they accept are the
> > worst you can imagine. We are still however seen as an old peoples
> > retirement town. The local youth services provision is appalling. I
> > understand, but am not 100% certain, that the drop in youth places see about
> > 120 kids a week. They are paid for by the council, have employed youth
> > workers, and when doing outings have taxi's paid for or brand new minibuses.
> > We have 1600 youth in our district, each being provided from 1- many hours
> > every week of "Adventurous activity with an element of risk". Are front line
> > are completely voluntary, with no money, buildings, vehicles, trips being
> > paid for by membership subs, fees and fund raising. (I will add off topic
> > that our salaried support staff are not impressing me one bit at the moment,
> > they don't seem to have a department operating competently that I have had
> > dealings with recently)
>
> > For me its very important that the provision is for boys and girls!
>
> > I cant save the world, much as I would like to, but I can do my bit to
> > provide some form of "activity" a few times a week to help a handful just as
> > many others here is trying to do. I truly wish I could get more adults to
> > join us. I think its great that POL does have some material we can use to
> > educate and inform our members about the life issues they may well face as
> > well as the usual adventurous stuff. I wish more leaders would be willing to
> > give it a try. I wish I could get more SA training on supporting my older
> > youth with the issues they face. Short of changing my career not sure how to
> > solve that one.
>
> > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are well
> > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> > Al
>
> No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> then.
>

I don't see why he's annoyed at you!

Enjoy your trip.

GAGS

On 28 Oct, 07:03, tony  wrote:
> > > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are well
> > > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> > > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> > > Al
>
> > No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> > am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> > then.
>
> > YIS Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> OK
> I should be getting ready for camp now but the thought of Al been
> Bloody annoyed has kept me up all night,so let me restate my position.
> Co educational scouting is timeless and valid. Single sex scouting is
> timeless and valid. They are not mutually exclusive and there should
> be room for both. Central control of the youth service has reduced it
> to a useless expensive mess and it would be far more use if it was
> allowed to respond to local needs rather than goverment targets.
> Scouting is at its best at local level where the volunteers are
> enabled to develope their strenghts and on almost every time HQ has
> tried to impose something from the centre it has been a expensive
> mess. Up until last year my troops strengh has been provideing
> 'cutting edge' multi cultral boys work ( traditional scouting) and
> gang busting, the scout group half a mile away provided first rate co
> educational scouting no one made them they wanted to, and the guides
> were doing excellent work particularly with the local muslim
> community. Enter HQ with its grand plan to drag scouting kicking and
> screaming into the 20th century and no idea of the local situation
> telling us to do it their way or else but not willing to stand by
> their principle of co education when it comes to co operation with the
> guides, more a case of do as we say not what we do or else. Al you are
> not the only one to be annoyed.
>

Tony, let me start with the important stuff!

Please don't stay up all night worrying about the whys and wherefores
of mixed-sex or single-sex scouting provision. Furthermore, everyone
here is entitled to have a rant now and again. Everyone else here
understands.

The only two 'post-midnight'/'stay up into the early hours' posters to
ukrs should be SBR (he's a teacher see and they're always up late) and
me (because I like to stand in my garden at night and do some
'peeping' - the name's GAGS not Tom).

:-)

You are absolutely correct in what you say and it does have, I'm sure,
a lot of support. To me the debate isn't really about single going to
mixed, it's about how it's effected, why, where, and when. It's about
the management of the change process. It was crap.

To me (and I'm a proponent of mixed scouting - in fact go even further
- I'm a proponent of union of all 'scouting' programmes) the
progression from a largely single-sex provision to a largely mixed-sex
provision was, with time, largely inevitable. I don't have the figures
- someone such as PH will no doubt supply them! - but since co-ed was
introduced into the junior sections (in 1991?) the numbers of girls in
scouting has been growing year on year and I hazard a guess that the
number up to 07 will have been slightly accelerating. IME, I think the
vast majority of groups round me would have been mixed through
'natural' rather than 'forced' evolution. Ball park figures I recall
where (up to 07): 75% of groups mixed, 25% single, however, half the
latter figure comprised groups that were mixed (in policy) but didn't
have any girls (through no lack of trying) So prior to the 'edict' we
were pushing 90%.

Question of course is; Do you need to squeeze the last 10%? That's a
difficult question to answer. You obviously feel the answer is no. And
I have some sympathy with that view. Then again one has to also look
at the impact of the new programme, the development of Explorers
(which is made up of a significant proportion from the old ventures
which was mixed), issues with running a two-tier system, among others.
It's not easy.

Talking about squeeze I suppose one could look at it from the HP sauce
POV (!!) You've got that last little bit in the bottom. Do you tilt
the bottle, go away for 10 mins, and see it gently run out to dress
your sausage, egg and bacon? Or, you can't wait, so you give the last
bit a ruddy great thump and it either ends up on your sausage, egg and
bacon haphazardly (but you can tidy it up later) or it ends up in your
lap and your fellow leaders figure that you did have a problem with
that curry last night! :-)

When you hit something you generally do end up with casualties (of a
sort). I would've gone for the gentle approach (bide one's time and
get everyone 'out onto the new plate together').

I think the comparison you make with GG is a fair argument and not one
you can simply ignore with the somewhat dismissive 'we are separate
organisations' chant. If you're going to take a hard line and enforce
a change from single to mixed and back that up with a set of reasons
why, then you must be consistent or you risk some people asccusing you
of being hypocritical. I've no doubt that at least one leader has
asked themselves why are they promoting a mixed scouting provision but
then from time-to-time linking with another (sister) organisation
which takes an opposing view. I've no doubt it bemuses some. Even more
so when some of the reasons against change are dismissed by one but
taken up by the other to opose change. Very bemused. I know, someone
will say: We are separate organisations! But many will say: We are not
chalk and cheese; we are more double gloucester and wensleydale!!!

And of course there are some people who say that the 'issue' wouldn't
exist in union! Which sort of answers your question which heads this
thread.

But then those that I know who say this are not in scouting or
guiding. Who cares what they say?

:-)

GAGS

"GAGS"  wrote in message 
news:50d51542-1d58-4ffc-9a90-8b0a0fa2cd02@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On 28 Oct, 03:13, tony  wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 16:03, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "GAGS"  wrote in message
>
> >news:f77af3f2-3c09-446c-915a-3998252de8b3@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 27 Oct, 14:10, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> snip
>
> > >> All these years on and some are still harping on about mixed 
> > >> sections.
> > >> Can
> > >> we move on please!
>
> > >> snip
>
> > > Is your entreaty solely directed at Dave?
>
> > > GAGS
>
> > By "Some" I mean anyone still protesting the issue.
>
> > I have far more important issues locally. We have a massive growth of 
> > youth
> > in our town, 16 years ago the highest population growth per head 
> > anywhere in
> > the country and this year they will all be 16. We have next to no 
> > provision
> > for youth at all. Lowest educational standard in the county, highest 
> > violent
> > crime in our county, lowest number of FE places, highest number of kids 
> > on
> > the at risk register, 5%, low access to close open space, leisure
> > facilities. Very high teenage pregnancy rate, high uptake recently of
> > smoking, high percentage drink to get drunk regularly and high number 
> > drink
> > every week to get drunk. Large percentage taking drugs, ketamine as its
> > easier to get hold of then alcohol according to a policeman friend of 
> > mine.
> > We also are incredibly socially diverse, with affluence and poverty 
> > being
> > right next to each other, and I mean literally that neighbors. The 
> > endemic
> > behavior of the youth is terrifying. The things they seem to find 
> > acceptable
> > are upsetting, the crimes against some of them which they accept are the
> > worst you can imagine. We are still however seen as an old peoples
> > retirement town. The local youth services provision is appalling. I
> > understand, but am not 100% certain, that the drop in youth places see 
> > about
> > 120 kids a week. They are paid for by the council, have employed youth
> > workers, and when doing outings have taxi's paid for or brand new 
> > minibuses.
> > We have 1600 youth in our district, each being provided from 1- many 
> > hours
> > every week of "Adventurous activity with an element of risk". Are front 
> > line
> > are completely voluntary, with no money, buildings, vehicles, trips 
> > being
> > paid for by membership subs, fees and fund raising. (I will add off 
> > topic
> > that our salaried support staff are not impressing me one bit at the 
> > moment,
> > they don't seem to have a department operating competently that I have 
> > had
> > dealings with recently)
>
> > For me its very important that the provision is for boys and girls!
>
> > I cant save the world, much as I would like to, but I can do my bit to
> > provide some form of "activity" a few times a week to help a handful 
> > just as
> > many others here is trying to do. I truly wish I could get more adults 
> > to
> > join us. I think its great that POL does have some material we can use 
> > to
> > educate and inform our members about the life issues they may well face 
> > as
> > well as the usual adventurous stuff. I wish more leaders would be 
> > willing to
> > give it a try. I wish I could get more SA training on supporting my 
> > older
> > youth with the issues they face. Short of changing my career not sure 
> > how to
> > solve that one.
>
> > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are 
> > well
> > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> > Al
>
> No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> then.
>
>
>I don't see why he's annoyed at you!
>
>Enjoy your trip.
>
>GAGS

>

No not annoyed at anyone, just myself for coming here.

Al

"Stephen Rainsbury"  wrote in message 
news:IAXFm.2490$5w5.980@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:hc73tg$ml3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> However, many studies show boys did better at mixed schools. Some said 
>> girls did better at girls schools.  Latest reports now say they all do 
>> better at mixed schools. Is this because the earlier studies were wrong 
>> or society has changed?
>
> Really? I havn't seen that one. The lastI heard was that acedemically 
> single sex girls schools do better that mixed for girls and mixed is 
> better for boys that single sexed.
>
> -- 
> Stephen Rainsbury
> DESC Gillingham, Kent
> www.gillinghamscouts.org.uk
>

Stephen,

I believe that is now superseded, according to the half of the family in 
teaching anyway.

Al

>
> Really? I havn't seen that one. The lastI heard was that acedemically 
> single
> sex girls schools do better that mixed for girls and mixed is better for
> boys that single sexed.
>

>As I said: '...evidence in this area can be confusing and
>conflicting...' I would be wary of using it as 'evidence' to either
>promote or counter single-sex or mixed-sex provision.

I am not coufused, one report from a few years ago, now superceded by 
another. Either the first was wrong or things have changed. Wary why, either 
boys do better co-ed or boys do better co-ed? Both reports suggest the same 
thing, so if we want the best for boys and boy's only then co-ed is better!

>The sex-bias evidence can vary from LEA to LEA and with selective or
>non-selective provision. Look at the so-called evidence one way and
>you can get one result, but look at it another way and it can be very
>different.

This can be the same with any report for anything. Believe me having written 
a few thousand reports for LEA's a few years back they always said what they 
wanted to suggest.

>Even in scouting you have to be careful in using such 'evidence'. If I
>look at two neighbouring groups in the district next door to me, I see
>the mixed-sex one doing reasonably well but the single-sex one
>struggling when I look at membership numbers. (And NO the leaders
>there are not breaking any rules! They just don't have any girls in
>their group - when I last looked.) However, if I had to look at the
>success of the two group's programmes I would say that the single-sex
>group comes out on top.

I sincerely believe my troop and unit are oversubscribed simply because of 
our programme. How many times have we all heard the adage that if you "offer 
a good programme the numbers will follow"? I believe its true, so perhaps 
your view of the better programme is not reflected by the youngsters? How 
are you gauging programme Success?

Al

>Am I in favour of the current state of affairs with fully co-ed
>provision for yp?

>No.

>GAGS

I think its this statement that is confusing me. Perhaps you should expand?

(I shall draw an analogy worthy of some other posters here form time to 
time)
What so some should have to wear buoyancy aides but others do not?

Al

"GAGS"  wrote in message 
news:15c421e7-9ff1-4bca-b885-5ccbb8bc329c@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>on sex-bias is almost impossible. There are many other factors at play
>which have an input and trying to focus on one is like trying to score
>ten golds with your eyes shut.

>The evidence is largely anecdotal.

In scouting then tyes possibly, although I can think of the typical 
"powerhouse" leaders that are full of energy, run a fantastic programme and 
welcome all comers, so here a mixed sectin would flourish, I can also think 
of a few who are only doing it because there is nobody else and have nvere 
mentioned to their mebers that girls CAN join.

At schol its more black and white,  we get GCSE result tables by school, 
where all three girls grammar schools are in the top 5, along with one boys 
grammars at #2 and #5 with teh mixed ones trailing on behind.

-- 
Stephen Rainsbury
DESC Gillingham, Kent
www.gillinghamscouts.org.uk

On 28 Oct, 18:42, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
> > Really? I havn't seen that one. The lastI heard was that acedemically
> > single
> > sex girls schools do better that mixed for girls and mixed is better for
> > boys that single sexed.
>
> >As I said: '...evidence in this area can be confusing and
> >conflicting...' I would be wary of using it as 'evidence' to either
> >promote or counter single-sex or mixed-sex provision.
>
> I am not coufused, one report from a few years ago, now superceded by
> another. Either the first was wrong or things have changed. Wary why, either
> boys do better co-ed or boys do better co-ed? Both reports suggest the same
> thing, so if we want the best for boys and boy's only then co-ed is better!

That doesn't match the evidence in my locale. The so-called 'top'
school is single-sex girls, no. 2 is single-sex boys, 3 single-sex
girls, 4, single-sex girls, 5 single-sex-boys, 6 boys, 7, girls, 8
boys, 9 girls, 10 boys, 11 mixed.....

>
> >The sex-bias evidence can vary from LEA to LEA and with selective or
> >non-selective provision. Look at the so-called evidence one way and
> >you can get one result, but look at it another way and it can be very
> >different.
>
> This can be the same with any report for anything. Believe me having written
> a few thousand reports for LEA's a few years back they always said what they
> wanted to suggest.

So maybe the two you refer to regards mixed and single-sex education
say what the want to say? :-)

>
> >Even in scouting you have to be careful in using such 'evidence'. If I
> >look at two neighbouring groups in the district next door to me, I see
> >the mixed-sex one doing reasonably well but the single-sex one
> >struggling when I look at membership numbers. (And NO the leaders
> >there are not breaking any rules! They just don't have any girls in
> >their group - when I last looked.) However, if I had to look at the
> >success of the two group's programmes I would say that the single-sex
> >group comes out on top.
>
> I sincerely believe my troop and unit are oversubscribed simply because of
> our programme. How many times have we all heard the adage that if you "offer
> a good programme the numbers will follow"? I believe its true,

I believe it GENERALLY true, but scouting is so diverse then while it
may be true in one locale it's not necessarily the case in another.

> so perhaps
> your view of the better programme is not reflected by the youngsters? How
> are you gauging programme Success?

You equate success with numbers. Kids come because you have a good
programme. That's what everyone would like to see, but we all know
that there are many factors at play that can influence the choice of
kid, not just how good a programme is.

The two groups I referred to in the district next door to where I am
are a case in point. One is on the edge of suburbia, the other is 3
miles distant in a small village. The catchment area of the former is
bigger and more densely populated compared to the latter. It can also
draw on kids from 2 primary and two secondary schools; the latter has
only one primary in its area.

The suburban scout group has about 80 kids in 3 sections and IIRC
about 12 leaders. The village group has (IIRC the last time I spoke to
their leaders) 18 kids in one section and 2 leaders. Both are open
sponsored groups, the suburban is mixed, so too is the village one,
but all the girls in the village attend Brownie and Guides, and the
group has no girls (or so it was the last time I went there).

One of the biggest factors we know in the quality of a group's
programme is the input from leaders. In the village group the input is
enormous and of high quality, in the suburban group its good, but not
as high. The village group's programme is recognised as excellent
throughout the district. It proportionately has more chief scouts
awards awarded each year (sometimes even more in absolute numbers!)
and it wins more competitions. Size or make-up isn't always a measure
of success. There are many factors to consider.

GAGS

On 28 Oct, 18:52, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
> >Am I in favour of the current state of affairs with fully co-ed
> >provision for yp?
> >No.
> >GAGS
>
> I think its this statement that is confusing me. Perhaps you should expand?

Why is it confusing?

What is the title of this thread?

Ans: Should guides be part of scouting?

Note, in the above bit you quoted me as saying, I do not say fully co-
ed provision in scouting.

The provision I'm talking about is: Scouting + Guiding. Hence, I say
fully co-ed provision for yp.

You read this as 'scouting' methinks. My use of 'yp' includes scouting
and guiding.

Scout is co-ed. Guiding is single-sex.

Am I happy with that state of affairs? No. As I said!

This thread is about co-ed/single-sex provision in Scouting + Guiding.

>
> (I shall draw an analogy worthy of some other posters here form time to
> time)
> What so some should have to wear buoyancy aides but others do not?
>

I believe when trying to convince someone who supports single-sex
provision to change to mixed it is useless to use weak arguments such
as 'we are separate organisations' to counter those who argue that
Guiding is single-sex so scouting should be the single (other) sex
alternative. It's a naff argument used by the single-sex proponents
and it's also a naff counter used by those who favour mixed-sex
scouting but ignore the provision in guiding. Scouting and Guiding
have more in common than they have different.

It's a natural progression that has led to scouting becoming co-ed. It
didn't need forcing. And it will be a natural progression that I'm
convinced will see ultimate union. At that point the argument will be
finally resolved.

Those who support scouting being co-ed and ignore guiding being single-
sex by saying we are separate organisations and then supporting joint
activities and support for each other have, IMO, somewhat got their
reasoning twisted.

HTH

GAGS

On 28 Oct, 15:00, GAGS  wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 03:13, tony  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 27 Oct, 16:03, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "GAGS"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:f77af3f2-3c09-446c-915a-3998252de8b3@z2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com.> > > > On 27 Oct, 14:10, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > >> snip
>
> > > >> All these years on and some are still harping on about mixed sections.
> > > >> Can
> > > >> we move on please!
>
> > > >> snip
>
> > > > Is your entreaty solely directed at Dave?
>
> > > > GAGS
>
> > > By "Some"  I mean anyone still protesting the issue.
>
> > > I have far more important issues locally. We have a massive growth of youth
> > > in our town, 16 years ago the highest population growth per head anywhere in
> > > the country and this year they will all be 16. We have next to no provision
> > > for youth at all. Lowest educational standard in the county, highest violent
> > > crime in our county, lowest number of FE places, highest number of kids on
> > > the at risk register, 5%, low access to close open space, leisure
> > > facilities. Very high teenage pregnancy rate, high uptake recently of
> > > smoking, high percentage drink to get drunk regularly and high number drink
> > > every week to get drunk. Large percentage taking drugs, ketamine as its
> > > easier to get hold of then alcohol according to a policeman friend of mine.
> > > We also are incredibly socially diverse, with affluence and poverty being
> > > right next to each other, and I mean literally that neighbors. The endemic
> > > behavior of the youth is terrifying. The things they seem to find acceptable
> > > are upsetting, the crimes against some of them which they accept are the
> > > worst you can imagine. We are still however seen as an old peoples
> > > retirement town. The local youth services provision is appalling. I
> > > understand, but am not 100% certain, that the drop in youth places see about
> > > 120 kids a week. They are paid for by the council, have employed youth
> > > workers, and when doing outings have taxi's paid for or brand new minibuses.
> > > We have 1600 youth in our district, each being provided from 1- many hours
> > > every week of "Adventurous activity with an element of risk". Are front line
> > > are completely voluntary, with no money, buildings, vehicles, trips being
> > > paid for by membership subs, fees and fund raising. (I will add off topic
> > > that our salaried support staff are not impressing me one bit at the moment,
> > > they don't seem to have a department operating competently that I have had
> > > dealings with recently)
>
> > > For me its very important that the provision is for boys and girls!
>
> > > I cant save the world, much as I would like to, but I can do my bit to
> > > provide some form of "activity" a few times a week to help a handful just as
> > > many others here is trying to do. I truly wish I could get more adults to
> > > join us. I think its great that POL does have some material we can use to
> > > educate and inform our members about the life issues they may well face as
> > > well as the usual adventurous stuff. I wish more leaders would be willing to
> > > give it a try. I wish I could get more SA training on supporting my older
> > > youth with the issues they face. Short of changing my career not sure how to
> > > solve that one.
>
> > > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are well
> > > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> > > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> > > Al
>
> > No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> > am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> > then.
>
> I don't see why he's annoyed at you!
>
> Enjoy your trip.
>
> GAGS- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That was based on there not been anyone else defending single sex
provision, who is also a full time L.E.A. youth worker.

YIS Tony

On 28 Oct, 09:52, "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote:
> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> news:06d752a9-96a5-4039-8bf9-88a4d4b5ece8@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Coming here and being always distracted by debates, arguments which are
> >> > well
> >> > past their sell by date makes me bloody annoyed!
>
> >> > My sincere apologies for the rant!
>
> >> > Al
>
> >> No Gags, from the above I think it might be me he is bloody annoyed at
> >> am going camping till Friday Hopefully I shall return to the debate
> >> then.
>
> >> YIS Tony- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > OK
> > I should be getting ready for camp now but the thought of Al been
> > Bloody annoyed has kept me up all night,so let me restate my position.
> > Co educational scouting is timeless and valid. Single sex scouting is
> > timeless and valid. They are not mutually exclusive and there should
> > be room for both. Central control of the youth service has reduced it
> > to a useless expensive mess and it would be far more use if it was
> > allowed to respond to local needs rather than goverment targets.
> > Scouting is at its best at local level where the volunteers are
> > enabled to develope their strenghts and on almost every time HQ has
> > tried to impose something from the centre it has been a expensive
> > mess. Up until last year my troops strengh has been provideing
> > 'cutting edge' multi cultral boys work ( traditional scouting) and
> > gang busting, the scout group half a mile away provided first rate co
> > educational scouting no one made them they wanted to, and the guides
> > were doing excellent work particularly with the local muslim
> > community. Enter HQ with its grand plan to drag scouting kicking and
> > screaming into the 20th century and no idea of the local situation
> > telling us to do it their way or else but not willing to stand by
> > their principle of co education when it comes to co operation with the
> > guides, more a case of do as we say not what we do or else. Al you are
> > not the only one to be annoyed.
>
> > YIS Tony
>
> Tony,
>
> I feel your comments are for more explanatory of your local problem that
> your original post.
>
> Please go and have some sleep your welfare comes before anything else, I
> myself have by coincidence been in my office all night, 2nd night in a row.
> I too am between camps, last weekend troop, tomorrow unit so probably
> unusually tired and irrational. Being extremely short of adults never helps,
> but at least with the Explorers I will be waited on hand and foot. :)
>
> Girls are making Scouting work well locally in my troop and my unit. I would
> cite without a doubt that both are making the sections as successful as they
> are. In every recent event we have entered its the girls who have not only
> made up the majority of the teams but also had successful outcomes. Despite
> the percentage of girls in the troop being only 25%, when we enter an event,
> go camping they are always more then proportionally represented. In the unit
> I have 13 girls and 8 boys. Why don't I have the problems that others cite
> with their units being lethargic, I truly believe its the influence of the
> girls. Scouting is not for everyone, we all know that. I have to say that at
> this time, all of my girl scouts make good scouts, only some of my boy
> scouts make good scouts. As 14 is the age they move to Explorers, having 13
> year old girls to run patrols is very useful as its not a great age for boys
> to do likewise. Without the girls, I wonder how it would be?
>
> Al- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thank you Al,

Let me assure you, the way you are delivering scouting is not my
target, it is right that scouting is provided for girls as well as
boys, you clearly are not only 'talking that talk you are walking the
walk'.

My concern is that All scouting is been forced to change from a place
where boys had a space of their own, where they if they wanted to eat
well at camp they had to learn to cook because no female was there to
do it for them and if they wanted the little ones to put every thing
into winning a compedition then they had to show them that you cared
about them, to yet another place where they are called stupid by the
chief scout, physically attacked by girl scouts and have their needs
marginalised.

Ten to fourteen is a great age for boys if you expect them to climb
trees, wrestle, camp, swim, cook/set fire to things and during those
activities you can help them develope social skills which are
transferable to their future needs as fathers and members of the
community. Just be aware that on AVERAGE at that age, girls develope
the social skills now in favour two years ahead of boys, so unless you
handle mixing carefully you will proable end up with the leaders 'in
group' been mainly girls and the 'difficult group' been mainly boys.

 A lot of 21st centuary boys are faced with an almost exclusively
feminised primary education system, a lack of  positive male role
models at home, and a very distorted media image of the way adult
males should behave. Scoutings original brief was to provide positive
outlets and male role models to boys no matter what their race or
religion which is a large undertaking in itself paritcularly in my
community where extermists from all sides are trying to turn young men
against each other.

 It was notable that whilst rent a mobs were roiting outside the local
mosque we were turning down offers of protect from local young people
from all communities who wanted to make sure that 'their scouts' were
all right, I remain 'their scout guy' more than Gilwells. That having
been said there is no point in protecting our group from outside
extremists only to have it destroyed by the extremists in Gilwell with
their one size fits all policy so we will find a intelligent way of
catering for everyones needs.

YIS Tony

On 27 Oct, 13:16, "Dave"  wrote:


> I don't know how they collect their numbers as it certainly isn't the same
> way Scouting do. I bet that if money was not involved we would have more
> members !!
>
> That said the Guides have stated the 500, 000 figure for years.
>
> Again as the statement above it is youth members that are the important
> figure. The Guides may have more adults etc to make that figure up to make
> it more than Scouting.
>
> I am not sure where the Guides figures came from either.

To answer your questions:

The figures for 2009 taken from the national website are:
Rainbows 80000
Brownies 225000
Guides 125000
Senior section 20000
Adult volunteers 87000
Other adult supporters 13000

These figures are collected at an annual census on February 22nd and
the annual membership fee is paid per capita at the same time.  There
has always been a suspicion that some Leaders understate their numbers
to save money.  The amount of annual membership fee varies from county
to county.  Mine in Essex West was £22 last year.    I think the
relative strength of Scouting and Guiding varies hugely from locality
to locality.

Hilary Prollins
Guide Unit Leader

"tony"  wrote in message 
news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
> Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
> operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
> after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
> maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
> the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>
Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you have 
failed to move me.

Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and I'm 
happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do in 
Scouting.

I'd just as easily work with the Woodcraft Folks, or the Boys Brigade if it 
helped us develop better understanding and community spirit.

I guess I'm saying, for the second time this week, "Whatever".

Ewan Scott

On 4 Nov, 12:37, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
> > Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
> > operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
> > after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
> > maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
> > the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>
> Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you have
> failed to move me.

  Thats OK Ewan, not been a DC I won't force you to do anything you
don't think is right. ;-)


> Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and I'm
> happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do in
> Scouting.




> I'd just as easily work with the Woodcraft Folks, or the Boys Brigade if it
> helped us develop better understanding and community spirit.
>
> I guess I'm saying, for the second time this week, "Whatever".
>
> Ewan Scott

On 4 Nov, 12:37, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
> > Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
> > operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
> > after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
> > maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
> > the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>
> Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you have
> failed to move me.

Oh dear! :-(

>
> Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and I'm
> happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do in
> Scouting.

Yes totally separate. What guides do is up to them and they have no
bearing on what people in scouting may think?

>
> I'd just as easily work with the Woodcraft Folks, or the Boys Brigade if it
> helped us develop better understanding and community spirit.

Absolutely!

So if guides say single-sex provision is best for them, because it's
all about letting some yp have their own space, then people in
scouting should recognise that and at the same time their own support
for mixed provision and dismissal of the own-space argument doesn't
have any bearing?

Hmm...

So if a dad comes up and says: 'Can my son Tarquin join your Scouts?'
And continues, 'Tarquin needs his own space to develop so I'd prefer
him to be in single-sex provision'. (You have to assume this parent is
somewhat misguided.) In reply: 'We are a co-ed organisation, not
single-sex! You need to think again about what you want for your son.
Let me know but excuse me for now because I'm late for a meeting with
the guides to plan a joint activity prog for next term.'

Yes I can see. Whatever.

>
> I guess I'm saying, for the second time this week, "Whatever".

Whatever what?

GAGS

On 4 Nov, 12:37, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
> > Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
> > operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
> > after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
> > maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
> > the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>
> Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you have
> failed to move me.
>
> Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and I'm
> happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do in
> Scouting.

OK lets play Lets Pretend.  You want to pretend that Scouting and
Guiding are not and never have been linked. How is Uk Rec Scouting
discribed, discussion of Scouting in UK , discussion of Scouting,
Guiding, Woodcrafting and Boys Brigadeing in UK,or discussion of
Scouting and Guiding in UK ?

YIS Tony

> Absolutely!
>
> So if guides say single-sex provision is best for them, because it's
> all about letting some yp have their own space, then people in
> scouting should recognise that and at the same time their own support
> for mixed provision and dismissal of the own-space argument doesn't
> have any bearing?
>
> Hmm...
>
> So if a dad comes up and says: 'Can my son Tarquin join your Scouts?'
> And continues, 'Tarquin needs his own space to develop so I'd prefer
> him to be in single-sex provision'. (You have to assume this parent is
> somewhat misguided.) In reply: 'We are a co-ed organisation, not
> single-sex! You need to think again about what you want for your son.
> Let me know but excuse me for now because I'm late for a meeting with
> the guides to plan a joint activity prog for next term.'
>
> Yes I can see. Whatever.
>
Nice one GAGS.

I could point him to another Group which is single sex. But since we flag 
quite obviously that we are co-ed, it isn't going to happen. And 
co-operation with Guides, well, I keep trying but they don't want to play 
ball. I suspect they fear the losses they might incur.

Ewan Scott

"tony"  wrote in message 
news:42d9995f-0ae3-4352-a51d-64fb1df82320@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Nov, 12:37, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
>> "tony"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> 
>> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
>> > Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
>> > operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
>> > after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
>> > maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
>> > the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>>
>> Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you 
>> have
>> failed to move me.
>>
>> Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and 
>> I'm
>> happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do 
>> in
>> Scouting.
>
> OK lets play Lets Pretend.  You want to pretend that Scouting and
> Guiding are not and never have been linked. How is Uk Rec Scouting
> discribed, discussion of Scouting in UK , discussion of Scouting,
> Guiding, Woodcrafting and Boys Brigadeing in UK,or discussion of
> Scouting and Guiding in UK ?
>
Not what I said.

I'll work with any other youth group. But the question as to whether Guides 
or anyone else should be a member of the Scouting family is just a nothing 
idea. As a Scout I am a brother to my fellow Scouters, and to all mankind. 
It matters not one iota to me whether they are Guides, Woodcraft Folk, 
UKBPSA, UK BSA, Federation, Boys Brigade, Local Youth Service, lets all join 
in and exchange views.  We are all in the widest sense of what we do, 
kinfolk. So your original question is for me, pointless, that we are kinfolk 
is a given. It isn't worth debate. Equally, what any one of them do on a day 
to day basis has no impact on what we do in Scouts.

Maybe I'm being particularly thick this week, but I fail to understand the 
point of your original post?

Ewan Scott

On 6 Nov, 08:50, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
.
>
> Maybe I'm being particularly thick this week,

.. nope... too easy... i'll just walk away...

On 6 Nov, 08:42, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> > Absolutely!
>
> > So if guides say single-sex provision is best for them, because it's
> > all about letting some yp have their own space, then people in
> > scouting should recognise that and at the same time their own support
> > for mixed provision and dismissal of the own-space argument doesn't
> > have any bearing?
>
> > Hmm...
>
> > So if a dad comes up and says: 'Can my son Tarquin join your Scouts?'
> > And continues, 'Tarquin needs his own space to develop so I'd prefer
> > him to be in single-sex provision'. (You have to assume this parent is
> > somewhat misguided.) In reply: 'We are a co-ed organisation, not
> > single-sex! You need to think again about what you want for your son.
> > Let me know but excuse me for now because I'm late for a meeting with
> > the guides to plan a joint activity prog for next term.'
>
> > Yes I can see. Whatever.
>
> Nice one GAGS.

Thank you.

>
> I could point him to another Group which is single sex. But since we flag
> quite obviously that we are co-ed, it isn't going to happen.

And so.....?

> And
> co-operation with Guides, well, I keep trying but they don't want to play
> ball. I suspect they fear the losses they might incur.
>

The guides may not want to play with you but they do play a lot with
many others in your Movement.

GAGS

On 6 Nov, 08:50, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> news:42d9995f-0ae3-4352-a51d-64fb1df82320@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 4 Nov, 12:37, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> >> "tony"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:5f9c9200-4309-4f92-8070-4f9d3b52f4bf@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com.> >> Given the hard line been taken by HQ against Scout Leaders they see as
> >> > Sexist isn't it time they really went all the way and stopped all co
> >> > operation bettween the scouts and that very sexist guide movement
> >> > after all giving girls their own space is just as sexist as trying to
> >> > maintain a tradition of boys work so why is HQ still working alongside
> >> > the guides? Shouldn't they practice what they preach?
>
> >> Oh, I've tried to motivate myself to contribute but for once Tony, you
> >> have
> >> failed to move me.
>
> >> Guides are Guides, Scouts are Scouts, as a Scouter I wish them well and
> >> I'm
> >> happy to work with them but they have absolutely no bearing on what I do
> >> in
> >> Scouting.
>
> > OK lets play Lets Pretend.  You want to pretend that Scouting and
> > Guiding are not and never have been linked. How is Uk Rec Scouting
> > discribed, discussion of Scouting in UK , discussion of Scouting,
> > Guiding, Woodcrafting and Boys Brigadeing in UK,or discussion of
> > Scouting and Guiding in UK ?
>
> Not what I said.
>
> I'll work with any other youth group. But the question as to whether Guides
> or anyone else should be a member of the Scouting family is just a nothing
> idea. As a Scout I am a brother to my fellow Scouters, and to all mankind> It matters not one iota to me whether they are Guides, Woodcraft Folk,
> UKBPSA, UK BSA, Federation, Boys Brigade, Local Youth Service, lets all join
> in and exchange views.  We are all in the widest sense of what we do,
> kinfolk. So your original question is for me, pointless, that we are kinfolk
> is a given. It isn't worth debate. Equally, what any one of them do on a day
> to day basis has no impact on what we do in Scouts.
>
> Maybe I'm being particularly thick this week, but I fail to understand the
> point of your original post?
>

Do you believe GGUK is sexist?

Do you believe that the SA is sexist?

Do you believe that 'some kids need their own space' is a valid
argument to oppose co-ed/mixed provision?

Do you believe that it is the duty of every leader in scouting to
promote equal opportunities for all regardless of gender?

Do you believe that a scout group that argues for and/or promotes
opportunities based on gender (i.e. promotes single-sex only
activities) is going against the aims of the movement in this country?

Should a leader promote any activity that supports (even if
incidentally and/or indirectly) single-sex provision of an activity in
any form or part?

Should scout groups/sections work closely with GGUK?

Go back to Q1. Is there any issue with saying 'yes'? Is there any
issue with saying 'no'. If you were to abdicate from giving such an
answer (i.e. you can't/don't say yes/no, or an answer of yes/no is
somehow not relevant), do you isolate/ignore anyone?

I think the above, in a sense, summarises Tony's argument.

GAGS

>

>Do you believe GGUK is sexist?

It doesn't matter if it is, to me.

>Do you believe that the SA is sexist?

I think not.

>Do you believe that 'some kids need their own space' is a valid
>argument to oppose co-ed/mixed provision?

It can be as valid as you wish. It doesn't matter because I run Scouts 
co-ed.


>Do you believe that it is the duty of every leader in scouting to
>promote equal opportunities for all regardless of gender?

Yes

>Do you believe that a scout group that argues for and/or promotes
>opportunities based on gender (i.e. promotes single-sex only
>activities) is going against the aims of the movement in this country?

Yes

>Should a leader promote any activity that supports (even if
>incidentally and/or indirectly) single-sex provision of an activity in
>any form or part?

If it is relevant. Can't think of too many such areas though.

>Should scout groups/sections work closely with GGUK?

If they wish to. If there is an opportunity.

>Go back to Q1. Is there any issue with saying 'yes'? Is there any
>issue with saying 'no'. If you were to abdicate from giving such an
>answer (i.e. you can't/don't say yes/no, or an answer of yes/no is
>somehow not relevant), do you isolate/ignore anyone?

>I think the above, in a sense, summarises Tony's argument.

Still doesn't seem to get me fired up. Bigger fish to fry.

Ewan Scott

"Chris.5th"  wrote in message 
news:18bd7b8f-b576-4904-85e7-ee8f6ab5eb4a@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Nov, 08:50, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> .
>>
>> Maybe I'm being particularly thick this week,
>
> .. nope... too easy... i'll just walk away...

Later, my friend, later....

>>
> 
> The guides may not want to play with you but they do play a lot with
> many others in your Movement.
> 
and this should worry me, why?

Ewan Scott

On 6 Nov, 17:29, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> >Do you believe GGUK is sexist?

> snip all the bits in the middle
>
> >Go back to Q1. Is there any issue with saying 'yes'?

Some would argue there is an issue, particularly as such an answer
could be viewed by some as not being conducive to promoting good
relationships.

> Is there any
> >issue with saying 'no'.

Some would argue there is because it's quite clear that the methods of
the two are very different, viz. scouting promotes co-ed and opposes
single-sex and GGUK is the opposite.

So which is it!!?

> If you were to abdicate from giving such an
> >answer (i.e. you can't/don't say yes/no, or an answer of yes/no is
> >somehow not relevant), do you isolate/ignore anyone?

You ignore the wishes of those leaders in scouting who wish to see
single-sex provision to some extent.

As Tony says/infers, if you promote co-ed then to be consistent that
should be the case in all that you do. It leaves one open to questions
if you're not consistent and have/enforce co-ed in your organisation
but ignore the status of provision in another that you work closely
with.

> >I think the above, in a sense, summarises Tony's argument.
>
> Still doesn't seem to get me fired up. Bigger fish to fry.

Halibut? :-)

>

It's an issue/argument that can go on and on and satifies few.

It isn't an issue with me. I never used the arguments that both sides
often use. And my views on this issue are clearly not hypocritical.

Salmon for dinner tonight for me.

GAGS

On 6 Nov, 17:29, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "Chris.5th"  wrote in message
>
> news:18bd7b8f-b576-4904-85e7-ee8f6ab5eb4a@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 6 Nov, 08:50, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> > .
>
> >> Maybe I'm being particularly thick this week,
>
> > .. nope... too easy... i'll just walk away...
>
> Later, my friend, later....

:-)

no matter how crap it all seems... there's always people going through
soooo much more... stay strong!

As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
Guiding doesn't reciprocate BUT the Guide movement had no say in
Scouting choosing to become mixed, nor should it have done, and
equally, as others have said, Scouting has no say in what Guiding
chooses to do.  That sentence is far too long, sorry.
Hilary

"Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message 
news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
> organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
> by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
> Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
> part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
> have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
> Guiding doesn't reciprocate BUT the Guide movement had no say in
> Scouting choosing to become mixed, nor should it have done, and
> equally, as others have said, Scouting has no say in what Guiding
> chooses to do.  That sentence is far too long, sorry.
> Hilary


Well put, even if in a long sentence or two :-)

In a spirit of tolerance I see no issue in Scouts being Co-ed and Guides 
being exclusively female.

We meet where we touch. No more, no less.

Ewan Scott

In message , Ewan Scott 
 writes
>
>"Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message 
>news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>> As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
>> organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
>> by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
>> Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
>> part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
>> have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
>> Guiding doesn't reciprocate BUT the Guide movement had no say in
>> Scouting choosing to become mixed, nor should it have done, and
>> equally, as others have said, Scouting has no say in what Guiding
>> chooses to do.  That sentence is far too long, sorry.
>> Hilary
>
>
>Well put, even if in a long sentence or two :-)
>
Agreed

>In a spirit of tolerance I see no issue in Scouts being Co-ed and 
>Guides being exclusively female.
>
True

>We meet where we touch. No more, no less.
>
Now I am not so sure about that, could be a yellow card!
>

-- 
Paul Harris

On 9 Nov, 08:35, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> "Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message
>
> news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
> > organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
> > by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
> > Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
> > part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
> > have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
> > Guiding doesn't reciprocate

Reciprocate? In what way?

> BUT the Guide movement had no say in
> > Scouting choosing to become mixed,

BUT what has that got to do with the above?

> nor should it have done, and
> > equally, as others have said, Scouting has no say in what Guiding
> > chooses to do.  That sentence is far too long, sorry.
> > Hilary
>
> Well put, even if in a long sentence or two :-)
>
> In a spirit of tolerance I see no issue in Scouts being Co-ed and Guides
> being exclusively female.

Why do you see a need for tolerance?

Do you feel everyone sees 'no issue' like you do?

To someone who sees guides being single-sex and scouting mixed and who
is constantly told there is no issue because there's no comparison  -
'they're separate organisations' - there is an issue and
inconsistency.

I have an issue of a similar sort but it's not with scouting going
mixed.

And I am consistent.

>
> We meet where we touch. No more, no less.
>

We touch a lot of people but with some....

:-)

GAGS

On Nov 9, 4:40 pm, GAGS  wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 08:35, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
>
> > "Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message
>
> >news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
> > > organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
> > > by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
> > > Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
> > > part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
> > > have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
> > > Guiding doesn't reciprocate
>
> Reciprocate? In what way?

I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.  Although of
course there are lots of jointly-organised events.

Hilary

In message 
, 
Hilary Prollins  writes
>On Nov 9, 4:40 pm, GAGS  wrote:
>> On 9 Nov, 08:35, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
>>
>> > "Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message
>>
>> >news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
>> > > organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
>> > > by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
>> > > Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
>> > > part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
>> > > have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
>> > > Guiding doesn't reciprocate
>>
>> Reciprocate? In what way?
>
>I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.

I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to why 
that is?

-- 
Paul Harris

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:23:39 -0000, Paul Harris  wrote:

>>> Reciprocate? In what way?
>>
>> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.
>
> I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to why  
> that is?

Perhaps GG don't believe there is enough barbed wire in the world to  
seperate the "randy" Scouts.

That's a quote from one of our less enlightened local guide leaders.  The  
younger ones looked on agast!

I fully believe that some Guide leaders, and give them their due, probably  
some Scout leaders as well, believe that if you put males and females  
together, you are bound to end up with more attending next year's camp,  
for all the wrong reasons.

-- 
Tony Mochan

>> In a spirit of tolerance I see no issue in Scouts being Co-ed and Guides
>> being exclusively female.

>Why do you see a need for tolerance?

Why, do you not? Intolerance is the root of many problems.

>Do you feel everyone sees 'no issue' like you do?

Apparently some see an issue. It quite simply isn't one that I feel a need 
to get aggrieved about. I could equally think of a dozen other areas where 
my ideas differ from the next leader's, I am not about to eschew their 
friendship because we have a different view on thing. You know that much.


>To someone who sees guides being single-sex and scouting mixed and who
>is constantly told there is no issue because there's no comparison  -
>'they're separate organisations' - there is an issue and
>inconsistency.

Only if you try to equate the two.

I don't and I quite simply don't see it as an issue. Either way.

Ewan Scott

In message <op.u25k94i2700lht@mochalap>, Tony Mochan 
 writes
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:23:39 -0000, Paul Harris  wrote:
>
>>> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.
>>
>> I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to 
>>why   that is?
>
>Perhaps GG don't believe there is enough barbed wire in the world to 
>seperate the "randy" Scouts.
>
Having attended many mixed events I would say that the balance is quite 
even but some Guide Leaders do think that barbed wire isn't enough. 
According to them you need razor wire, electric fences and a Guide 
Leader on Patrol until all the young people are safely tucked up in bed. 
They normally see sense after a couple of days standing guard.

>That's a quote from one of our less enlightened local guide leaders. 
>The younger ones looked on agast!
>
There are still people who think like that but it doesn't stop the 
Guides attending Jamborees etc. and having a good time.

>I fully believe that some Guide leaders, and give them their due, 
>probably some Scout leaders as well, believe that if you put males and 
>females together, you are bound to end up with more attending next 
>year's camp, for all the wrong reasons.
>
There are still some who think that way but that doesn't really explain 
why the Scouts invite the Guides (and they accept) but the Guides do not 
invite the Scouts.  Are you suggesting that all Guide led events are run 
by the old School.
-- 
Paul Harris

"Paul Harris"  wrote in message 
news:dszDAbCvOS+KFwCT@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
SNIP
> There are still some who think that way but that doesn't really explain 
> why the Scouts invite the Guides (and they accept) but the Guides do not 
> invite the Scouts.  Are you suggesting that all Guide led events are run 
> by the old School.

Do we know (cos I don't) what events Guides organise on a National basis to 
which Scouts could be invited?

I'm not saying there aren't any, I genuinely do not know. That said I do 
know that there is a large camp at Harewood House in Leeds this year as part 
of Guide Centenary Celebrations (the local Guides are not happy with some of 
the arrangements but that is another story), but am not aware that there has 
been any invite to Scouts from my County not have I seen anything in 
Scouting suggesting that any have.

I guess that some adults may have been invited along with the Chief Scout 
possibly but no kids?

I do believe that there are some things that seem to be a joint venture like 
the Scout & Guide Orchestra etc. Other than that I thing that most 
colaboration between the 2 organisations is managed locally (Groups and 
Districts mainly and occasionally County.

Can't answer the question on who organises guide events, but do think that a 
lot of Scout events are organised by the old school.

DaveB
West Yorks

"Paul Harris"  wrote in message 
news:dszDAbCvOS+KFwCT@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
> In message <op.u25k94i2700lht@mochalap>, Tony Mochan  
> writes
>>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:23:39 -0000, Paul Harris  wrote:
>>
>>>> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.
>>>
>>> I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to why 
>>> that is?
>>
>>Perhaps GG don't believe there is enough barbed wire in the world to 
>>seperate the "randy" Scouts.
>>
> Having attended many mixed events I would say that the balance is quite 
> even but some Guide Leaders do think that barbed wire isn't enough. 
> According to them you need razor wire, electric fences and a Guide Leader 
> on Patrol until all the young people are safely tucked up in bed. They 
> normally see sense after a couple of days standing guard.

I think GG nationally are pretty switched on, they had peer mentoring a good 
year before we had the H&SW factsheet.

Over heard at a large joint gethering a while back!
Guide leader "Will you stop your scouts coming to see the guides"
Scout Leader "Well can you ask your guides to stop flashing at the scouts 
then"
I am pleased to report after a short exchange, both parties saw sense and 
joined forces for the rest of the week, cooking,eating and socialising 
together. Once it was no longer forbidden to mix it lost its appeal pretty 
quick I understand!

Sometimes putting up physical or other barriers can be completely the wrong 
thing to do. Generally the boys scouts and Girls scout in my troop are faily 
uninterested in each other. Joint meeting with local guides, still 
uninterested. So telling them to mix and they dont! Go to camp and tell them 
that some Guide leaders have asked for them to stay away from their camp and 
within a few minutes you will be able to follow the scent trail of Lynx from 
our camp to the guide site!

Was it any different when we were young, yes, in fact I think it was much 
worse because we were never formally allowed to do anything together. So for 
me every friday night 21:00, Scouts and guides finished and moments later we 
were meeting up in the local wreck or grave yard(Sad but true).

Al

"Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hdbt9k$ie3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
SNIP
> Was it any different when we were young, yes, in fact I think it was much 
> worse because we were never formally allowed to do anything together. So 
> for me every friday night 21:00, Scouts and guides finished and moments 
> later we were meeting up in the local wreck or grave yard(Sad but true).
>
> Al
>
When I was a Scout in the 1970s we had 2 or 3 camps a year with the local 
guides. The Leaders got on well and were neighbours and went drinking 
together etc.

There was none of this 2 separate fields etc. OK the Guides down one length 
the Scouts down the other but only 20 yards apart. That gave us an area in 
the middle for games etc and the flag pole.

For some activities the Guides were together and the Scouts together and for 
other activities they were mixed patrols.

When the second Guide Company opened the new Leader there was cautious but 
was interested but soon discovered that she had nothing to fear and her 
girls got involved too.

We had lots of shared activities and hikes etc and no problems at all.

I do know of others at the time and even now want them to be totally apart 
at activities. So be it.

DaveB
West Yorks

"Dave"  wrote in message 
news:HcCdnWpuOb8wH2TXnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:hdbt9k$ie3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> SNIP
>> Was it any different when we were young, yes, in fact I think it was much 
>> worse because we were never formally allowed to do anything together. So 
>> for me every friday night 21:00, Scouts and guides finished and moments 
>> later we were meeting up in the local wreck or grave yard(Sad but true).
>>
>> Al
>>
> When I was a Scout in the 1970s we had 2 or 3 camps a year with the local 
> guides. The Leaders got on well and were neighbours and went drinking 
> together etc.
>
> There was none of this 2 separate fields etc. OK the Guides down one 
> length the Scouts down the other but only 20 yards apart. That gave us an 
> area in the middle for games etc and the flag pole.
>
> For some activities the Guides were together and the Scouts together and 
> for other activities they were mixed patrols.
>
> When the second Guide Company opened the new Leader there was cautious but 
> was interested but soon discovered that she had nothing to fear and her 
> girls got involved too.
>
> We had lots of shared activities and hikes etc and no problems at all.
>
> I do know of others at the time and even now want them to be totally apart 
> at activities. So be it.
>
> DaveB
> West Yorks
>

Dave,

No, just no problems you were aware of!  When it comes down to it, kids will 
be kids whatever association they belong to!

Al

"Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hdc2l6$2if$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Dave"  wrote in message 
> news:HcCdnWpuOb8wH2TXnZ2dnUVZ8o6dnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
>>
>> "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
>> news:hdbt9k$ie3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> SNIP
>>> Was it any different when we were young, yes, in fact I think it was 
>>> much worse because we were never formally allowed to do anything 
>>> together. So for me every friday night 21:00, Scouts and guides finished 
>>> and moments later we were meeting up in the local wreck or grave 
>>> yard(Sad but true).
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>> When I was a Scout in the 1970s we had 2 or 3 camps a year with the local 
>> guides. The Leaders got on well and were neighbours and went drinking 
>> together etc.
>>
>> There was none of this 2 separate fields etc. OK the Guides down one 
>> length the Scouts down the other but only 20 yards apart. That gave us an 
>> area in the middle for games etc and the flag pole.
>>
>> For some activities the Guides were together and the Scouts together and 
>> for other activities they were mixed patrols.
>>
>> When the second Guide Company opened the new Leader there was cautious 
>> but was interested but soon discovered that she had nothing to fear and 
>> her girls got involved too.
>>
>> We had lots of shared activities and hikes etc and no problems at all.
>>
>> I do know of others at the time and even now want them to be totally 
>> apart at activities. So be it.
>>
>> DaveB
>> West Yorks
>>
>
> Dave,
>
> No, just no problems you were aware of!  When it comes down to it, kids 
> will be kids whatever association they belong to!
>
> Al
>

OK, As a Scout there were no problems that I was aware of. Some of the 
Scouts & Guides were brothers and sisters so there may have been things 
there but no more than 2 brothers or 2 sisters in the same unit.

Parents were all happy.

At the top end of Scouts I still knew of no problems and when I became a 
Leader with the same Group I encountered no problems and was never told of 
any by the adults that were still Leaders from the earlier days.

My Scout Leader (who died a few weeks ago after a long illness) was only 12 
to 15 years older than me and was with the Troop from 1972 until the mid 
1980s when he became ADC (Scouts) and I was with the Troop for the whole of 
that time.

My GSL who was also with the Group from 1974ish to the late 80's early 90s 
is also someone who would have passed any info had there been anything to be 
aware of.

The Scout Commissioners certainly had no problems with it and I assume that 
the Guide ones didn't either  (I say assume as I don't know for definite but 
do know that it went on for years and surely would have been stopped, also 
one of them was a Brownie leader as well as Commissioner and had a daughter 
in the said Guides and son in said Scouts and sometimes went on the camps 
too.

So, NO I don't know of problems but they certainly did not stop the events 
from happening if there were any.

Incidentally, the Commissioner is still involved in Guiding in some way and 
the 2 kids are Beaver Leader (daughter) and Assistant Scout Leader (son).

DaveB
West Yorks

On 9 Nov, 23:21, Hilary Prollins  wrote:
> On Nov 9, 4:40 pm, GAGS  wrote:
>
> > On 9 Nov, 08:35, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
>
> > > "Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.> > > > As a Guider I do feel more kinship with Scouting than with other youth
> > > > organisations mainly because we are all part of the movement started
> > > > by BP and also because I meet in a Scout Hut and am on the Group
> > > > Exec.  I think it is great that Scouting still invites Guides to take
> > > > part in things like the WSJ (one of my current Guides and one ex-one
> > > > have just been selected for Sweden 2011) and a great shame that
> > > > Guiding doesn't reciprocate
>
> > Reciprocate? In what way?
>
> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.

So why doesn't that happen?

>  Although of
> course there are lots of jointly-organised events.

'Lots' as in hundreds and thousands? And how many of these 'lots' are
on a large scale (e.g. national or international)?

Do you think someone might say/suggest that Scouting events are
suitable for boys and girls but Guiding events are only suitable for
girls?

But doesn't that beg the question why if Guiding is only suitable for
girls does guiding need to take part in some scouting events?

And do you think someone might say that they take part with the scouts
because they are joint events so they are suitable for both scouting
and guiding?

And the WSJ, for example, is a joint event?

:-)

GAGS

On 10 Nov, 00:35, "Tony Mochan"  wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:23:39 -0000, Paul Harris  wrote:
> >>> Reciprocate? In what way?
>
> >> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.
>
> > I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to why  
> > that is?
>
> Perhaps GG don't believe there is enough barbed wire in the world to  
> seperate the "randy" Scouts.

I have heard that sort of thing mentioned in the past.

I have to say though that someone close to me who used to be involved
in Explorers had to intervene on one occasion because of 'randy
Scouts' (Explorers). The Explorer who was the subject of their
'attention' felt most uncomfortable.

Of course the 'randy Scouts' were.......

....girls. :-)

It happens both ways! Not sure that some leaders believe that to be
true, but it is.

>
> That's a quote from one of our less enlightened local guide leaders.  The  
> younger ones looked on agast!

I've heard it from young and old.

>
> I fully believe that some Guide leaders, and give them their due, probably  
> some Scout leaders as well, believe that if you put males and females  
> together, you are bound to end up with more attending next year's camp,  
> for all the wrong reasons.

But you can't become a member if you're only 3 months old!

:-)

Oh okay i'll get me coat.

GAGS

On 10 Nov, 08:06, "Ewan Scott"  wrote:
> >> In a spirit of tolerance I see no issue in Scouts being Co-ed and Guides
> >> being exclusively female.
> >Why do you see a need for tolerance?
>
> Why, do you not?

I don't see the need for tolerance of any sort. That doesn't mean I'm
intolerant!

Scouting has moved into the 21st Century in its provision of a modern,
relevant programme suitable for all young people. I do not see why
Guiding can't do so too.

The choice of 'path' for Guiding is their choice, and theirs alone. I
respect their decision. I just don't happen to agree with it.

> Intolerance is the root of many problems.

It sure is!

>
> >Do you feel everyone sees 'no issue' like you do?
>
> Apparently some see an issue.

Some do.

> It quite simply isn't one that I feel a need
> to get aggrieved about.

It's not one that aggrieves me to any large degree too.

> I could equally think of a dozen other areas where
> my ideas differ from the next leader's, I am not about to eschew their
> friendship because we have a different view on thing. You know that much.

I sure do.

We're all a rich tapestry.....
>
> >To someone who sees guides being single-sex and scouting mixed and who
> >is constantly told there is no issue because there's no comparison  -
> >'they're separate organisations' - there is an issue and
> >inconsistency.
>
> Only if you try to equate the two.

Well people do.

They may well be separate organisations but there are many
similarities, a truly brother and sister act. (Or once were!)

When some in scouting use the same reasons that Guiding uses to stay
single-sex, but then get these arguments pooh-poohed, while at the
same time those doing the pooh-poohing advocate interaction with a
movement that promotes single-sex programme, you can see why these
people get aggrieved!

I don't side with the aggrieved, but I do understand them and why they
may be aggrieved.

But if I understand them, why don't I side with them? I don't agree
with them because I believe that Scouting has to move on into the 21st
Century, that moving on means progressing the programme to a much
wider audience of all young people. Looking forward. I believe that
Guiding will have to do the same in time. The 21st Century will hit
all of us some day. I'm glad it hit me nearly a decade ago!

;-)

GAGS
>
> I don't and I quite simply don't see it as an issue. Either way.
>
> Ewan Scott

On 10 Nov, 08:26, Paul Harris  wrote:
> In message <op.u25k94i2700lht@mochalap>, Tony Mochan
>  writes>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:23:39 -0000, Paul Harris  wrote:
>
> >>> I meant by inviting Scouts to Guide-organised events.
>
> >> I have noticed that it never seems to happen, any suggestions as to
> >>why   that is?
>
> >Perhaps GG don't believe there is enough barbed wire in the world to
> >seperate the "randy" Scouts.
>
> Having attended many mixed events I would say that the balance is quite
> even but some Guide Leaders do think that barbed wire isn't enough.
> According to them you need razor wire, electric fences and a Guide
> Leader on Patrol until all the young people are safely tucked up in bed.
> They normally see sense after a couple of days standing guard.

Eh, what!!?

Those Guide Leaders whom you say see sense need shooting!

If you're a Guider and you believe that the randy so-and-so Scouts
will be up to no good then you MUST stand guard on patrol all the
time, all through the night. None of this seeing sense after a few
days - it's not seeing sense but a weakness for a warm nightcap and a
warm and cosy sleeping bag and tent. Shame on you. Don't let the randy
buggers run wild. Stay up all night and watch! I promise I'll come and
chip you out of that frozen block of ice the next morning.

:-)


>
> >That's a quote from one of our less enlightened local guide leaders.
> >The younger ones looked on agast!
>
> There are still people who think like that but it doesn't stop the
> Guides attending Jamborees etc. and having a good time.

And they're called......?

Mis-guided?

:-)

>
> >I fully believe that some Guide leaders, and give them their due,
> >probably some Scout leaders as well, believe that if you put males and
> >females together, you are bound to end up with more attending next
> >year's camp, for all the wrong reasons.
>
> There are still some who think that way but that doesn't really explain
> why the Scouts invite the Guides (and they accept) but the Guides do not
> invite the Scouts.

Yeah, now why is that?

Is there a rule in the Guiding Manual that says: What's mine is mine
and what's yours is mine too?

:-)


>  Are you suggesting that all Guide led events are run
> by the old School.

Er...I happen to be an ol' git you know!

:-)

GAGS

Dave wrote:
> "Al" <al@[nospam]byteitservices.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:hdbt9k$ie3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> SNIP
>> Was it any different when we were young, yes, in fact I think it was much 
>> worse because we were never formally allowed to do anything together. So 
>> for me every friday night 21:00, Scouts and guides finished and moments 
>> later we were meeting up in the local wreck or grave yard(Sad but true).
>>
>> Al
>>
> When I was a Scout in the 1970s we had 2 or 3 camps a year with the local 
> guides. The Leaders got on well and were neighbours and went drinking 
> together etc.
> 
> There was none of this 2 separate fields etc. OK the Guides down one length 
> the Scouts down the other but only 20 yards apart. That gave us an area in 
> the middle for games etc and the flag pole.
> 
> For some activities the Guides were together and the Scouts together and for 
> other activities they were mixed patrols.
> 
> When the second Guide Company opened the new Leader there was cautious but 
> was interested but soon discovered that she had nothing to fear and her 
> girls got involved too.
> 
> We had lots of shared activities and hikes etc and no problems at all.
> 
> I do know of others at the time and even now want them to be totally apart 
> at activities. So be it.
> 
> DaveB
> West Yorks 
> 
> 

At my group. we have very good links with the guides who meet at our hut
(well we count them as part of our group really to the extent of holding
joint leaders meetings etc) In fact i would say that the guides and
scouts have better links than the brownies and guides :-/
it dousent hurt that the GSL is also an ARGL (right abbreviation i
think) and we have a few who are so hooked that they are in both
movements and come twice per week

joint camp is somthing we havent done yet although as 2 of the guide
leaders always come on camp (one drives the minubus and the other is the
most qualified first aider we have) (one brings her daughter (a guide)
too) i cant see why this hasn't happened yet.....

"Hilary Prollins"  wrote in message 
news:78c786c8-a52b-43c4-88d6-796403d3df57@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> chooses to do.  That sentence is far too long, sorry.

Nowhere near a long sentence
The last section of James Joyce's Ulysses, Molly Bloom's soliloquy, consists 
of two sentences. The first one is 11,281 words long, and the second is 
12,931 words long.

Andy