Jump to content

The Cadets and GH history of sexual abuse (news article)


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, camel lips said:

Totally agreed.  GH is the one that has gotten the spotlight and accused . I’m sure there are many out there that have slipped under the crack . 

 

 

2

 

8 minutes ago, camel lips said:

Totally agreed.  GH is the one that has gotten the spotlight and accused . I’m sure there are many out there that have slipped under the crack . 

 

 

YES for sure

i'm not being clear I think....lol..I'm also saying the GH issue and people elsewhere who had been on staff with Cadets for a long time and what they knew..That's what I mean that some don't get may end up at their front door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BRASSO said:

 Exactly. If you played by the rules, you've got nothing to worry about. If you were involved in stuff like this, or knowingly covered up what you knew were to be illegal activities by another, then you should be one nervous nelly now. Thats the price for wrongful behaviors.

1

YES.. thanks for being clearer than I was being..You are right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 84BDsop said:

And I certainly don't want the 84 title awarded to me in that fashion.

Sam, that is why I specifically said those solo years might conceivably be marked with a “dreaded asterisk” (like USC 2005, or Louisville basketball), because I would not want the * ‘85 title * (which I do not make “________ still has my ring!” remarks about on DCP,  even in utter jest) awarded to me in that fashion either. You aren’t the only the one who aged out taking 2nd to the Maroon Team. 

Aloha,

Morgan (the guy who shot pool with you along with Matt D. and Ron H. after the BD/SCV Alumni gig in 2007.) 

Edited by TRacer
Added e-sig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, camel lips said:

It’s going to be hard to find any drum and bugle corps out there that haven’t had a ladies man or womanizer on staff at some point that has opened up the corps to this type of potential problems . I think we have all heard stories about this and that before . Some of the stories from the 70 and 80 are quite wild . 

How much of that is true is anyone’s guess . 

 

i'm willing to bet boys/young men have had incidents too. it's just not a female thing

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Sorry to repeat myself, but my concern is the period from Jan. 31, the latest possible date they can have learned about the allegations (I am sure of this because on Feb. 1, it was mentioned on the Music for All forums that Hopkins and YEA were under investigation), and Apr. 5, when the story broke and Hopkins resigned.

Did they let Hopkins interact with any members during those two months?

The question about if he had contact with members in the last two months is misleading.  His harassment/assault most recently seems to have been consistently toward women who are close to his age and were employees.  Not that that makes it better but he was not preying on women 20-30 years younger than he is. I hate that I sound like I’m sticking up for him because I am NOT but could we stick to the facts as we know them and not scare the crap out of parents who have had kids in the corps by implying he is a pedophile.

Edited by Shewhois
Clarity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

i'm willing to bet boys/young men have had incidents too. it's just not a female thing

 No doubt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Shewhois said:

The question about if he had contact with members in the last two months is misleading.  His harassment/assault most recently seems to have been consistently toward women who are close to his age and were employees.  Not that that makes it better but he was not preying on women 20-30 years younger than he is. I hate that I sound like I’m sticking up for him because I am NOT but could we stick to the facts as we know them and not scare the crap out of parents who have had kids in the corps by implying he is a pedophile.

Yes, but the safety of members is paramount. Why else have a number of corps, not to mention DCI, issued statements about their policies during the past few days? But you're right that the board should have kept him away from staff as well over the past two months.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 84BDsop said:

And I certainly don't want the 84 title awarded to me in that fashion.

All respect for you saying that, man.:worthy: I think 99 percent or more of us would feel that way. Reminds me of when there were moves to get Jim  Thorpe back his Olympic medals, and the IOC waffled and made some silly dismissive comment to the that it was too long ago and the people who got medals wouldn't, cound't or shouldn't return them. Some very elderly Scandinavian guy came out who got the Bronze that should have been Thorpe's said he'd GLADLY give it to Thorpe's descendants because it was the right thing to do if the IOC asked him to. Totally shot down the IOC and exposed them for the goofs they are.

 

Real champs want to earn it the legit way ,not through the side porch window.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shewhois said:

The question about if he had contact with members in the last two months is misleading.  His harassment/assault most recently seems to have been consistently toward women who are close to his age and were employees.  Not that that makes it better but he was not preying on women 20-30 years younger than he is. I hate that I sound like I’m sticking up for him because I am NOT but could we stick to the facts as we know them and not scare the crap out of parents who have had kids in the corps by implying he is a pedophile.

True, but, in this day and age, being prudent and sensible would make it that you'd still keep him away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BRASSO said:

  What ?  I just provided an example of such demands that DCI imposed on a Corps, and suspended them from DCI Competition until those demands on the part of DCI were met. The punitive damage was in essence the suspension by DCI of the Corps.until they made internal organizational infrastructure changes that satisfied the demands of DCI, and not until.  Any notion that DCI is a mere bystander in all this, and is impotent in imposing sanctions of some sort on a member Corps is both wrong, and not supported by what DCI has done in the past in situations regarding Corps internal mismanagement. If DCI does not like how a Corps is run, they have the authority to take punitive actions in emergency, unusual circumstances if the chose to. We know this as they have exercised this authority before... one example ( of others ) that I just cited were  the Troopers  DCI imposed suspension in the 2006-2007 timeframe. Few are calling for this with the Cadets, but DCI has lots of actionable things open to themselves if this is not handled properly by YEA/ Cadets.

Wasn't that decision made before 2006, though, in which case it would not have hurt members who had already embarked on their season?  And did they really call it punitive?  I thought they exercised that oversight to ensure the financial well-being of the corps.  That seems somewhat similar to DCI requiring solid financials before letting a corps become world class, and is arguably in their best interest.

For other examples you referred to earlier, were they for anything other than things (such as overage members) that gave the relevant corps an unfair competitive advantage?  In such a case, it would arguably be unfair to the other corps to allow them to compete because of that advantage.  But I don't think anyone would make the argument that the current cadets mms have a competitive advantage as a result of this devastating situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...