Now the Boy Scouts have a new line...

I guess I'm not seeing a real big difference between a camping trip that is supervised by one or two scoutmasters and a sleepover. Why is one ok and the other a demonstration of parental irresponsibility?

This
is a terrible thing to say. Why would the parents think that as assistant Scoutmaster is any more dangerous in his home than at a Scout meeting, or on a campout? Despicable.

Okay, to play Devil's Advocate - I think that the implication is that it could be risky to allow a single adult to have a sleepover gives that adult too much power and not enough "checks and balances". Also, there is a lot less privacy in a campground, esp. a scout campground vs. a private home.
However, I, myself, also find the statement ludicrous! That would be like saying all sleepovers are inherently dangerous
Although, in retrospect, the pedo that I had trouble with was my friend's dad & his behavior towards during my sleepovers at their house was filled with "red flags". But that was back in the '60s and alot less was known, let alone talked about, regarding perps like that. I am so glad that our society has empowered children to be aware & stay safe

Good lord! Why don't they just say that the kid was wearing his shorts too short, or took off his shirt in front of everyone so he was asking for it.

To answer the Devil's Advocate answer - not all Boy Scout camping trips were/are to campgrounds or anywhere near civilization. Many times they (would) go hiking into the back country to do survival-type stuff, and they wouldn't even put up tents in a big circle, but scattered among the area they were camping in. (I can only go by why friends talked about, as I obviously wasn't a Boy Scout. ) There was definitely an inherent trust put into the Scout Master or assistant Scout Master that they were there to guide the boys through the Boy Scout way and teachings. If an assistant Scoutmaster had one or a few boys over for a sleepover it could have easily been "covered", and fairly reasonably so, if the boy had missed some Pack Meetings and needed to catch up for their next outing, or if they weren't as advanced in their skills as the other boys. Especially if the boy or leader didn't live close to each other to do it on a normal schedule.

Especially seeing the thing that 30-50% of the troops were chartered by Mormon Churches, you just wouldn't think that a member/leader of the church would do something like that. At least not back then. We know better now; that pedophiles often put themselves in positions of trust especially leadership roles in a church type setting where there IS an inherent trust between the parents and leaders.

This statement definitely blows his idea of the parents being negligent right out of the water, IMO: