Speaking as a female Scout Leader shirt pockets are pretty well useless anyway, even if you're not built like Bushcraft Betty. Cargo pocket on trousers works for keeping most things safe. Personally I don't want to go back to the old female leaders blouses, they were really grim.
calling all scout leaders.
- Thread starter sargey
- Start date
i guess i am a little surprised, both at the anti uniform sentiment in general, and especially here where so many bushcrafters wear shirts as a matter of course when out and about. how is a shirt not suitable? why not just have a decent scout leader shirt?
but yes, i can envisage that ladies are less likely to want shirt pockets :tapedshut
thanks for your comments.
cheers, and.
but yes, i can envisage that ladies are less likely to want shirt pockets :tapedshut
thanks for your comments.
cheers, and.
Personally i wear my shirt all the time and really wish there was the second pocket on the other breast, like the old scout shirt. I had no problem whatsoever doing activities in my shirt and still don't so all this talk of it not being suitable for activities is a lot of tosh!
they could however drastically improve on the trousers with better cargo pockets and more sectioned pockets, one of the reasons we used to wear 95s in my old group was for the shear amount and size of the pockets.
The shirt (as mentioned above) could use another breast pocket and if I'm being really picky, i wouldn't mind zip-off arms to allow for long/short/no sleeve configurations but that's just me.
they could however drastically improve on the trousers with better cargo pockets and more sectioned pockets, one of the reasons we used to wear 95s in my old group was for the shear amount and size of the pockets.
The shirt (as mentioned above) could use another breast pocket and if I'm being really picky, i wouldn't mind zip-off arms to allow for long/short/no sleeve configurations but that's just me.
SimonM
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I'm not anti-uniform, but if I wear it for camps etc it ends up looking grubby and fragranced of wood smoke, so I wear it for flag breaks, then hang it up until next morning.i guess i am a little surprised, both at the anti uniform sentiment in general, and especially here where so many bushcrafters wear shirts as a matter of course when out and about. how is a shirt not suitable? why not just have a decent scout leader shirt?
but yes, i can envisage that ladies are less likely to want shirt pockets :tapedshut
thanks for your comments.
cheers, and.
I am proud of being a Scout and uniform is a big part of that for me...I just wish we had a more practical uniform for activities, one that wouldn't melt near fire or burn through if you drop some tinder out of your bundle on it.
Simon
I don't think that the Scout uniform has been practical since, say, the mid 1960s! When I became a Scout in 1970, the shirt was OK, but the uniform trousers were truly dreadful - mushroom grey cavalry twill<shudder>!
As a 21st century leader, I have two uniform shirts - one long and one short sleeve - a pair of the new style activity trousers and a pair of the new style shorts. I have one new style belt, a Group necker and a leather woggle. I bought the new style trousers, shorts and belt as they became available as I see the wearing of the "correct" uniform as a way of setting an example. But that's probably just me
.
Now, those uniform items have to serve for a variety of occasions - mostly "formal", e.g. Scout meetings, SGD, Remembrance Sunday, travelling to an from activities (and not because of any urban myth - I just think it's appropriate) etc. Much as I might want to wear them on activities, the thought of getting them stained, burnt, ripped, etc means that I don't. I've invested too much time sewing badges on them and ironing them for that!
Sometime back in the 14th century when I was in the TA, I was issued with a No 2 dress uniform alongside my lightweight trousers, hairy shirt and wooly-pully. Cost considerations aside, I think that there could be scope for the Scout Association to have a dress uniform - the one we have now - and an activity uniform. Perhaps this is where the i.Scout range is heading?
As a 21st century leader, I have two uniform shirts - one long and one short sleeve - a pair of the new style activity trousers and a pair of the new style shorts. I have one new style belt, a Group necker and a leather woggle. I bought the new style trousers, shorts and belt as they became available as I see the wearing of the "correct" uniform as a way of setting an example. But that's probably just me
.Now, those uniform items have to serve for a variety of occasions - mostly "formal", e.g. Scout meetings, SGD, Remembrance Sunday, travelling to an from activities (and not because of any urban myth - I just think it's appropriate) etc. Much as I might want to wear them on activities, the thought of getting them stained, burnt, ripped, etc means that I don't. I've invested too much time sewing badges on them and ironing them for that!
Sometime back in the 14th century when I was in the TA, I was issued with a No 2 dress uniform alongside my lightweight trousers, hairy shirt and wooly-pully. Cost considerations aside, I think that there could be scope for the Scout Association to have a dress uniform - the one we have now - and an activity uniform. Perhaps this is where the i.Scout range is heading?
I don't think that the Scout uniform has been practical since, say, the mid 1960s! When I became a Scout in 1970, the shirt was OK, but the uniform trousers were truly dreadful - mushroom grey cavalry twill<shudder>!
As a 21st century leader, I have two uniform shirts - one long and one short sleeve - a pair of the new style activity trousers and a pair of the new style shorts. I have one new style belt, a Group necker and a leather woggle. I bought the new style trousers, shorts and belt as they became available as I see the wearing of the "correct" uniform as a way of setting an example. But that's probably just me
Now, those uniform items have to serve for a variety of occasions - mostly "formal", e.g. Scout meetings, SGD, Remembrance Sunday, travelling to an from activities (and not because of any urban myth - I just think it's appropriate) etc. Much as I might want to wear them on activities, the thought of getting them stained, burnt, ripped, etc means that I don't. I've invested too much time sewing badges on them and ironing them for that!
Sometime back in the 14th century when I was in the TA, I was issued with a No 2 dress uniform alongside my lightweight trousers, hairy shirt and wooly-pully. Cost considerations aside, I think that there could be scope for the Scout Association to have a dress uniform - the one we have now - and an activity uniform. Perhaps this is where the i.Scout range is heading?
I have to disagree i'm afraid. This would be too much like the guiding approach, which i and many guide leaders i have spoken too think is appalling. The uniform should be formal. The trousers i find are pretty practical, if they were made to an adequate quality, and the shirts look nice (except the colour of the explorer shirt). Most young people in scouting where there uniform with a t-shirt underneath and i feel this is the best option. The classic uniform is still maintained, yet the practicality of a t-shirt is maintained. In the winter group hoodies, like a lot of explorer units have, are a good option as they can be slipped on over the top of the uniform.
I always wondered why the scout association does not adopt a No.2 uniform that can be used to identify scouts, but be of a quality that it can be used for activities. As I am sure some may agree the identification of scouts doing an activity can to some be less threatening than a gang of kids milling around to be classified as yobs. The other thing about the identifying factor of a uniform is that people tend to respect that uniform and so it is unlikely those wearing would not bring the scouting name into disrepute, whereas dressed in civvies they can do as they please.
Last edited: