Free wrote:It will be very difficult for the Governors to make a break with SES, for they are all quite indoctrinated with the 'Truth', which is, under all the covers, about perpetuating SES. For them to think 'against' SES--even for the children's benefit--is contrary to decades of powerful conditioning. Another issue is that SES have made great profits in land and buildings, and much of this has been transferred to the St James organisations, which value SES would be entirely unwilling to relinquish. This is one of the most ironic aspects of an organisation started to promulgate Henry George's egalitarian doctrine of 'no private profit in land': SES have become greedy, and greedy for real estate. A full circle!
I realise that the teachers in the school and the governors and pretty much everyone in the SES is indoctrinated and that to let go of that or make the break will not be easy. I do think that the opportunity exists for anyone in St James of the SES to ask fundamental questions that may have been stifled before. I really hope that either on an organisational level or at least an individual level many of these people will take this opportunity. I hope they will take it as much for their own benefit as for the benefit of those in their charge or care.
I do find it highly amusing with the whole irony with regards to the economic principles that are espoused and the reality of their charitable status and their property portfolio today.
Free wrote:History has shown that with SES, no pressure, no progress. There should be no respite. It was interesting to re-read 'The Secret Cult' again, noting that in the prior uproar, one of the 4 existing schools closed almost immediately, and the other a year or two later, due to student withdrawals stemming from the adverse publicity. Withdrawals in the current situation won't be clear until late summer; if these are substantial then a PTA, more transparency on SES connections and doctrine, termination of abusing teachers and the appointment of independent Governors will become more likely outcomes.
Free wrote:In most places it is a slowly sinking ghost ship with grand premises, rapid attrition amongst new arrivals and an aging long term clientele wondering why they remain. This process is aided by growing internet access to more accurate information about the organisation's true nature, so that while persisting members still have trouble seeing and accepting what their organisation has become, at least everyone else is afforded a clear view.
When I say we should allow them time, I do not mean that we should not keep up the pressure. I agree without pressure the organisations will have no motivation to look beyond their comfort zone.
I think that the internet and forums like this will provide a persistent voice for the critics for all time until the organisations make the necessary changes and real actions are seen to be taken. This is a pressure that is revolutionary to a lot of organisations and it is clear that as yet neither the SES or St James understand it or treat it with respect that it requires. None of this will go away unless it is dealt with properly.