Humiliate them

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:39 pm

Guest wrote:Katharine is right they teach compassion, but they don't demonstrate it, hence the abuse. They have an odd habit of contradicting themselves, don't you agree?

I agree. I think Katharine needs to ask herself why an organisation that apparently sets so much store by the truth seems so reluctant to admit the truth of what an ever growing number of us are saying on this forum. THE SES ARE COVERING UP YEARS OF BRUTAL CHILD ABUSE.

Tom

Katharine

Postby Katharine » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:11 pm

Guest wrote:Katharine is right they teach compassion, but they don't demonstrate it, hence the abuse.


Ahem. I protest. Most of them do demonstrate it.

(Now please don't all jump on my face at once.)

Katharine

Postby Katharine » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:28 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:I agree. I think Katharine needs to ask herself why an organisation that apparently sets so much store by the truth seems so reluctant to admit the truth of what an ever growing number of us are saying on this forum. THE SES ARE COVERING UP YEARS OF BRUTAL CHILD ABUSE.

Tom


Tom, I don't think you will find that they are reluctant, once the inquiry gets under way. The general feeling is that it all needs - for everyone's sake, abusers and abused - to come out. Everyone I have spoken to is as appalled as you all are. I know it has seemed as though there has been little response, and I personally have had to curb my own impatience, but as I think you will know it has taken a long time to decide what would be the most just and equitable way of dealing with the matter. (I had no say in it; I have merely been jumping up and down on the sidelines.) There have also been, as again you know, a lot of negotiations necessary behind the scenes in order to get all parties to agree as to how to proceed. It may well be that some of the individuals concerned may be reluctant (I'm guessing), as I should imagine in some cases it will take some guts to face up to what took place.

I'd also like to point out that more or less the minute David Boddy took over as headmaster he set the wheels in motion to respond to all this. I suppose some people have a psychological need to be vindictive about him, but I can't help feeling it doesn't do much for the situation.

OK, now you can all start kicking me.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:44 pm

Katharine wrote:
Tom Grubb wrote:I agree. I think Katharine needs to ask herself why an organisation that apparently sets so much store by the truth seems so reluctant to admit the truth of what an ever growing number of us are saying on this forum. THE SES ARE COVERING UP YEARS OF BRUTAL CHILD ABUSE.

Tom


Tom, I don't think you will find that they are reluctant, once the inquiry gets under way. The general feeling is that it all needs - for everyone's sake, abusers and abused - to come out. Everyone I have spoken to is as appalled as you all are. I know it has seemed as though there has been little response, and I personally have had to curb my own impatience, but as I think you will know it has taken a long time to decide what would be the most just and equitable way of dealing with the matter. (I had no say in it; I have merely been jumping up and down on the sidelines.) There have also been, as again you know, a lot of negotiations necessary behind the scenes in order to get all parties to agree as to how to proceed. It may well be that some of the individuals concerned may be reluctant (I'm guessing), as I should imagine in some cases it will take some guts to face up to what took place.

I'd also like to point out that more or less the minute David Boddy took over as headmaster he set the wheels in motion to respond to all this. I suppose some people have a psychological need to be vindictive about him, but I can't help feeling it doesn't do much for the situation.

OK, now you can all start kicking me.

Katharine,

"Tom, I don't think you will find that they are reluctant, once the inquiry gets under way."

You appear to assume that the proposed inquiry will take place. What makes you so sure?

"The general feeling is that it all needs - for everyone's sake, abusers and abused - to come out."

The abused are certainly coming out, although there are MANY more we have yet to hear from. The abusers, however, have been remarkably silent, with two honourable exceptions.

The SES purports to promote the truth, yet in realitiy it lies and suppresses the truth.

The SES harbours child abusers.

Tom

Katharine

Postby Katharine » Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:32 pm

What makes me sure? Well, I suppose there could be an earthquake. One can never be sure of anything. But as you, Tom, have I gather been involved in the negotiations to set it up, I would have thought you were well aware of the stage things have reached. My understanding is that the terms for the inquiry are right now in the process of being agreed upon and finalised.

sparkss

Postby sparkss » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:47 pm

Katherine,

The problem may be that this is the governors' enquiry - not the former pupils. It is an internal enquiry. At the end of the day it comes down to the issue of ownership and trust. The terms of reference for the enquiry will determine whether former pupils feel the neccessary sense of ownership and whether the enquiry achieves its stated goal of finding and acknowledging the truth. If the governors proceed along the most cautious route possible and seek to deal with the allegations as quietly as possible I doubt that few pupils will be satisfied. As someone whose childhood was stolen from me I naturally feel very angry. Im not vindictive, I just demand that there is an acknowledgment that there was institutional abuse (this wasnt a case of a couple of rotten apples!). An acknowledgment that what went on was wrong, unacceptable and inexcusable. An unequivical, irrefutable "we were wrong, we are sorry".

On the issue of trust, why would any former pupil trust the governors to have their best interests at heart? Where were the governors when we were crying out in pain? They were completely negligent in their duty of care towards us. Apparently they just didnt know what was going on! Rubbish. Institutional abuse is by its nature impossible to hide - besides I happen to know that the abuse that what went on at the schools was known about. I suspect it was not addressed because excuses and justifications could be made for it. Further, as has been stated by former teachers, what went on was not perceived as being out of context for the times. SES was living in a fantasy world, having dismissed the corrupt 20th century they could justify any barbaric practices in pursuit of their 'educational' goals.

Which brings me to my final point. I am sure that SES / SOM / SOP / St James Schools are desperately keen that a line is drawn in the sand between now and 'then' (the bad old days). I have no doubt whatsoever that the current schools are not the same in terms of the terror and fear that I experienced when I was a pupil, however they are still the same schools. They are still the SES day schools, the senior boys school had the same headmaster until only a few months ago, some of the same teachers are still teaching there and they are still a product of SES's experiment - to build a new movement in spiritual education. Lastly, I doubt very much that St James has embraced modern concepts of child welfare and has set in place mechanisms to ensure that no child at the school ever wakes up night after night wishing they had never been born.

You say of the enquiry that the details are being agreed upon now. Its just not going to be that simple. The SES and St James robbed us of who we were and who we could have been. Healing that may just take more time than the governors currently appreciate.

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Abel Holzing » Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:53 pm

Dear Katharine

Katharine wrote:My understanding is that the terms for the inquiry are right now in the process of being agreed upon and finalised.

sparkss wrote:The problem may be that this is the governors' enquiry - not the former pupils. It is an internal enquiry.

Between whom are terms being agreed - school-internally, or between the school AND former pupils?

AH

TB

Postby TB » Wed Nov 17, 2004 12:11 am

Katherine, your posts show you to be a caring, thoughtful person, and you genuinely are seeking to make things right. However I agree with the comments from the past pupils about the effectiveness of the enquiry. Do you seriously believe that a school affiliated group running this can risk a finding that might threaten the basis of the current school and by implication, the SES itself. The most they are likely to offer is a token, perhaps make a scapegoat of some of the past teachers. Even the teachers who have apolgised thus far, seem to be the least guilty, and hope it will blow over leaving them to continue with their better standards of discipline, but avoiding any serious compensation or dismantling.

For any committed individual, and ND seems to be the most fingered here, or the entire school to lay itself down is wishful thinking. Independent auditing is the only way of getting a full exposure. If by chance the school/SES really does go the whole way, ironically, it might for once show success in its aim to find the truth.

The argument about what was acceptable corporal punishment 20 years ago is usually answered that any beating of children is unacceptable regardless of when. Thats a laudable sentiment, but misses the point. 20 years ago caning of schoolchildrens backsides and palms was acceptable. The description of punishment given these pupils goes much further and was not acceptable in any western country 20 years ago. At the time the same was probably acceptable in the military with young adults, or children early in the century, not in the 70/80's

Katharine

Postby Katharine » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:15 pm

Abel Holzing wrote:Dear Katharine


Between whom are terms being agreed - school-internally, or between the school AND former pupils?

AH


The latter, I understand.

Thank you for spelling my name correctly, by the way...

Katharine

Postby Katharine » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:20 pm

TB wrote:Katherine, Do you seriously believe that a school affiliated group running this can risk a finding that might threaten the basis of the current school and by implication, the SES itself.


Yes.

TB wrote: Independent auditing is the only way of getting a full exposure. If by chance the school/SES really does go the whole way, ironically, it might for once show success in its aim to find the truth.


And if it doesn't, I hereby undertake to resign.

nonanon

Postby nonanon » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:25 pm

katharine, if "everyone" is as appalled as you say, why is Lacey still being entrusted with the care of innocent children?

Justcurious
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:04 pm

Postby Justcurious » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:49 pm

Nonanon, David Lacey is not a sadistic maniac, not now anyway. I'm not sure how to quote, but Katharine said "most of them do". It only takes one to ruin peoples lives, and most isn't very reassuring.As i said they do have a habit of contradicting themsevles (that was me). You must ask yourselves, before you post, what is your motive for saying this. Vengance? You wish to see them punished? Well you blaintantly do.
You now have my permission to stamp on me for my incorrectlessness.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:41 pm

Katharine wrote:What makes me sure? Well, I suppose there could be an earthquake. One can never be sure of anything. But as you, Tom, have I gather been involved in the negotiations to set it up, I would have thought you were well aware of the stage things have reached. My understanding is that the terms for the inquiry are right now in the process of being agreed upon and finalised.


For reasons of confidentiality, I'd rather not discuss the proposed inquiry in too much detail. I must say, however, that I'm surprised that you seem to know so much about it and my alleged role in setting it up!

In fact, I have had no role in setting it up at all! I am simply one of the lucky few whom David Boddy has seen fit to inform of his and the St James Governors' proposed terms for "an independent internal Inquiry". Please be aware that I have played no part whatsoever in establishing these proposed terms.

It may well be your understanding that "the terms for the inquiry are right now in the process of being agreed upon and finalised", but it is not mine. Yes, I'm personally very interested in the idea of "an independent internal Inquiry" but until I'm satisfied that what we're being offered is "an independent internal Inquiry". I won't be agreeing to anything.

Tom

Sarah

Postby Sarah » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:12 pm

Justcurious wrote:

You must ask yourselves, before you post, what is your motive for saying this. Vengance? You wish to see them punished? Well you blaintantly do.


I imagine people's motivations vary, I can only speak for myself, and of course the desire for vengeance is there. Part of me would love it if it were possible for those that humiliated, terrified and bullied me as a child to feel some of what I felt, however it's not possible as they are adults. My motivation now is to get the truth out into the open. I want mine and others experiences to be listened to and acknowledged. I want current and prospective parents to know about the history of the schools and it's connections with SES, and I want to feel satisfied that abuses of the past, both emotional and physical, cannot happen again within the schools.

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:01 am

Sarah wrote:I imagine people's motivations vary, I can only speak for myself, and of course the desire for vengeance is there. Part of me would love it if it were possible for those that humiliated, terrified and bullied me as a child to feel some of what I felt, however it's not possible as they are adults. My motivation now is to get the truth out into the open. I want mine and others experiences to be listened to and acknowledged. I want current and prospective parents to know about the history of the schools and it's connections with SES, and I want to feel satisfied that abuses of the past, both emotional and physical, cannot happen again within the schools.


Sarah, on my own motivations I have nothing to add to what you say - you express exactly how I feel.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests