A Message from the new headmaster of St James

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
StVSurvivor
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:04 pm

Postby StVSurvivor » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:10 pm

a different guest wrote:should it be the SES that apologises, not just the former teachers?

Most definitely.

I was psychologically and physically abused by the SES from the age of 8, as well as by the St Vedast teachers. As if being sent to the concentration camp of St Vedast from 6am every morning was not harsh enough, I was then forced to endure further SES torment at night. Exhausted after the long days, I had to sit through their "philosophy" brainwashing, which of course to an 8 year old child was utterly incomprehensible. Naturally I would begin to nod-off during the sessions. Every time this happened I received a sharp dig in the ribs. On top of this the chairs weren't designed for children, so my feet couldn't reach the ground, resulting in my legs and feet became numb with the pain. It was tantamount to the torture and sleep deprivation of children.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:16 pm

a different guest wrote:should it be the SES that apologises, not just the former teachers?


I'm not so sure. Obviously I do not agree with the SES and it's interpretations of "the Truth", but while they were responsible for the ideology that was followed by the schools' teachers, it was and still is a voluntary organisation.

I attended the SES for many years while at St Vedast, primarily to get away from a difficult family life, and to be with adults that treated me as an equal. It is very important for a young lad to feel that he is taken seriously, and I swallowed a lot of shit to achieve this.

All my peers that also went to SES in the evenings had various reasons for joining, but it was not compulsory, unless it was their parents that were forcing them to go.

On the other hand, school was compulsory, and far from being treated like adults, we were treated like plasticene that had to be knocked into shape, before we were flattened and the whole process started again. We had no choice in this and those in charge had a responsibility to provide a good education and a safe environment. Personally, I received neither.

So, in my book, the SES can continue deluding themselves that they are superior beings that would be tainted by outside influences, as long as they are not adversly affecting others [BTW, I'm not conviced this is actually the case, as families suffer]. On the other hand, the schools, ultimately controlled by the school govenors, chose to take the SES influence and force it upon boys and girls of four and upwards. This is a big mistake and one that seems to be still being made. Not only does this require appologies for the past, it requires action in the present to divorce the two organisations completely.

StVSurvivor
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:04 pm

Postby StVSurvivor » Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:17 pm

Alban wrote:All my peers that also went to SES in the evenings had various reasons for joining, but it was not compulsory, unless it was their parents that were forcing them to go.


I was actually one of those that was forced to go by my SES indoctrinated (at the time) parents, so there was nothing voluntary about it for me. I wonder how many others fell into this category? And how much pressure did they impose on parents to send their children to the evening classes? - pressure was certainly put on my parents.

User avatar
mike_w
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:25 pm
Contact:

Voluntary???

Postby mike_w » Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:36 pm

Alban wrote:
a different guest wrote:should it be the SES that apologises, not just the former teachers?


I'm not so sure. Obviously I do not agree with the SES and it's interpretations of "the Truth", but while they were responsible for the ideology that was followed by the schools' teachers, it was and still is a voluntary organisation.

I attended the SES for many years while at St Vedast, primarily to get away from a difficult family life, and to be with adults that treated me as an equal. It is very important for a young lad to feel that he is taken seriously, and I swallowed a lot of shit to achieve this.

All my peers that also went to SES in the evenings had various reasons for joining, but it was not compulsory, unless it was their parents that were forcing them to go.

On the other hand, school was compulsory, and far from being treated like adults, we were treated like plasticene that had to be knocked into shape, before we were flattened and the whole process started again. We had no choice in this and those in charge had a responsibility to provide a good education and a safe environment. Personally, I received neither.

So, in my book, the SES can continue deluding themselves that they are superior beings that would be tainted by outside influences, as long as they are not adversly affecting others [BTW, I'm not conviced this is actually the case, as families suffer]. On the other hand, the schools, ultimately controlled by the school govenors, chose to take the SES influence and force it upon boys and girls of four and upwards. This is a big mistake and one that seems to be still being made. Not only does this require appologies for the past, it requires action in the present to divorce the two organisations completely.


I myself am not so sure the SES was seen as a 'voluntary' organisation by those who ran it (and St James & St Vedast) at the time...the one and only time I was caned by 'Saint Debenham' (as some would have him known) was for refusing to go to an SES group session. My SES tutor at the time was Mr Matthews (already mentioned on previous posts), who telephoned my house and virtually refused to get off the phone, repeatedly insisting that I travel into London to join the group. In the end I had to put the phone down on him. In the morning at school I was caned for 'disobedience', this despite arguing for about an hour with Debenham and requesting that he phoned my parents first. They also believed that attendence at SES groups should be voluntary. Debenham obviously did not. To this day I wonder how far Debenham would expect a 13/14 year old kid to be 'obedient'?

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:00 am

Harsh, Mike - I sympathise. Similarly with St V survivor.

You know the strange thing in this is that if that incident was setting a precendent, or at least unusual, then it would have gone around St Vedast and I would have heard of it, yet I have no recollection. We must have all been so desensitized that it was just another in a long line of injustices that was not particularly unusual.

However, I would point the finger squarely at Nicholas Debenham and Mr Matthews (whichever one it was) for the unreasonable behaviour rather than SES rules. Again, I'm not defending the SES in any way, but this is yet another case of the Schools taking the law into their own hands.

User avatar
mike_w
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:25 pm
Contact:

Postby mike_w » Mon Dec 13, 2004 8:27 pm

Well...I certainly didn't run around shouting about it from the roof tops, but it was around the the time when another pupil in our class was being caned on an almost daily basis, not for any heinous crimes, but basically because he had a cheeky resilient character and was up for a bit of a laugh despite everything ( I won't name him, but his family were from Auz and eventually emigrated back (can you emigrate back? or is it just migrate?))...anyway I guess my minor humiliation gets lost in the noise of his record breaking punishment record...this should not give the impression that he was able laugh the punishments off. I know they got more and more vicious and greater in number of strokes as they tried to break his spirit & each occasion necessitated a good half hour or so spent recovering in the toilets or changeing rooms.

I suppose I have one thing to thank Debenham for...the incident made me decide to leave the SES permanently.
Last edited by mike_w on Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:18 am

Not surprised they singled out an aussie kid for punishment considering the opinion the SES powers that be had of Australians - as reported in the book about the cult (Goblinboy has kindly posted some excerpts about their views on Australians somewhere on these boards).

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

The SES view on Australia

Postby Goblinboy » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:28 am

Agree ADG.

See the Secret Cult thread at http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 for more info on the SES's (aka School of Philosophy) infalible views on Australians.

Sandra

Postby Sandra » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:11 pm

The only way for this enquiry not to be a farce is to hand the matter of to the relevent authority ( the police? the child abuse agency? ) and let them choose who to conduct the independent inqiury) That St James get to choose the independent chairman is so obviously farcical.

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

Postby Justcurious » Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:27 pm

Yes, that would be a logical step to take. I bet you that the inquiry will be inconclusive, and when the "accusers" complain, they will defend themselves by saying they launched an inquiry. I think it should be the government launching the inquiry, as opposed to the governers launching the inqiury.

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:19 pm

Alban wrote:You know the strange thing in this is that if that incident was setting a precendent, or at least unusual, then it would have gone around St Vedast and I would have heard of it, yet I have no recollection. We must have all been so desensitized that it was just another in a long line of injustices that was not particularly unusual.


I have no idea whether being forced back into SES after leaving was commonplace but I do know that I was bullied into it. Though I can't be sure of this my memory is that this was when I was forced to 'consider my decision' on the top landing of 33 for a day or so. I can't remember what task was set, copying something out, writing an essay etc but eventually I gave in due to sheer boredom. Sad thing is that I was totally unsurprised by this, still upset of course, but not surprised. I have a marvellous memory for the trivial things like where the puddles were on the balconies at 90-92, but the nasties are still very very vague, probably because I really don't want to remember them.

Still, was a good excuse for a trip to the chippy rather than home for more bread and cheese - until they set a guard on us that is...


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests