A Message from the new headmaster of St James

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
David Boddy

A Message from the new headmaster of St James

Postby David Boddy » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:15 pm

My name is David Boddy, the new headmaster at St James in Twickenham. I have been following the postings on this notice board for some time, and have been in private conversations with some of you about the contents.

The Governors of St James have also been made aware of the views expressed on the message board, and have formed the view that interactions via the internet are unlikely of themselves to resolve the concerns about events alleged to have occurred 20 to 30 years ago.

They have therefore decided to establish an independent Internal Inquiry to be conducted by a Chairman who is independent of St Vedast, St James, or any other body, such as the School of Economic Science, likely to have any connection with the schools. He is a prominent Queen?s Counsel with considerable experience in the conduct of inquiries and mediation.

The aim of the Inquiry is to discover the facts, to make recommendations, and to supervise implementation of any recommendations.

Wherever there are disputes or differences, the aim must be to resolve them. The steps must be truth first, and then reconciliation. Both steps are necessary, and the aim of this Inquiry and whatever follows is to do both.

As soon as practical arrangements for the Inquiry have been established I will post on the message board details of an address to which complaints and written evidence can be sent for onward transmission to the Independent Chairman.

We want this process to have dignity and integrity. We recognise that the matters complained of allegedly took place a very long time ago. However, we hope the atmosphere of the independent Inquiry will allow all those who wish to say something to do so, and we want to give those who do so the confidence that views, complaints and comments will be clearly heard.

I shall keep the message board up to date with material developments as details of the Inquiry unfold. I will not, however, contribute at this stage to the debate on the message board.

Anyone who would wish to contact me privately, however, may do so through St James at Pope?s Villa, 19 Cross Deep, Twickenham, TW1 4QG.

I shall do my best to reply as soon as possible.

Daffy

Postby Daffy » Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:35 am

I am pleased to see that the current governors and heads of the schools are taking the stories posted on this site and elsewhere seriously, and I welcome the proposed inquiry.

While I have not so far felt able to detail some of my many unhappy memories of St James in this forum, I may yet do so, particularly as I see that this forum is now having real effect.

I would like, respectfully, to offer some advice to the governors in setting up the inquiry. In no particular order:

* Please respect the wishes of complainants, as expressed by many contributors to this forum, to remain anonymous.

It will obviously be necessary to establish that complainants were in fact pupils of the schools. However I would not feel able to contribute to the inquiry if I suspected my name would be published next to stories that are deeply painful, and in some cases embarrassing, to recall.

* Please do not dismiss allegations of abuse from former pupils just because they are alleged to have been disruptive or disobedient.

This is exactly what Nicholas Debenham apparently did in the meeting with former pupils recently reported here - describing one complainant as "a compulsive thief" and another as a "wide boy". All pupils will be disruptive and disobedient in some way during their time at school. Some behaviour is a normal part of growing up, and some is unacceptable; but however badly behaved a child is, some ways of dealing with his/her behaviour are totally unacceptable. It is widely recognised that abusive treatment creates a vicious spiral of punishment-misbehaviour-punishment-misbehaviour. So do not judge either the veracity or the justifiability of physically abusive behaviour according to the alleged character of the victim.

* Please be wary of justifications of abusive behaviour towards children on the grounds that they were part of the "context of the times".

I quote this from David Hipshon's recent post - though to be fair to him he appeared to be explaining rather than justifying the teachers' attitudes prevalent at the time. We know that all kinds of behaviour have been acceptable in history, and are still practised in many parts of the world, such as child slavery and discrimination/oppression against women. We do not regard the context in which these practices occurred or are occurring as justification for them. Rather, we wish for our present values to be shared by others, and regret that previous generations did not do so.

* Please be wary of justifications of teacher behaviour by reference to whether it was lawful at the time, or whether parents approved of corporal punishment.

This is entirely irrelevant to the victims of such abuse. While much of what went on would probably not have passed either of the above tests anyway, they do not serve the inquiry's stated purposes of truth and reconciliation. I frankly don't care that beating children as young as five with a cane was lawful in the 70s and 80s. I don't care that an adult punching a child with his bare fists was acting 'in loco parentis'. In my eyes it was brutal, vicious behaviour that should never have happened.

* Please do not allow the activities or report of the inquiry to be censored or sanitised for legal reasons (such as by threats of defamation proceedings). If any such threats are made against the inquiry or any participants, they should be included in the inquiry's report so that people can judge the person who made the threat accordingly.

I could go on, but I hope that my general intent is clear. While you may feel this pre-judges the outcome of the inquiry, I would rather no inquiry took place at all than one that exonerated all the protagonists of any wrongdoing.

Annonymous

Enquiry

Postby Annonymous » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:12 am

I don't see what an enquiry will do now. So much time has passed and quite frankly the world and the people have moved on and so have I. And for those who haven't moved on its time they did. I agree with Daffy's comments but I personally have no interest in an enquiry.

When I met my first girl friend my body used to flinch when she first touched me. She wondered why and so did I. I can't see thats a natural reaction for a human being. I can't see how an enquiry could help or resolve that regardless of who or what may have been the cause.

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

Postby a different guest » Sun Oct 24, 2004 11:44 am

edited
Last edited by a different guest on Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Alban » Sun Oct 24, 2004 4:59 pm

Different Guest, you are absolutely right. The situation you describe is very pertinent to my own experiences here and a few others I have talked to. I didn't think I was carrying a burden around for all this time, yet firstly describing my experiences and secondly reading apologies from DH and BB, has left me feeling lighter.

The human emotions are a very complex thing that we can only guess at most of the time. I think society for all its faults understands this, and as such the stiff upper lip has all but disappeared. For the same reason, children are being more delicately treated in schools. This understanding was beginning to be voiced before the schools started up, and like many others, I wish they'd listened to the very strong arguments supporting this rather than dismissing it as liberal rubbish. It's a shame that so many had to suffer before the law forced their hand.

Anon, I can understand your scepticism of the enquiry idea, but I would say give it a chance. There is a lot of water to pass under the bridge before the enquiry takes place and in that time there are many people who will be giving their input into the shape that it should take. There are many aspects of this enquiry that are under discussion, but as each point is nailed down, then I am sure that the details will be posted here. It is going to be a very difficult job to please everybody, as there are huge emotional differences - not only amongst the ex-pupils I would guess. However, amongst other things, this enquiry gives the school a chance to do something about what has been done, and with any luck, will lay to rest some emotional burdens.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:15 pm

In addition to these examples another highly successful one, albeit on a different scale, was The Truth and Reconciliation Commision instituted by Nelson Mandela at the end of Apartheid in South Africa. It enabled many thousands of victims of torture and brutality, as well as their perpetrators, to find meaningful amounts of peace and resolution in their lives. Indeed, I think it could be an excellent model for this inquiry.

TB

Postby TB » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:12 am

In addition to these examples another highly successful one, albeit on a different scale, was The Truth and Reconciliation Commision instituted by Nelson Mandela at the end of Apartheid in South Africa. It enabled many thousands of victims of torture and brutality, as well as their perpetrators, to find meaningful amounts of peace and resolution in their lives. Indeed, I think it could be an excellent model for this inquiry.

I am uneasy with the parallel drawn between the TRC run in South Africa and plans for the school enquiry. Having myself lived in South Africa during this period, I am unable to make confident assertions about the TRC. If you were directly involved in the TRC process, then I set aside the above comments. If however you are working from the 'sanitised' and sensational press versions I suggest you rethink your understanding and the existence of any similarity.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:13 pm

But perhaps the idea in principle was right even if it wasn't perfectly executed in every case.

TB

Postby TB » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:02 pm

But perhaps the idea in principle was right even if it wasn't perfectly executed in every case

Matthew, you miss my point. I am not morally judging the principles of the TRC, or stating that cases were or were not executed perfectly. I am simply pointing out that unless you were directly involved, I will assume your opinions reflect press reports. In my view a parallel between the TRC and the topic of this forum is highly misleading.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:40 pm

TB, I am drawing a parallel only in so far as the the principles of the TRC and this inquiry are both to do with the seeking of truth and reconciliation. You were in SA at the time, I have relatives that were there but I was not. Perhaps you would care to expand on why you think it is such a misleading parallel to draw.

TB

Postby TB » Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:00 am

Matthew, I do not think that my opinions on the TRC carry much weight as I did not directly participate in the hearings. (I also do not want to divert this forum from its stated aims). My views are those of an observer who watched the sessions on TV, read the newspaper reports and informally discussed with others. This is against a background of life in Africa, in Kenya during the Mau Mau era and power transition to black rule, and the same in South Africa.

The aspect that struck me most was the paradigm shift of the whites, seemed genuinely suprised by the barbarity of the white regime, as evidenced by police, army personnel etc who described their own part in torture etc. Victims who were tortured or who lost family, described in graphic detail how this happened. The transition from non citizens without rights, to citizens on an equal footing suddenly made yesterdays behaviour unacceptable today, and people reacted accordingly. Rather bizarre to have a conscience that emerges only when legislation is issued to define behaviour.
Outside of this, the situation is very complex, Africa has a long history of racial and tribal violence, excessive brutality is an accepted part of the process, democratic or not. The moral high ground clearly supports the black races, and the TRC did serve up some very public examples of truth, however at the end of the day it does not describe the reality of the day-to-day situation in the country.
The only relevant parallel I would see between the TRC and St James is the allocation of rights to a previously denied segment of society. In the school case, children now have greater equality and more rights than they did a generation past, just as black people now have equal voting rights when previously they did not. This only shows how society is evolving toward a homogenous empowerment for factors such as gender, race, age etc.
The actual issues addressed by the TRC arise from completely different social forces and the specific behaviours and outcomes were also quite different. Having said all the above I have no direct experience of the school or the TRC so only offer second hand observations. Excuse me if my original objection has distracted this forum.

TB

Postby TB » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:59 am

TB, I am drawing a parallel only in so far as the the principles of the TRC and this inquiry are both to do with the seeking of truth and reconciliation.

I would rather say, that the apparent principles are to do with the seeking of truth and reconciliation. Hidden agendas might prove otherwise. Also note that our need for truth appears to be universal, systems either exist to verify it, or they assume it.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:28 pm

TB, thank you for that. We seem to have wandered somewhat off-topic but speaking personally I nonetheless find your TRC/Africa insights interesting and informative.

Quote:- "Our need for truth appears to be universal, systems either exist to verify it, or they assume it."
Sorry but this kind of thing is just a tad too philosophical for my taste. I wish you well anyway.

TB

Postby TB » Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:59 am

Hi Matthew, glad you found my comments of value, let me respond as well to -

"Sorry but this kind of thing is just a tad too philosophical for my taste"

There is always a possibility of masking things by labelling them as 'philosophical'. Philosophy is just one of the truth/reality seeking systems around, along with religion, justice and science, who seek to understand things the way they really are. Nothing too esoteric here.

Other more down to earth systems like government and business, while they do not actively seek reality, inherently need to be seen to present reality accurately. You and I might disagree with this and feel that politicians and businessmen are not pure as driven snow, just that they do not admit it.

By asking why this is so, you begin to understand how a strong case for masking is built, but you'll need a clear head and a strong stomach

dan
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:39 pm

TB & Adrasteia

Postby dan » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:00 pm

Philosophy is just one of the truth/reality seeking systems around, along with religion, justice and science, who seek to understand things the way they really are. Nothing too esoteric here.



TB, you are deeply misguided if you think that 'religion' is a truth seeking system. What an incredible blanket of a statement.

The history of Christianity demonstrates clearly how unlikely myth and hearsay became the New Testament. The early church and Constantine deliberately destroyed much of the original 'evidence' about the 'truth' of Jesus.

In my opinion most religions seek to promote their own versions of 'truth' to control followers. This usually involves demanding much time and energy from 'believers' in prayer and free labour or the like.

The SES is a good example I think of a cult/religion offering as carrot 'the truth/wisdom' and then demanding huge resources from believers. All this to massage the egos of those at the top of the organisation!

Interesting comments from Adrasteia about the role of the SES at St James. Why are they trying to recruit young minds? Cultish organisations have NO place in children's schools. Many of the contributors to this site are living testimony to what happens when indoctrinated adults are let loose on children. In my opinion parents should do everything they can to protect their children from fundamentalist belief systems, whatever the parent may believe themselves.

Dan Salaman
Dan


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests