SES Forums

adrasteia wrote:I am not supporting what Katherine has written, but would suggest that as the editor - I think she's still the editor anyway- of 'The Spectrum' she has to be seen to tow the party line and may have been asked to write this article in praise of 'the great man', she may have enthused without meaning a word of it- the spectrum is full of such articles. In this case I feel it is a shame that she doesn't feel able to stand up for what she believes, ie. refuse to write the article herself- the SES influence at work.
However, if she does believe what she has said in the article then I've for one have definately been wrong about her position. Maybe I was mis-reading her posts?

I agree. In my opinion ( note:OPINION) The Spectrum is littered with hypocrisy or atleast presents an imaginary view of the school - I remember being asked to contribute to it and this simply became another creative writing exercise, with us competing to include as many "key" words as possible. I have always secretly suspected that they picked them based on the average length of words used in an article. If these words included "magnanimity" and "generosity", so much the better (as opposed to "misogynistic " for example). I think the same applies to various thank you letters and other corrspondence to the "outside world". And yes, this can be seen as cheap propaganda for the school, but is also a feature of much of middle class Britain and is not exclusive to St James. However, St James's involvement with the SES and its philosophy provides the means to introduce a more varied range of ideas and compliments.
Dr Watson may also have a genuine respect for Mr Debenham, despite his notable flaws. Frankly, this site can only benefit from her involvement - not only does it temper the more emotional postings on this site, but she is a woman of convictions that has clearly deeply impressed me and many others of you. Her mild approach is commendable (habit of using long words - sorry! -but I do mean every word of it) and she does add balance to the debate. Her interest in philosophy ( understatement) may aid many members in challenging and debating issues on the highly emotive of the SES and St James.
In conclusion: COME BACK DR WATSON!!!!!!!!!!!!!! COME BACK!!!!

Perhaps Mr Bob should read a few more posts on this forum himself before dismissing it ...the forum has been a vehicle for several things, not least the enquiries and discussions by parents who, it seems, had not been told 100% of 'the truth' by the current Schools regarding the links with the SES and the past schools.

mr bob cannot be bothered to waste his life looking at all the posts on this website as (u may have noticed this) i am a pupil and i have to get on with my education. I've read enough of this website to satisfy my curiosity and like I said I have formed my views and so have you all and I doubt we could change each others' opinion. I feel that some people are slightly bitter however towards St james (attempting to leave the SES out of this as Im not so hot on that) and memories are all they have left, they feel that some great injustice has been committed against them. But i doubt there will be any great resolution, even after the report.

mr bob wrote: I've read enough of this website to satisfy my curiosity and like I said I have formed my views and so have you all and I doubt we could change each others' opinion.

Sigh... silly Mr Bob. This isn't a fight with two definite opponents and the aim of this forum isn't to change people's opinions - my impression of it was that it was in place to make people aware of others' experiences and views. Which is why, for example Matt Stollar has been blocked - cyborg smiley faces hardly reflect his view of St James. Or if it does, it's all a tad too surrealistic for me. Possibly they are symbolic of the mechanical chanting of Sanskrit, or the uniform views of the members of the SES.
Also, don't forget that some people are still forming their views of St James - prospective parents and people not as lucky as you to have a set view.

Tom Grubb wrote:Two simple question to Katharine Watson:
1) Did you write the eulogy to Mr Debenham that has been attributed to you?
2) Do you stand by it?

Tom

No answer, Katharine? Well, let's try one more simple question, this time about something I KNOW that you wrote.

This is what you wrote to me in an email on 6th August this year: "I was always aware that the boys' school used beating, and never would have wanted to work there while that obtained. I also knew that one particular teacher was guilty of definite abuse, but he was on the point of retirement, had been given severe warnings (so I understand) by the Governors, and was anyway working in the junior school. If this all sounds a bit feeble to you, I'm sorry."

Here is my question:
Ignoring for the moment the fact that your apparent distaste for the beating of little boys doesn't prevent you from praising to the skies the SES's beater-in-chief, who, Katharine, was this teacher "guilty of definite abuse"?

I know he was ready to retire, bless him, and he was "anyway working in the junior school" (far more acceptable to abuse junior boys, eh?) but I really would like to know.

Like all the other current pupils who have posted to this site, Mr Bob doesn't "geddit".

There is certainly something lacking in the education they are getting.

Kindly explain? It will be much appreciated.

Tom Grubb wrote:who, Katharine, was this teacher "guilty of definite abuse"?

Tom, that's unfair.

adrasteia wrote:

Tom Grubb wrote:who, Katharine, was this teacher "guilty of definite abuse"?

Tom, that's unfair.

I disagree. Here's why:

I must admit that I posted my "one more simple question" challenge to Katharine in a state of anger after re-reading her odious paean to Debenham. But I stand by it as I think it's very much in the public interest.

Katharine told me that she knew of "definite abuse" by a teacher. Apparently the abusive activities of this teacher were well known to those in charge of the school and a complaint had been made against him. The response of the governors to this complaint was, according to Katharine, to tell him to "change his ways". Katharine didn't think that the police had been informed as she didn't think any crime had been committed. (In the context of the regime of the time, I think it would have been better to let the police decide this rather than the governors!) But anyway, Katharine informed me, the abusive teacher only had a problem with the older boys and he was subsequently moved back to the junior school, "which by that time was under the very benign care of Paul Moss, who certainly wouldn't hurt a fly and is universally loved by children and parents alike".

Katharine Watson seems quite happy to spout rubbish about Debenham's supposedly saint-like qualities. She also seems happy to speak on behalf of "children and parents alike" in voicing their universal love for Mr Moss. I'm sure that, in imitation of that wonderful "Christian gentleman" Mr Debenham, she will forgive me for revealing more of her thoughts on the SES and their schools.

Tom

It's unfair because you know she cannot answer your question.

Really? Why not?

I've emailed her the same questions in case she is no longer reading posts on this forum. She knows the identity of this man. Unless she wants to prove the accusation I made to her that the SES is still harbouring known child abusers, what's to stop her replying?

Tom

Tom,
She mentions that the man was "on the point of retirement" and that he had problems with the senior boys. I would hazard a guess, and it's only a guess, that Colin Russell is the person referred to. He was not very tall, and, I believe, did have difficulty with boys taller than him.

If my guess is correct, then he retired some time ago, and has no association with St James any longer. I can't remember the date when he retired, but it must be a couple of years.

Scotsman

Hi Scotsman,

Russell's top of my list of suspects as well. I remember him from my St Vedast days as being dangerously unhinged in his behaviour and prone to making sudden violent attacks. He definitely had issues with particular pupils and persecuted these unfortunates horribly.

Tom

Tom Grubb wrote:Really? Why not?

I've emailed her the same questions in case she is no longer reading posts on this forum. She knows the identity of this man. Unless she wants to prove the accusation I made to her that the SES is still harbouring known child abusers, what's to stop her replying?

Tom

If she wanted to answer your question she would have St. James and the Ses to deal with, and she obviously doesn't wish to break away from them.

Would she or anyone else be able to contribute in the inquiry and not be named in any report or such like afterwards, so as to avoid a backlash from either the Ses or St. James.

adrasteia wrote:If she wanted to answer your question she would have St. James and the Ses to deal with, and she obviously doesn't wish to break away from them.

Unfortunately, I think you're right. But I live in hope that she'll prove us wrong.