Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.

Should the St James Inquiry be extended to the whole SES?

Total votes: 33

Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:13 am

Postby RobMac » Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:46 am

I have voted yes as the SES was both the proponent of the abuses taking place and also responsible for brain washing many of our parents to the extent that they failed to protect us from these abuses as a direct consequence of their membership of the SES.

Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:39 am

Postby Frodo » Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:11 pm

Mike, you keep repeating that some things are beyond debate, beyond hearsay, not to be questioned. The SES is dishonest and manipulative ... don't discuss. From what I can see, the SES dances a jig trying to show everyone what it does. Whether you like what it does is another matter. To my knowledge, the press came to St James twice or even three times, how many was it, anyone know? Some journalist trudged around, took photies, talked to the pupils, the teachers, maybe even parents. I will allow that the SES/St James might have rigged the situation, a bit like journalists visiting Soviet Russia, but what a risk, hey? One word out of place. One pupil saying I'll speak to you in private ... maybe the SES is that arrogant it thinks it can get away with anything. Or maybe it really was happy to open up for scrutiny. You got all these dudes from SES, like Katherine Watson and Grobchok saying I'll speak to you if you want, you can come and see the place if you want, there is nothing hidden, take a look. So ... Mike, Mike, maybe that's it.

And, what's more, I do disagree that the SES has done damage to thousands and thousands of people and families throughout the world. Sorry, but I do. It's done a lot of good! Why? How? Well, why not?

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

Postby daska » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:12 pm


You may disagree but how do you intend to prove that SES hasn't damaged people and families - to people who say 'it damaged me, it damaged my family' and give examples.

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:01 pm


If the SES 'dances a jig trying to show everyone what it does' why do a large number of the current St James parents know nothing about its involvement in the school? Why, given many of the pro SES contributors on this BB and therefore ample opportunity for reports to get back to PR central, has the SES made no official comment on this site or to my knowledge an official announcement in its groups? Of course not being in the SES (because of my aforementioned disagreement about their version of the truth, and regard from my own emotional and mental wellbeing) my knowledge of what exactly is said in groups will be heavily reliant on informative posts from current members like Bella and NYC.

The point is however, that if you think the SES is 'dancing a jig', they must be doing it infront of a private audience with the blinds drawn on certain issues. I believe that this issue is a crucial example of SES PR speak. You cant only be open about the things you want to promote and then claim total honesty and openness.

I might ask, on the topic of honesty and openness, why you are unwilling to reveal your identity? Given your pro SES stance, and your insistence that there is nothing to fear from the ever-so-cuddly SES, I would have thought that the current management would positively welcome your involvement. Or is it a worry that you might seem closer to the management team of the SES than you care to be thought of by people who take a less than evangelical attitude to it?

In an organisation that is staying silent on the issues raised on the BB - issues including accusations of bullying, manipulation, grooming of minors, financial impropriety, moral bankrupcy, and isolationism, amongst others - they seem to be happy to ignore the issues raised, and maybe even give a surruptitious nod to anonymous postings that also fail to address the potent accusations and focus on the accuracy of points of information on lemonade and group fortnights. (again you failed to read my post accurately on that one, maybe you have a problem with thinking that detail matters when it comes to other peoples opinion)

I cant be bothered to try and find the post in which you previously gave your reasons for anonymity, because in my view (and my example) anonymity is only necessary if you fear something. So tell me, what are you afraid of?

User avatar
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:09 pm

Er, sorry about the lemonade reference. I was kidding. I did wonder if someone would tell me that was insensitive and inappropriate in view of the serious allegations being made, but I felt like pretending to be a regular person joking with a regular person. So, sorry if I offended anyone by my flippant post on that matter.

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

Postby daska » Thu Jul 07, 2005 6:06 pm

Lemonade is a very serious matter indeed - if you look at the issues behind it.

Am I the only one who finds it deeply hypocritical that the SES expounds on the importance of the finest ingredients and then sells commercial muck full of artificial sweeteners?

This from the same people who insisted that school cookery competition entries were made with wholemeal flour

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:46 pm

Bella, no offence taken. I recognised the flippancy and even cracked a smile when I read it, so I think I pass the 'normal' test. My point was that Frodo was happy to dwell on those points of information without going near the more serious points that were being made, as seems the wont of the senior London SES organisation. I have read many of your posts that indicate you are not similarly blind to the deeper issues.

As daska has pointed out however, even lemonade can be used to illustrate the 'say one thing, do another' reality that often exists. This in itself would I suppose not be a problem, nor indeed unique to the SES, if it wasn't for the fact that it is an inconsistent message being given to children in their care, both in the SES and in St James. The trouble is if we show example after example of how we know the SES duped our parents and ourselves through a million little dishonesties and misrepresentations, then we sound like miserable buggers. People who tell us to 'lighten up' are usually the sorts that a) have no experience of the SES's emotionally suppressive education b) due to (a) have no concept of how dangerous it can be to leave it unchallenged. The truth is that when you go through a very disclipine heavy schooling with an overbearing suppression you develop a very wicked and dark sense of humour. Most 'survivors' of the ST J and SES experience, did so because of that sense of humour. But understanding what it takes to climb out of the hole that it leaves you in, we are passionate about flagging up exactly what we think is wrong in very earnest terms, backed up with experience that doesn't make for light reading.

Far from being whiney so and so's, we are confident and passionate about our subject, not without a sense of humour, and in no mood to be marginalised or dismissed again. There is a separate string for humour so feel free to have a splurge there too, but I see no reason why we cant keep it as light as possible whilst showing due consideration for the seriousness of the allegations that are being made. I'll start.

'How many philosophers does it take to change a lightbulb?'

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:53 am

Keir - I think Eric posted that joke on another thread, but my answer would be similar: One junior school member to actually do the lightbulb changing, and at least 3-4 senior members to come around while the jr. member is working and give him/her conflicting advice about how to do it best. As if the Jr. member couldn't do something so simple without being instructed.

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

enquiry into whole SES.

Postby ross nolan » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:08 am

Witness (in particular) this is a bump so that now the St James school enquiry is completed your call to 'finish the job' and investigate the whole SES might be looked at in a somewhat different light .

My thread 'investigation of adult schools' should probably have been attached here as well. The apologists ,if genuine, should not fear an enquiry after all if there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of ....?

Please read Witnesses posts with the care they deserve. Can we still vote ?


Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: enquiry into whole SES.

Postby mgormez » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:08 am

ross nolan wrote:Please read Witnesses posts with the care they deserve. Can we still vote ?

Yes you can.
Mike Gormez

Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: UK

Postby JC » Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:50 pm

I believe that an extension of an inquiry or some kind of investigation at least into SES as a whole would be a good idea. I feel in particular some opportunity for those who were members of the original youth and adult groups might benefit from having the opportunity to air their grievances if they have any.
My siblings and I (after a lot of stressful contemplation!) have just infomed my parents this week about the Inquiry which we did contribute to. They were members of the SES when we were sent to the school and left a few years before we were taken out. My mother particularly suffered as a result of extremely bad treatment when at youth group and adult groups. She had to join as a result of her parents being members and my father joined as it was implied that they would not be able to marry if he did not.
They have responded relatively well to being told that we have contributed to this Inquiry but it is putting the family under a huge amount of pressure especially as members of the extended family are still members of the SES and as yet do not know of our involvement in the Inquiry.
Anyway to go back to what this post was supposed to be about! I feel my parents may feel some release from finally being able to express their grievances about what happened to them and this probably would not happen unless there was a further inquiry into the SES.

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:43 pm


I congratulate you and your siblings on your courageous decision to be open about your involvement in the enquiry to your parents. It is a sad fact that the acknowledgement of this most troubling aspect of the SES (i.e. its failure to be open and accountable) is challenging a lot of parents to review the wisdom of trusting the SES with their children.

It is a terrible thing for a parent to feel that they have let their child down, and this realisation carries all sorts of emotions along with it not entirely familiar to members of the SES.

Freedom from fear comes through courage, and by leading by example you may yet encourage your family to be open with each other and begin a healing process of listening and compassion that will allow fora greater closeness and mutual respect.

I wish you well.

On the subject of the thread - how can you investigate a school without investigating the influences that run throughout it. Absolutely investigate the SES.

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

Postby Alban » Thu Mar 16, 2006 7:54 pm


I hope everything goes well with your family. It is a hard bit of news to break and depending on the receptiveness of the audience, can cause a lot of arguments all-round. Personally I found it easier to lay my cards on the table and pay the piper - but that is just my personal experience.

Hopefully, blood is thicker than their devotion to the SES.


Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:42 pm


But by whom?

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:50 pm

Why... the Governors of course :eggface:

Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests