SES SCHOOLS ACTION: INQUIRY UPDATE

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:29 pm

deleted
Last edited by Peter Sanders Reynolds on Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:39 pm

To Snowman

Don't give me the Jewish sob story...I'm Jewish as well. To be honest my rhetoric has been carefully monitered with a fine tooth comb. There is nothing I have written that has not been carefully studied before I put it on. Everything I have put on has meaning to me and none of it is lazy. I too have been to the real camp at Auschwitz and read several accounts including a little known account that as it were really does give a first person account of the most 'evil' things. Just by mentioning Auschwitz at all is to as it were use 'Auschwitz'. It doesn't matter that it was 'in passing'. You used it. Which is a disrespect to your relatives and my relatives. I challenge you to cut and paste any of my rhetoric that you deem lazy and I will re write it if I agree. I am more likely to not agree. However in general your posts as I noted in private are very revealing. Would like to see more Maclaren material up on the web, real 'material' not just Manu which is general Hindu philosophy.

Best

PSR

Snowman
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:31 am
Location: London

Postby Snowman » Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:14 pm

Apologies for accusations made and any offence caused by mentioning Auschwitz etc... I realise now that this was an error of judgement

I do not think that dissecting your posts on this forum is relevant or useful. I would like to post more of my thoughts on the subject of SES ideology and philosophy and I will do so soon.

I know that you have a great deal to offer these discussions and I look forward to your input.

All the best

Snowman

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:25 pm

Snowman,
I too am very sorry. And apologise to you personally. This is because in retrospect I feel like I gave the impression that you 'particularly' were to blame for the hyperbole on this site but as you yourself quite rightly pointed you were very careful in your mention of the holocaust, much more careful in fact than many of the other postings on this site and in general your contributions have been quite considered and well thought out and full of very 'interesting' documentation. So it's a shame I picked on probably one of the more careful persons on this site. Sorry for that.
Really.
Just to use your peice as an example. There are many other examples that could have been used to exemplify the phenomenon of buried memories rising to the surface and to pick Auschwitz where the memories for those concerned are of murder, of babies and young children having their skulls crushed against brick walls and being thrown alive into huge bonfires. Of mass herding of people in squalid conditions and of mass murder on a huge scale does not in any way come near to those whose buried memories are of board dusters being thrown at them and maybe the odd cricket ball every now and then. Even the person who was knocked unconscious in a shower probably in an 'accidental' rage does not come in any way near either one murder or the purposeful attempted extermination of a whole race. Others on this site have used rhetoric that backfires against them because it makes the accusators seem riled by the fire of exageration. I myself used my little 'fire' peice in which I said there was a great fire raging. I do believe this however but it is not equivalent to the fire of rage and anguish that the holocaust survivors must feel or suppress.
However in it's own sphere and level of reality great wrongs were done at and within the St James schools. But one must not use exageration because then you let them win by brushing the people on this site aside as mad militants in the minority. IF WE EXAGERATE WE RUN THE RISK OF NOT BEING TAKEN SERIOUSLY. I myself used the 'fire' posting to get the responces to the latest C.Betts peice going. Because for some funny reason people on this site seem to get intimidated by C.Betts whenever she says anything and take longer than usual to respond to her peices. My fire peice was designed to knock over her intimidating aura and presence and put her in her rightful place so we can all get on with deconstructing and demolishing her arguments which is the rightful thing to do.Because we are quite casual and informal on this site in sharing memories and fustrations the officiality of the inquiry seems to freeze us and as it were make us feel like rabbits in the headlights. It's as though they are saying O.K you're saying all this stuff on the website. Now let's see what you have to say for real to an enquiry. DON'T BE SCARED EVERYONE!
They are only human beings and it seems C.Betts isn't a very good lawyer. She doesn't at all seem to be up with the more cutting edge and callous lawyers of today's generation who really are quite ruthless, not too much interested in any 'real' truth but aware of everyone's ability to invent reality and see it from their partisan perspective. She doesn't seem to be at all aware of modern methods of reading between the lines, searching with a fine tooth comb and questioning the very meaning of individual words. Whatever the St James establishment serve up we can tear it down until it does go all the way to revealing the facts about what went on and what does go on.
The way to 'get' them is to concentrate on what they teach NOW. We need to deconstruct and analyse the current rhetoric and propoganda of St James. The 'abuse' we all know did happen but it can't be proved (unless they email the 7th form membership and set up a system of witnessing etc.) However we CAN prove that St James and the S.E.S do have a secret agenda with regards to women and the encarceration of people into the cocoon and womb of a mass thought system. WE can prove that the S.E.S is a cult. We just need more evidence and material. I myself am researching this and deciding what text and S.E.S material to print on the net.
This is a war of puplic relations or PR not a truth reconciliation project. The inquiry's outcome is inevitable. What is not inevitable is the destructive capabilty of this site to be a P.R disaster for the S.E.S. The more secret material we can get on the net the more people can see what they will be asked to believe as they enter the more senior parts of the school.
Rumour has it that Boddy was quite keen on doing the '7th Form' mail out about the inquiry but was stopped and convinced not to by the 7th form chairman who goes by the name of Aatif Hassan. Boddy wanted to play fair but Aatif Hassan who has launched the 7th form site this weekend convinced him to put the news of this inquiry three posts down from the top of the news page so that people would hardly notice it. Also if you visit the site the detail of the inquiry is looked up in a windows system that means you never know when the scrolling text will finish and you only get about a sentence at any one time as you scroll. The design of the way information is accessed on the site is purposefully designed to keep a lot of information hid yet at the same time they can say that they 'informed' all the old boys and girls.
I can assure you that the St James and S.E.S P.R machine is heavily in operation. WE need to get more accurate and therebye more devestating. We can only do this with more hard evidence. And I think that evidence lies in long and rather boring episodes of S.E.S material on the net. I suggest we all start searching for S.E.S material. This is the next step.
PSR
Last edited by Peter Sanders Reynolds on Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:25 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
adrasteia
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:55 am

Postby adrasteia » Mon Jan 31, 2005 6:08 pm

Peter Sanders Reynolds wrote: They are only human beings and it seems C.Betts isn't a very good lawyer. She doesn't at all seem to be up with the more cutting edge and callous lawyers of today's generation who really are quite ruthless, not too much interested in any 'real' truth but aware of everyone's ability to invent reality and see it from their partisan perspective. She doesn't seem to be at all aware of modern methods of reading between the lines, searching with a fine tooth comb and questioning the very meaning of individual words.

To be fair she's only written two posts! Also, she is merely the mouthpiece of the Inquiry, she will be acting on explicit orders from the Governors. It's also not really her job to dissect everything, that will be up to the QC. I think she's more of a go-between/administrator?

Peter Sanders Reynolds wrote: The way to 'get' them is to concentrate on what they teach NOW. We need to deconstruct and analyse the current rhetoric and propoganda of St James. The 'abuse' we all know did happen but it can't be proved (unless they email the 7th form membership and set up a system of witnessing etc.) However we CAN prove that St James and the S.E.S do have a secret agenda with regards to women and the encarcerating of people into the cocoon and womb of a mass thought system. WE can prove that the S.E.S is a cult. We just need more evidence and material. I myself am researching this and deciding what text and S.E.S material to print on the net.
This is a war of puplic relations and PR not a truth reconciliation project. The inquiry's outcome is inevitable. What is not inevitable is the destructive capabilty of this site to be a P.R disaster for the S.E.S. The more secret material we can get on the net the more people can see what they will be asked to believe as they enter the more senior parts of the school.


This seems like new idea. Maybe a new direction if the inquiry collapses completelely. But is this what 'we' want to do?

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:52 pm

Hello Adrae.....

I thought you might pop up. I just can't work out who C.Betts is. Is she the independent chairman and if so why is she acting under the governors orders. My point about her was her method of collating 'evidence' seems simplistic and rushed and not 'indepth'. The least I would have thought they would do is 'interview' the complainants. But to take it all from writing and ignore the atmosphere/climate of a psychological assessment of a complainant's description of the times and to not meet the complainant personally. This is rushed to put it mildly. All involved need at the very least one if not three sessions of analysis by an independent psychologist who can then review the 'evidence' and present the most plausable. To segment the complaints into 'isolated' incidents is to as it were ignore the continuous thread of time and location that cemented these 'isolated' incidents together. The very perametres of the drawing in of evidence are designed to segment the complaints of abuse into 'incidents'. Once everything is segmented the wider issues of S.E.S involvement and manipulation of teachers and pupils and the fact that St James/Vedast pupils left school with a limited and completely completely biased take on life that was sexist, homophobic, militaristic and basically Victorian in it's conservatism with huge gaps in historical awareness, hangups about every feature of the modern world, isolated confused and unable to be anything but an outsider. This stuff affected a generation of people's lives. This 'attempt' masquaraded as a school. This is the wider issue and should be investigated. Of course the inquiry won't address this issue. It has stolen the popular modern term 'pastoral care' to as it were smother any deeper initiatives. Pastoral care is a farce. It isn't the real issue. The term didn't exist then and what's more there was no career advise or preparation for the modern world. There was just a sex education in the last week of the sixth form. 'Use a condom but don't fuck anyone' This was the only 'pastoral care' There was NO pastoral care. It was all moralistic depersonal rubbish. No real understanding of the person in any of the pupils. All the kids were guinipigs being used to pump them with the S.E.S philosophy so that they could then go out into the world and expound it.
Who is C.Betts. How do we know she is 'independent' She has not explained herself in any detail. We have 'unravelled' or at least tried with the little we have of her to unravel and she hasn't even 'started' to explain the inquiry in any detail and we are nearly at the cut off point. I think the point is that she has only written two posts. That is the point. She has explained 'nothing' about the inquiry and it's inner process. Behind the scenes process. I have a 'vision' for how this inquiry should take place and with what amount of detail and care and I will stop complaining and 'unravelling' when I feel the school has gone some way to as it were taking this inquiry seriously. We'll know when that happens. There will be a different tone to their pronouncments.
On the subject of unveiling S.E.S material on the net. I certainly am for it. And it certainly will support the claims on this site with 'real' evidence. We will reveal the script of the farcical play that was the backdrop to our educations.
I certainly am for but can only supply a certain amount of 'material' If others can find more all the better.

PSR
Last edited by Peter Sanders Reynolds on Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:20 pm, edited 8 times in total.

Snowman
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:31 am
Location: London

C Betts

Postby Snowman » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:00 pm

Peter Sanders Reynolds wrote:Who is C.Betts. How do we know she is 'independent' She has not explained herself in any detail. We have 'unravelled' her and she hasn't even 'started' to explain the inquiry in any detail and we are nearly at the cut off point. I think the point is that she has only written two posts. That is the point. She has explained 'nothing' about the inquiry and it's inner process. Behind the scenes process.


C Betts is the contact appointed by St James to handle all official communication on this forum. She is a senior lawyer at Veale Wasborough - the firm appointed by the school. http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2183&highlight=#2183

Her role on this forum is to communicate what David Boddy and the Governors tell her to. I think it is unfair to 'shoot' the messenger.

As far as I am aware the name of the independent chairperson has not been revealed yet - as was promised on December 15th. I am keen to know who has been proposed. I am sure that the governors will appoint an appropriate chairperson who has no links with either the school, the SES, any of the governors or any of the teachers.

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

Re: C Betts

Postby Daffy » Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:56 pm

Snowman wrote:Her role on this forum is to communicate what David Boddy and the Governors tell her to. I think it is unfair to 'shoot' the messenger.

I agree with you in part. Some people seem to be setting her up as the bogeyman in all this when quite obviously she is just a mouthpiece of St James.

I think this is understandable though. We were promised an independent inquiry run by an independent chairman. Instead we have all complaints being filtered by the School's own lawyers, using arbitrary criteria that do not serve Boddy's stated aim of truth and reconciliation.

As I have said in another post, where I do take issue with Ms Betts is her use of the title 'Clerk to the St Vedast Inquiry' and the associated avoidance of mentioning the name 'St James'. This must be a result of either of two things: a lack of attention to detail, or deliberate instructions from St James to avoid using its name as much as possible. Knowing St James, and the history of its headmaster as a PR spin doctor, I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

It would be interesting to know though whether she or any of the partners of her firm are members of the SES, or have children at St James. It would certainly be relevant to the question of how independent this inquiry really is.

chrisdevere
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:45 pm
Location: Battersea
Contact:

Postby chrisdevere » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:27 am

When I first heard about the investigation in to St Vedast, I was
quite keen to take part. I felt that while alot of bad things went
on there, there were also some good things too and that it would be
worthwhile to offer what I consider a fairly balanced view.

I presumed all people prepared to speak would be interviewed about
their time there, whether this was pro the school, or with a
complaint would not matter. An impartial hearing wishing to
understand the facts, and get an understanding of the general
culture and atmosphere at the school. Froim this I would think if
they heard all stories they could make a balanced decision and use
their judgment to decide for themselves if what went on there was
wrong.

However having read the very sniffy response from Ms C Betts asking
for specific details of allegations withj names of witnesses etc. I
found this unbelivable for something that had happened nearly 20
years ago. Personally I could not recall when I or someone else was
treated harshly to the nearest period on a particular day. For
example I remember Mr H punching Jim goodrich in the face on a cross
country run. Time and date god knows! who else saw it well a few as
we were all quite shocked, their names I cant remember after all
this time. Does that mean IU did not see it and I am a liar?

By contrast I just found this on the 7th form web site. Relating to
the upcoming enquiry

" A number of people have independently either spoken or written to
me, saying that their experiences at St Vedast and St James were of
a different nature to those being expressed on the website. Any
former pupil who does not have a complaint but who would wish to
participate in the Inquiry nonetheless, should also contact
Christine Betts outlining in general terms what other observations
are to be made, and expressing a willingness to be questioned
further. "

It strikes me as very odd that if you are prepared to only say good
things you can talk in general terms, but if you are to say
something bad it must be very specific!

As someone who probably would have said quite alot of good about the
school, and highlighted what was bad. I will start here by saying
this biased method of collecting information reminds me of everything that was bad! All the complainants are being treated like idiots and
liars. I remember this treatment being very much the case at St Vedast from teachers if your views did not agree with theirs.
Christopher de Vere
chrisdevere@hotmail.com

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

Postby a different guest » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:50 am

that post just confirms what a whitwash this inquiry is going to be - for God's sake - go to the cops!

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:33 pm

I agree absolutely with Chriss De Vere's comments at the end of the latest peice. We are being treated like liars etc. It's so damned obvious. The inquiry is designed to whittle out many events/happenings/'abuses' just by the fact there is not a date etc. What crap to be quite honest. Where are the psychologists? I was pretty sure C.Betts was in S.E.S by her tone incidently.

WHY ONCE AGAIN IS AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE
NOT DECIDING THE PERAMETRES OF THE INQUIRY AND COLLATING THE MATERIAL? WHY ARE THE GOVERNORS COLLATING THE MATERIAL AND WHY IN SUCH A HASTY AND ANTAGONISTIC DISTRUSTING WAY THAT ALSO IMMEDIATELY CONVENIENTLY EDITS THE EVIDENCE BY CUTTING OFF HALF THE TIME SPAN OF ST JAMES' LIFE AND CUTTING OFF HALF THE ALLEGATIONS BY REQUIRING DATES ETC?...THIS IS MORE THAN A WHITE WASH...IT'S A CLEAR WASH! IT'S SEE THROUGH! NOTHINGS HAPPENING! A NO COLOUR OR SHADE WASH! IT MAKES THE TERM WHITE WASH SEEM LIKE WHITEWASH!

PSR

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

Postby Matthew » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:52 pm

C. Betts in her latest post states yet again that this is a St James Governors' inquiry and that it is internal.

Every inquiry requires factual testimony and this can only be given in a forum that the witnesses have agreed in advance to be just, fair, and equitable.

This stage has still not yet been reached.

If C. Betts, David Boddy, and the Governors persist in talking about a Governors inquiry on terms that have not yet been agreed with the complainants, the simple fact is that there will be no witnesses, and the complainants will then be fully justified in going global on every allegation of serious abuse from day 1 to the present.

The fact that it is an inquiry instigated by the Governors is not in question, but the high-handed attitude of the Governors, D Boddy, and C Betts that this entitles the Governors to expect the gratuitous participation by victims of past abuse is patronising, misconceived, insulting, and demonstrative of an utter failure to comprehend the enormity of what a whole generation of former pupils has suffered.

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

Postby Alban » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:14 pm

Regarding the 7th form piece!

Surely, if the investigation has been set up to investigate the allegations, then having what amounts to a number of good-character witnesses is largely irellevant anyway.

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:40 pm

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Tue Feb 01, 2005 9:34 pm

I think now is the time to really ask the question and be honest. What did people think of the St James education? There have been between 1000 and 2000 leavers. What do they all think. To be quite genuine, I know someone who was not in the S.E.S, nor were his parents, he went to the school during the late 80's and early 90's at around the same time as me and he looks back with a great deal of fondness. He can't understand why people on this site can't move on. He wasn't in S.E.S I stress, so he's not baised to the school. Just a normal bloke. So I'm genuinely interested in what the 2000 think. I think the governors should be too. And I think they should make amendments to basic things in the education such as sex education, the education on the roles of men and women etc, IF the majority of the 2000 think they were misled, badly educated on such basic things as these I've mentioned. I expect there WILL be a lot of support and many people won't feel as strongly as those on this site. I feel I'm talking for a generation hence the superlatives. If we could get some real perspective on all of this IF and WHEN D.Boddy sends a mail out to all the now adult old boys and girls. IF we did get a real perspective maybe we wouldn't be so damned demanding on this site. I want to know what people think. We are all aged between 45(?) tops and 19. St James was an experiment, it was not a normal education in any way. What do those experimented on really think? I'd love to know. After all these are REAL lives and THAT is the issue here. While those at St James just see product/ young kids and never think any further than the classes they have in front of them at any one time. These 'products' are roaming the streets of London and the rest of the world after their education coming to grips with REALITY. St James has never fully quite appreciated this fact I don't think. Never quite realised these are real souls/persons/identities passing them by. REAL REAL. Humans. They just see their idealism and the need for the idealism in the kids. But the kids are REAL. The kids are REAL. What do the 'kids' think. I think St James should find out.
PSR

lowpass
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:58 pm

Postby lowpass » Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:38 am

Peter Sanders Reynolds wrote:I think now is the time to really ask the question and be honest. What did people think of the St James education? There have been between 1000 and 2000 leavers. What do they all think. To be quite genuine, I know someone who was not in the S.E.S, nor were his parents, he went to the school during the late 80's and early 90's at around the same time as me and he looks back with a great deal of fondness.
PSR


hi peter
The school was very different in the 70's, thats the first thing to realise. You would have had to have been there in the 70s to have any idea about it! Secondly even if (perhaps a big if) the majority of ex students were happy, this in no way has any bearing on the -supposed hypothetical minority- who were badly mistreated by untrained staff. You can't really split St James students into the users of this site, and everyone else.

You raise an valid point. I am sure some of my old classmates have a more favourable recollection of their time at St james than I, and the more zealous are no doubt busily scribbling away glowing testimonials about the wonderful school and their patron Saint Debenham for the 'inquiry'. One individual I know runs the seventh form organisation. Being quiet towing the line and easygoing as a kid he got through his early years relatively unscathed. He was never beaten while i was at St James, (Debenham used to cane 4/5 year olds, severly enough to bruise for 2 weeks).The one time Colin Russell lost his temper with him he completely collapsed in a crying heap. I am very ashamed to admit at the time i felt contempt and scorn, I never gave any of them the pleasure of seeing me cry, I stood the fXckers down every time. (The horribly macho sexism of the teaching maybe sunk in.) Had he been constantly reduced to this on a weekly basis, he would I am sure have a different attitude now! One thing is clear is that some people were singled out for excessive treatment, and not for general behaviour issues.
This puzzled me then but less so now. I think the answer lies in the cult structure of SES, where St james was actually a mini cult. If you kept your head down, agreed with everything, paid your tithe you could slip by.as in SES if you openly questioned the beliefs and you were immediately a threat to the power of the tutors, as you may influence othes members/ students to reject the teaching. I refused to accept their worldview, and embraced modern culture. I was caned severly by Debenham for bringing a magazine about films to school, eating chips etc. In the 70's they were paranoid fanatics. a bad influence is the worst thing to be labled in a cult.

Some of the teaching was of a high standard and I am grateful for being introduced to Plato and (this may make me unpopular here) Indian mysticism. (although absorbing that particular philosophy at a very early age was very damaging to my psyche, only a fool would teach that to 5 year olds. However i eventually saved myself by going much deeper into it than SES) I also know one member of staff genuinely cared and tried to give me a good education.

I am not seeking any apology from anyone, I am just happy to make what I consider to be incidents of physical abuse stupidity and brainwashing against children public- punching children in the face was unlawful 100 years ago. I would be happy if St James bit the dust, because I disagree with Cults indoctrinating children, however many exam 'A's they get.


If i could time travel or put the clock back I would not change my past!

a fair investigation should include every ex Student.

best lp


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests