Inquiry Update

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
CBetts
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 pm

Inquiry Update

Postby CBetts » Tue Jan 25, 2005 3:24 pm

The comments received in relation to the scope and conduct of the
> inquiry will be passed to the Governors and will be taken into account
> following 16th February, when the Governors settle the final terms of
> reference and the timetable for the Inquiry. Please note that the
> proposed Inquiry is an internal Inquiry not a Public Inquiry. The
> Governors are prepared to deal with complaints of which they are made
> aware, they do not have a responsibility to trawl for further
> complaints.

C Betts
Clerk to the St Vedast Inquiry

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

THE ABOVE IS RUBBISH

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:07 pm

TRAWL. Do the governers of the school privately beneath the 'dignified' and well worded and ordered response privately view the allegations, accusations and stories on the site as trash.

There is a FIRE. You can box the smoke but the FIRE will come out. The alarm is ringing and you are ignoring it. If you do not make this inquiry fastidious and thorough the skeletons and ghosts of the schools past will start walking like the living dead while you try to happily consign the schools past as some historical anomaly. The past still exists in a continuous thread as the present exists and holds those that were in the past in the clutches of effects from the past. We the old boys and girls are only just waking up to what a bad schooling we had. It was a bad education. Twisted. Wake up. WE WILL NEVER LET THIS REST. So be thorough and make this investigation external non private and independent. THE GOVERNORS ARE TRYING TO COVER ALL THIS UP. They will be defeated. It WAS a bad education. I am very angry. I am one of a thousand. This GREAT FIRE WILL ERUPT. However if you are thorough and notify all involved including witnesses/classmates of the years 1975 to 1995. Second date abitrary. The fire may well be tamed. Otherwise ST JAMES is going to burn. (not literally i.e arson, no not arson, but the consumation by the concentrated fire of enquiry as the laser of 'truth' in it's real meaning is applied to the balsa wood structures of the St James/S.E.S ideology)

Peter Sanders Reynolds
Last edited by Peter Sanders Reynolds on Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.

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

Re: Inquiry Update

Postby lowpass » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:26 pm

CBetts wrote:The comments received in relation to the scope and conduct of the
> inquiry will be passed to the Governors and will be taken into account
> following 16th February, when the Governors settle the final terms of
> reference and the timetable for the Inquiry.


So you are asking people to submit material to an inquiry before it's terms of reference and scope have been finalised? And to a religious Cult organisation that abused them? If the inquiry was handled by a completely impartial body, this would not be a problem. As it is being run by SES governors it is. A few ex expupils were made aware of it's draft form and their post as SES schools action statement shows that their recommendations for fairness and impartiality regarding the inquiry's terms of reference have obviously been ignored



CBetts wrote:Please note that the proposed Inquiry is an internal Inquiry not a Public Inquiry.


noted, and is therefore a meaningless inquiry. Obviously St james doesn't want any uncomfortable facts about itself made public. How ironic! St James unable to face the 'truth'! Surely the truth should be public not private? Is this why Boddy wants parts of this website removed?

CBetts wrote:> The Governors are prepared to deal with complaints of which they are made aware, they do not have a responsibility to trawl for further
> complaints.


If they can't even be bothered to read a few Web pages, no wonder they can't be bothered to contact all previous pupils that a full fact finding inquiry would require. They do not seem to feel the need to have any responsibility to past pupils at all.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Inquiry Update

Postby anti_ses » Wed Jan 26, 2005 12:16 pm

lowpass wrote:If they can't even be bothered to read a few Web pages...

With no disrespect to those who have described their experiences on this website, web message boards cannot, in my opinion, be used as evidence or as an effective means of communicating with those handling the internal enquiry. Why? Because anyone can post anything virtually anonymously on such a forum. Therefore, I believe complaints through signed letters (a simple copy-paste job?) will be received more readily by the internal enquiry than posts online.

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

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:48 pm

Three points.

The governors are setting up a series of rights or lefts, blacks or whites and wrongs or rights. The 5 day visitor QC will only reply right, black and wrong or left, white and right. Whatever the governors prepare as the issues he will choose between the options they have set up. Therefore they have 'almost' total control of the nature of the allegations that are 'presented'.
The QC is coming for five days. To entertain the kids. Are the school paying him. A lawyer for hire. A travelling entertainer. A clown. Five days.
Surely this is rushing things by a conservative estimate. I thought the inquiry would consist of detailed interviewing of all those involved over a period of two to three months and then the results in Easter.

Are we to understand the QC will make his judgement just from written peices viewed in isolation, in a vacuum. Surely this is clownish. This isn't real integrity justice or current pastoral care in relation to the care this inquiry needs, let alone past pastoral care.

A fourth point is this a joke?

PSR
Last edited by Peter Sanders Reynolds on Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Inquiry Update

Postby lowpass » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:58 am

anti_ses wrote:With no disrespect to those who have described their experiences on this website, web message boards cannot, in my opinion, be used as evidence or as an effective means of communicating with those handling the internal enquiry. Why? Because anyone can post anything virtually anonymously on such a forum. Therefore, I believe complaints through signed letters (a simple copy-paste job?) will be received more readily by the internal enquiry than posts online.


Hi anti-ses.
I agree with you, and why I find it extraordinary that St James are conducting such a serious inquiry on an internet forum. As posts from ex pupils are not effective evidence logically we should ignore and doubt all posts by C Betts and D Boddy.

My point was really that the governors should not be looking for testimonies here, but one would expect them be engaged in some research for their subject, of which reading a few related web pages would be a small matter. Of which even that it seems they can't be bothered.

Is this inquiry a PA attempt to silence a few people on an internet forum, or a thorough investigation into the schools conduct?

best lp

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

Postby adrasteia » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:00 pm

CBetts wrote:The comments received...will be passed to the Governors...the Governors settle the final terms of reference and the timetable for the Inquiry.

David Boddy wrote: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...
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.

I think that was the joke. Punch line is in bold.

I?m finding it very hard to take any of these posts at face value, instead I have to read very carefully between each line.


CBetts wrote:The Governors are prepared to deal with complaints of which they are made aware, they do not have a responsibility to trawl for further complaints.

The tone of C Betts? post speaks volumes. Compare and contrast:
David Boddy wrote: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.


The Governors have absolute responsibility to ?trawl? for further complaints.
If they have any intention of uncovering the facts, and addressing any mental or physical pain that ex-students have suffered in their school then they will contact all ex pupils just as they have those active on this site.
If they are merely trying to appease those ex-pupils active on this site, then they have still not done enough, as it has been reported that they are only looking at the boy?s school. There have been shocking accounts from several girls on this site and to ignore them is an appalling oversight.


The Governors must also give more time for the submission of evidence. There are still serious unanswered questions about the inquiry and worrying statements floating around about the structure and scope of the inquiry-

How is the evidence to be presented to the QC?
Will it be edited?
Is the girl?s school to be included?
Will results be public in any way?
Will teachers be involved/interviewed/required to give evidence in the inquiry?
How long is the evidence to be reviewed by the QC?
Will there be any efforts made to contact all ex-pupils?
There are many more.


We need a post that is a little more generous than 7 or 8 lines, which explains ?fully- the structure of the inquiry and it?s limitations, also detailing how particular decisions were arrived at.

Complete transparency is the very least is owed here.

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

Very good Adrasteia

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:17 pm

Once again Adrasteia does it again. A brilliant dissection. Her's is the post that C.Betts should pay a mighty attention to. Very good. Answer those questions C. Betts please. We need to know the structure of this inquiry and all it's in's and out's down to the very last verse and punctuation mark, let alone concept or hidden inner motive.

WHERE IS THIS INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN?

WHAT IS THIS INQUIRY?

HOW DOES IT WORK

WHEN DOES IT WORK

WHY DOES IT WORK

DOES IT WORK

And so on


C.Betts needs to elaborate to the extent of two A4 pages at the very least.


PSR

mulquem
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:07 pm
Contact:

Chairman/QC

Postby mulquem » Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:28 pm

I think this is worthless in its current form. The inquiry needs to be public and the QC needs to be proven - beyond doubt - to be clear of influence from SES. Everyone needs to be informed of this, somehow, and then perhaps by February next year there would be enough evidence for this to mean something.

I admire all you brave souls for sharing your experiences on here. I for one am far too afraid of the watchers and would only be willing to do so in a closed, and seriously vetted forum.

sparks
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:17 am

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW HEADTEACHER OF ST JAMES

Postby sparks » Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:38 am

Perhaps we should just refresh our memories?..and travel back to the 20th October last year?

Lets begin?

David Boddy wrote:My name is David Boddy, the new headmaster at St James in Twickenham. .


"OK, I'm with you so far..."

David Boddy wrote: The steps must be truth first, and then reconciliation.


"I agree,?.. do go on..."

David Boddy wrote: We want this process to have dignity and integrity...


"Ah, integrity, absolutely.....lets come back that one in a minute?.

?Do continue?"


David Boddy wrote: ....... the independent Inquiry will allow all those who wish to say something to do so......


"Sorry David, I missed that???.. I was just looking up integrity in the OED".

"Could you repeat please?"


David Boddy wrote: ....... the independent Inquiry will allow all those who wish to say something to do so......


"Wow! Great stuff...?

??..is there more??


David Boddy wrote:.........and we want to give those who do so the confidence that views, complaints and comments will be clearly heard.......


?Well David, this is all very encouraging. I?m sure all the readers will follow developments with interest.? "Thank you for your time".



Fast forward to January 25th this year

C Betts wrote:(On behalf of David Boddy, SES, Governors etc)........ The Governors are prepared to deal with complaints of which they are made aware, they do not have a responsibility to trawl for further complaints.....


:bad-words: Is it just me???!

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW HEADTEACHER OF ST JAMES

Postby anti_ses » Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:53 pm

sparks wrote:
David Boddy wrote:.........and we want to give those who do so the confidence that views, complaints and comments will be clearly heard.......


Fast forward to January 25th this year

C Betts wrote:(On behalf of David Boddy, SES, Governors etc)........ The Governors are prepared to deal with complaints of which they are made aware, they do not have a responsibility to trawl for further complaints.....


Sorry, I don't see the discrepancy here. "Views will be clearly heard" does not logically imply, "There is a responsibility to trawl for complaints."

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

Postby Peter Sanders Reynolds » Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:05 pm

Very nice build up Sparks but you missed the punchline.

You've highlighted the words of D. Boddy well. However it's not the 'trawl' accusation that makes a nonsense of D.Boddy's words it's just the plain fact thay the words sound good fine moral and just and benign in print and may have done so in the moment of their conception by the author. However since and for the rest of the year he has no intention of putting the tone of these words truly into practise. The tone of the words was just and fair and suited to the time of their writing. The rest of the time D.Boddy is thinking to himself how quickly he can get all this out of the way and start with his 'new' school. The 5 day nature of this enquiry is the farce and the fact that the governors are collating the information.WHERE IS THE INDEPENDENT CHAIRMAN WHO NEEDS TO CHAIR THIS ENQUIRY FROM DAY ONE!
Boddy is not really interested in this website or the people on it. He thinks they are all a bunch of whiners and no goods. He doesn't even have sympathy. He just knows he has to sound officially involved enough for this thing to be resolved. THIS IS THE PUNCHLINE.

PSR

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

Postby Snowman » Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:14 pm

Anti-SES

Do you have a complaint to make?

Fom your Yahoo group it seems that you might do.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:29 pm

Snowman wrote:Anti-SES

Do you have a complaint to make?

Fom your Yahoo group it seems that you might do.

Please address my point. This is a public discussion. I have expressed my complaints on the Yahoo site. Despite my username, I am not oblivious to obvious attempts to attack the SES without reason. My point is that sensationalist remarks, such as the one on which I commented, do not aid the cause of those seeking reconciliation or closure.

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

Postby Snowman » Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:44 pm

Your point is duly noted.

The issue, as I see it, is that the School should take upon itself the responsibility of discovering the truth - as David Boddy states is the first step. The implication of the revised statement on Jan 25th is that they are not interested in the truth only in answering complaints that are formally made.

These are two very different things. The quest for truth requires a desire to know the facts and deal with them. Answering complaints made is a damage limitation/PR exercise.

Which of these would you say best summarises their objectives?


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest