How much were our parents to blame?

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:46 am

a different guest wrote:I think Alban has really hit the nail on the head here - and her comments are certainly germane to Daffy's experience where even now his parents are unable to acknowledge what went on on at the schools or its affects on their child. I feel for Daffy as it is hard to be estranged from your parents, particularly after you have children yourself - but my guessing is that his folks will never change their spots now. But while this is a loss for Daffy, it is also a loss for his parents.

Another correction for today, ADG - I am not estranged from my parents! It's just that we no longer discuss the subject matter of this thread, as the argument gets us nowhere.

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

Postby chrisdevere » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:17 am

Grime thanks for the kind words!

I guess i was a difficult child, as previously in a state school I had run riot and been quite a violent young child, this was i think largley due to the fact that everyone else ran riot too. I wanted to learn and you could not learn in that enviroment! I ultimatley got expelled for playing up, what else was there to do but play up! You could not learn anything!

By contrast St Vedast was strict the classes quiet etc etc. from day one there was no desire to play up! However due to my past record, it seemed from day one I was to be singled out for beatings for whatever a teacher fancied that day. This rapidly destroyed all faith in a firm fair school!

I have seen state school pupils today (through friends wo teach them) where they have no respect for the teacher, act with complete impunity and threaten and bully children and teachers alike. In contrast to this I have also seen bright young children who are keen and willing o learn. i still feel that why should a teacher spend half a lesson reasoning with a "thug" about how to behave, at the expense of all others. Especially when the "thug" just takes this as weakness on the teachers part. I still belive that a good whack with a cane is an ultimate deterrent (That if you are prepared to be violent towards your peers, that there is someone bigger than you and not affraid of you who will teach you a good lesson!) Personally i would be all for it even now! But only as a last resort. Punisment is devalued if it is used for anything e.g. Hipshon sending a whole class to be beaten for one boy talking in class. this makes children resntful and the deterrence of a beating no longer works. On the other hand should you punch another pupil in the face for the hell of it then its a fair punish to get a beating and I think a good deterrent and also probably favourable to suspension!

Beating back in the 70's 80's was commonplace in public schools. My friends who went to better public schools have no problem with having been beaten, as it was rare and for a serious transgression. In their oppinion they got their just deserts. they cannot however belive how often we were beaten and what for. I think the SES indoctrination of the Staff led to them abusing their right to beat children. Oter posters on here have quite elequently explained how this happened.

I have no problem with strictness and discipline even now. But in its right place. I am sure that school kid who stabbed a teacher to death a few years ago. Had he had a beating or some discipline, may not have done it. Instead he had spent his entire life, doing what he wanted and getting away with it. Untill ultimatley he went too far and killed someone, I am sure even he would agree that someone standing up to him even if this had meant a beating as a last resort would be preferable to life in jail.

Incidentally I was the person another guest was talking to that she references in her recent post.
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 » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:32 am

oh dear - multiple corrections in one day. Still daffy - if there is 12 years in your life that are NOT for discussion with your parents, is that not a form of estrangment?

Chris - perhaps if no boundaries are set early on then maybe an older child will be difficult? But even so it is my experience that you CAN set boundaries no matter what the age. For example, being lazy with the vacuum I set the boundary in my house that food is to be eaten at the table - NO wandering about the house eating. I am yet to have a problem with a visiting child (used to eating wherever in their own house) understanding the rules of MY house.

If you can get hold of it on video I would recomend an au ABC doco called "our boys" - it's about a number of Canturbury Boys High School ( a state school with a HUGE multicultural student body and, incidently, the alma mater of the current conservative PM here) and concentrates on a number of "problem" boys in the school. See what can be done to help kids without resorting to beating them.

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

Postby chrisdevere » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:11 pm

A different guest!

I take your point, and yes my mother did set reasonable boundaries and rules e.g. eating at the table. However I think you probably fail to appreciate the state of central London a city with the same population as the entire country you live in.

you have many parents who simply dont care, and set no boundaries for their children. State schools in the UK, unlike Australian state schools in my experience are run by teachers who did not care and were more interested in what their trade union was doing for them! than a child getting an education , or their maiuntaining discipline in the classroom. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule.

Interestingly a popular program on TV here has been bad lads army, where they have taken drop outs and kids who have brushed with the law and put them through 1950's national service training. most at the end of the program have come out saying that they benefitted from the experience and have a great deal more self respect.

Public schools can not now beat a child by law, their ultimate deterrent is if you are expelled you will have to explain to your parents why you have wasted their ?4000 per term. The parent will probably then beat their kid for wasting the money!

i do not understand how you nurture a child who has no structure or discipline in their life though, yes talk to them reason with them. There are lots of alternatives to beating someone. however you do have to have an ultimate punishment. e.g. a criminal who re offends might at first get a lecture, then a comunity service order then eventually prison. You cant replace prison with. If you dont stop doing tha I will tell you to stop again!

I personally if I had children dream of smacking them. however I would also not want the government to make it illegal for me to do so! (something that is being pushed for in this country) I would want to keep my right to discipline my own children as I see fit. Notas some wishy washy social worker sees fit!

In the same context, I would have no problem with a child being caned as a punishment for a very serious transgression, where all other methods have failed. I do not condone beating for minor transgression or at a guardians whim.

A different guest it seems you are a bit fixated with corporal punishment and its rights and wrongs. the real issue on here was the warped teachings of the SES and the resulting behaviour amongst teachers. excessive beating and other punishments was a small part of a much bigger picture.

All public schools beat kids then, it was the norm in he UK. Most parents accepted it as it was used very rarely and then for major transgressions. e.g. a friend of mine at Gordonston who punched a junior in the face,because he was annoying. He got caned, did his parents complain (no) He did noit either as he knew he deserved it, it also deterred him from doing it again. In his words it bloddy hurt! and he decided the fun of being a thug and bully was outweighed by the fact that someone hit him harder. He would have happily laughed and carried on if not beaten and only told off as he had before.
Christopher de Vere
chrisdevere@hotmail.com

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

Postby mgormez » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:11 pm

a different guest wrote:If you can get hold of it on video I would recomend an au ABC doco called "our boys" - it's about a number of Canturbury Boys High School ( a state school with a HUGE multicultural student body and, incidently, the alma mater of the current conservative PM here) and concentrates on a number of "problem" boys in the school. See what can be done to help kids without resorting to beating them.


I believe this is the right page for that buy-video:
http://www.abc.net.au/programsales/s1123202.htm

Filmed with unprecedented access over a school year, Our Boys follows the lives of several students and teachers at this cash-strapped government school in Sydney's inner west.
Mike Gormez

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

Postby lowpass » Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:47 pm

chrisdevere wrote:
you have many parents who simply dont care, and set no boundaries for their children. State schools in the UK, unlike Australian state schools in my experience are run by teachers who did not care and were more interested in what their trade union was doing for them! than a child getting an education , or their maiuntaining discipline in the classroom. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule.


I have worked in the toughest inner city schools in london for over 10 years and your statement does not square up to my experience. Most teachers are pretty dedicated, the exception being those who are not up to the task, who do exist.

chrisdevere wrote:Interestingly a popular program on TV here has been bad lads army, where they have taken drop outs and kids who have brushed with the law and put them through 1950's national service training. most at the end of the program have come out saying that they benefitted from the experience and have a great deal more self respect..


How did this help them get an academic education? Kids don't steal fight and cause trouble because they lack self respect, thats just social worker babble.

chrisdevere wrote:i do not understand how you nurture a child who has no structure or discipline in their life though.


Well it's the job of schools to find a way. Do you think beating a disruptive violent child who sees his father punching his mother out every other night will be effective? Fair? Or caning a girl who is being victimised
or abused at home?
You say state schools had a discipline problem in the 70's, yet the cane was legal.


chrisdevere wrote:In the same context, I would have no problem with a child being caned as a punishment for a very serious transgression, where all other methods have failed. I do not condone beating for minor transgression or at a guardians whim.


As one who has been confronted by knives, life threats, hurled objects etc in inner london state schools and believe use of the cane would be unfair and inneffective, I disagree with you. However I would not have been bothered if i was only beaten as a last resort at St James, ( my father whacked me, i don't have any problems with him) but i was beaten all the time, severly for plaing arcade games after school, and sometimes for absolutely no reason. As an example I was once sent out for talking, after about 10 minutes Debenham walked past, pulled me into his study and caned me. The only logical explanation is the guy got some kind of buzz from it.

chrisdevere wrote:All public schools beat kids then, it was the norm in he UK..


Have academic standards fallen in the UK now the cane is illegal? It is also worth comparing different countries and looking at those who ban corporal punishment and those with the highest academic results.


chrisdevere wrote: Most parents accepted it as it was used very rarely and then for major transgressions. e.g. a friend of mine at Gordonston who punched a junior in the face,because he was annoying. He got caned, did his parents complain (no) He did noit either as he knew he deserved it, it also deterred him from doing it again. In his words it bloddy hurt! and he decided the fun of being a thug and bully was outweighed by the fact that someone hit him harder. He would have happily laughed and carried on if not beaten and only told off as he had before.


If he would have happily carried on then logically he will punch younger
kids outside school, where the threat of the cane is removed.

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

Postby a different guest » Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:46 pm

Chris - once again I reiterate that by talking about normal cp I am not in any way meaning to diminish the abuse that was metted out at St J and St V.

I would not say I am "fixated" on it - just curious how you could STILL think it (normal cp that is) a good idea and even go so far as to say you "dream" of smacking your children (if and when you have some).

As for your friend being caned for hitting a smaller child - does it make ANY sense to punish someone for hitting a smaller child by someone bigger then hitting them?

Anyway the reason about my asking about general community attitudes to cp in the UK was to see if this shed any light on the reaction (or non-reaction really) of parents like Daffy's who, despite being told what was going on, kept sending their child to such a school.

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

Postby chrisdevere » Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:45 am

Low pass said [As one who has been confronted by knives, life threats, hurled objects etc in inner london state schools and believe use of the cane would be unfair and inneffective, I disagree with you. However I would not have been bothered if i was only beaten as a last resort at St James, ( my father whacked me, i don't have any problems with him) but i was beaten all the time, severly for plaing arcade games after school, and sometimes for absolutely no reason. As an example I was once sent out for talking, after about 10 minutes Debenham walked past, pulled me into his study and caned me. The only logical explanation is the guy got some kind of buzz from it. ]

My point exactly about state schools, if this is going on in lessons, how can you seriously expect to learn anything! This is what I found as a child. I agree the cane would be ineffective a custodial sentence in a reform school or prison sounds better!!! However your point about what you were beaten for is exactly what I was getting at, it was almost always for some trivial matter, unlike other schools. Where the parent would generaly be contacted and informed and their consent sought, after a child had comitted a gross disobedience.

My point about the lads army thing was not to do with any kind of educational benefit, but that they seemed to feel they had benefitted from some sort of discipline, and it had given them a self respect they had never had. Boys are a rowdy lot by nature and need fairly strict rules in my oppinion. If they are allowed too much leeway they will run riot. However all kids need also to let their hair down and let of steam. At St V you could never do this, as you pointed out. Even your free time(Playing video games etc) was controlled by the school.

[/quote]
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 15, 2005 10:09 am

Boys are a rowdy lot by nature


Crap.

ask any mum or teacher - boys are generally (and i say GENERALLY) far more sensitive and vulnerable than girls are.

Statistically boy babies are more likely to be difficult in that they suffer far more from such things as separation and stranger axiety and will be less settled than girl babies. Young boys are less robust emotionally than young girls. They are more likely to cry when upset.

all true. boy children need nurturing and boundaries NOT beatings.

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

Postby chrisdevere » Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:26 am

a different guest. Sorry I had presumed you were a woman. I did not know you were speaking from experience.
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 15, 2005 11:37 am

different guest. Sorry I had presumed you were a woman. I did not know you were speaking from experience


I am a woman and am speaking from experience.

More than you can claim eh? :)

sorry - a smart alec post deserves a smart alec response. :P

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

Postby chrisdevere » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:13 pm

I fail to see how a woman can know from experience how a boys emotions work? In the same way I would not presume to be an expert on a girls inner emotions.

It strikes me that you have very strong views on how to bring up children, which is fine. however i tend to belive something else. that there are many approaches and it is a case of horses for courses.

St V and its brutality put aside, good discipline certainly worked for me.

It strikes me a bit that you are keen to force your views and stir people up. I was wondering what exactly is your interest in the SES and this forum. (You appear to have no direct link) I know you said some friends children go to the school and that they have distanced themselves from you. Have you considered that it may be nothing to do with their teachings?

i am sorry if I sound suspicious, but 20 years ago there were several people who had nothing to do with my schooling but joined in the rant against St Vedast. This at the time detracted from legitimate criticism of what was wrong with the school and also led to the vigilante like attacks on the whole school rather than an independent assesment of what was going on.

I was a little curious as to your unprompted MSN to me. whilst always happy to chat to people, I could not really see what it was you wanted to ask. Your tone seemed mocking and then confrontational.

There are people in this world (and especially on the net who have nothing better to do than) pontificate about how others should live their lives. I am not being rude but just trying to understand where you are coming from. Many of the people on here are known to me, as we shared a common experience. Whilst obviously a public forum and others are welcome to comment, it does strike me that you have no real grounds for your views? have the SES ever harmed you? Have you ever come in to contact with them? or spoken with their members? or are you just airing your particular take on what you think they are? I am not defending them, but am curious as to your motivation? There are people on here who have shown alot of courage in making these postings and I would not like to see them devalued.

thanks

Chris
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 15, 2005 12:31 pm

I fail to see how a woman can know from experience how a boys emotions work?

I am speaking as a parent - and I have first hand experience of boy's "emotions". Not just my own, but sharing the parenting experience with other mothers

It strikes me that you have very strong views on how to bring up children, which is fine. however i tend to belive something else. that there are many approaches and it is a case of horses for courses


No offence - but parents DO laugh at people who are NOT parents yet commenting in an authorative manner about parenting.

I was wondering what exactly is your interest in the SES and this forum.

I have stated this quite plainly numerous times.


I know you said some friends children go to the school and that they have distanced themselves from you. Have you considered that it may be nothing to do with their teachings?


actually I said no such thing - they have distanced themselves from their family. Your implied surmise almost constitutes flaming.


I was a little curious as to your unprompted MSN to me

Nothing more than i was on the board, saw you were active and checked your profile - you had the msn thing there for contacting. If you did not want contact why have your msn activated on this board?




I could not really see what it was you wanted to ask.

I was curious about your attitude to corporal punishment. Note that I did not mention it was YOU i was talking to when I asked further questions on this board about UK attitudes.

Your tone seemed mocking and then confrontational.

I apologise if it sounded "mocking" - it was not what was in my mind. if it was later "confrontational" then put that down to totally opposing views on smacking infants and beating children.


Many of the people on here are known to me, as we shared a common experience. Whilst obviously a public forum and others are welcome to comment, it does strike me that you have no real grounds for your views? have the SES ever harmed you? Have you ever come in to contact with them? or spoken with their members? or are you just airing your particular take on what you think they are? I am not defending them, but am curious as to your motivation?


If you want a private forum for victims of STj/St V then there IS one available. Meanwhile if you HAD bothered to read my earlier posts (and I have been a membor of this forum for quite some time) then you would know that I do have grounds for my views and that I have close contact with people I consider victims of this cult.
Last edited by a different guest on Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby chrisdevere » Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:44 pm

I am sure you have close contact. I have in fact read all posts. Perhaps for my benefit you could restate what your close contact is/has been and how it has affected you?

I am also curious if you simply wanted to know my views on corporal punishment (Well documented on the very first page of postings on this site) why are you so keen to apparently try and argue me round to your point of view. It seems very blinkered that you cant accept that diffent people have different beliefs and views.
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 15, 2005 12:54 pm

Perhaps for my benefit you could restate what your close contact is/has been and how it has affected you?


No - I have already said as much as I've wanted to say (and perhaps too much on a public forum) about my "close contact" and how it has affected me.

But i WILL restate that what has kept me visiting this forum is the many stories I have heard from past pupils of the London school and GENUINE concern about how their fight for justice turns out.

why are you so keen to apparently try and argue me round to your point of view


we had the discussion by msn - as far as I was concerned that was that. it was YOU who then went on the name me as the discusser and continue the debate on the forum. I had already heard your views - I was trawling for OTHERS opinions.

as for changing your mind - well the funniest thing a non-parent expecting a child can say to a parent is "we're not going to let this baby change us"

Please don't consider that a dig - it is a truism and I too have been guilty of it. :)


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests