NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

[anti_ses]

Saying that you "remain unrepentant" is equivalent to labelling as liars the dozens of contributors to this forum who have reported personal acts of brutality by this man.

No, they are not equivalent. By remaining unrepentant, Katharine merely states that she faithfully portrayed her image of Mr Debenham as he was seen in the last seven years. She should not, in my opinion, feel repentant for not being aware of any abuses carried out by Mr Debenham before she began teaching at the school.

[sugarloaf]

Katharine Watson wrote:
...I know some people thought that the QC who originally agreed to do the inquiry was a friend of the chairman of the governors. Absolutely untrue. None of the governors, or anyone concerned, had ever heard of him, let alone met him....

Alban wrote:
Could you explain this article linking Roger Pincham and Leolin Price then!

http://www.congressfordemocracy.org.uk/ ... ngress.htm

I?d be interested to hear your response to this Katharine.

And to add to your denial, David Boddy has also privately communicated - on more than one occasion - that ?as far as he?s aware? neither he, nor any of the Governors knows, or has met Leolin Price.

Since this inquiry has been proposed by, and is being set up by the Governors, it is quite simply inconceivable that Roger Pincham, the Chair of the Board of Governors, did not sanction the proposal of Leolin Price as Inquiry Chairman.

Roger Pincham has met, spoken to, and recently shared a platform at a political meeting with Leolin Price, his proposed chairman for this inquiry.

I?m sorry, but this is nothing short of blatant deception. Bearing in mind the gravity of the situation, this alone should be enough to call for Roger Pincham?s resignation as Chair of the Board of Governors.

Add to that the circumstantial evidence that Leolin Price is a pro-Thatcher anti European, an old Tory party grandee, who will have associated with Thatcher in the early eighties at exactly the time that David Boddy, the current school Head was her press officer, and you may start to see why some ex pupils do not have much confidence in the way the school is going about this inquiry.

I?m constantly being told ?the schools have changed?, ?they?re not like they were?. How am I expected to believe it, when faced with behaviour like this? They still seem to operate in their own parallel universe.

WOULD ROGER PINCHAM, DAVID BODDY, OR ANY OF THE GOVERNORS LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS?

PS

For any new readers confused by this thread, the initial message from Boddy, and several subsequent posts now attributed to ?Katharine Watson? were originally posted anonymously under the pseudonym ?patienceismymiddlename?[/u][/b]

[Grebdlef]

The Governors appointed Leolin Price Q.C. as the chairman. I have never met him and bear him no malice. But look at his credentials: he is a chancery silk, he has retired, he has no experience of child protection or welfare law and has not been involved in any cases like this in his life time.

Now, given that Q.Cs are two to a dozen - why would the Governors chose someone with no experience. What were the reasons they chose him? If you need a Q.C to chair an inquiry of this kind ring up the association of Child Welfare Lawyers and they will give 10 or more names. Why didnt the school do this?

Someone please tell me why Leolin Price Q,C was chosen. This is a quote from his website

"1968, Leolin Price has practised as Queen's Counsel specialising in Trusts, Property, Company Law, Commercial Law, Taxation, Charity and all the areas that fall within (and in many cases falling outside) the scope of Chancery practice" - how strange - no mention of child welfare!

Now why would I want to tell an expert in tax and company law about being beaten till I bled?

Given that this man has no experience - the only other conclusion is that he is somehow connected to the Schools.

I say again: appoint an independent expert in this area, hand over the running of the inquiry to him and her - and I will start to talk.

Until that happens - this will all continue and I think SES /St J will start to learning the true meaning of Sanskara!

[Katharine Watson]

Could you explain this article linking Roger Pincham and Leolin Price then!

Yes, I think maybe I can. But it does also explain why people took exception to Leolin Price in the first place.

Roger Pincham was chairman of the Liberal Party for some years. He has attended and/or chaired umpteen conferences, at which goodness knows how many people have been present. It turns out that four years ago he did indeed attend one at which Leolin Price also participated and spoke. I understand that he has no recollection of meeting him, however, and I suggest that he believed in good faith that he had never met him.

I myself have given lots of public lectures, and I don't generally have much recollection of the people who asked me questions or spoke to me afterwards. I might remember a face, but certainly not a name. I wonder how many people would be able to remember everyone they met at a conference.

That said, I understand the governors, having heard the objections made to Mr Price, have agreed not to run with him anyhow, and to seek another Chairman. I do hope this one will be agreeable to all concerned, so that the inquiry can proceed. Perhaps I can just add that Mr Price was never actually appointed at all; he was merely asked if he would be willing to undertake the job.

How did the school get hold of his name? Well, what do you do if you want to set up an inquiry? (Personally, I wouldn't have the faintest idea.) It seems you ask your solicitors. My understanding is that the school's solicitors were asked to find somebody willing to chair this inquiry, and Leolin Price was the name they came up with.

One last thing before I sign off. I would like to state that any statements or views I write here are my own, and do not represent any 'official' line -unless I specifically state that I have been asked to post something on behalf of David Boddy.

I am going to be away from today for the next 2-3 weeks, so I won't be able to answer any more questions till I get back.

Enjoy this wonderful spring day everyone!

Katharine





[/b]

[Katharine Watson]

Saying that you "remain unrepentant" is equivalent to labelling as liars the dozens of contributors to this forum who have reported personal acts of brutality by this man.

Dear Daffy,

I'm not accusing anyone of being a liar. I'm merely saying that I am not a liar either.

My best wishes to you for what remains of Easter...

Katharine

[grimep]

Until that happens - this will all continue and I think SES /St J will start to learning the true meaning of Sanskara!

Instant karma I hope.

[sugarloaf]

Katharine, I appreciate you responding, and giving us your opinion on the connections between Leolin Price and the school. But as you say these are your personal opinions, and do not represent the school or the school governors.

Would David Boddy, the School Governors, or their solicitors like to clarify their position on this? I think we are owed an official explanation.

Katharine, I?m afraid there are too many coincidences for me to take that at face value; political associations between Pincham and Price, Boddy and Price moving within the same political circles, The school solicitors (apparently) coming up with a retired, deeply conservative Chancery silk with no relevant experience?

To me it just smells bad.

Although you may be right, and the solicitors did go and find what they thought was the best person for the job. Leolin Price does have just one area of relevant experience. His biography indicates that he is an expert in dealing with ?the confidentiality of documents disclosed in civil and criminal proceedings, and in immunity for what is said in the course of investigating crimes?.

Perhaps this is what made him an attractive proposition to the School Governors?

[Alban]

Could you explain this article linking Roger Pincham and Leolin Price then!

Yes, I think maybe I can. But it does also explain why people took exception to Leolin Price in the first place.

Roger Pincham was chairman of the Liberal Party for some years....

This may be the case, although as sugarloaf points out, the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.

On the other hand, the governors were made aware of our knowledge of the association between the two some time ago and yet they still continued to deny it. Why?

It took less than a minute to pull up that link from a simple Google search, yet it seems that it was too much trouble for someone from the school, governors or solicitors to do the same thing. Seems strange that they should not make the effort and wait to be proved wrong on a public forum.

Consider also, that very little of what goes on in the legal world makes it on to the internet, so it would be a fair assumption that for the one meeting that was reported, there would be others that didn't make it into the public domain.

Yes, LP has been dropped as a candidate, but as sugarloaf has said, why on earth was he selected in the first place. It's just another incident that gives the impression that the enquiry is there to "quieten the noise" rather than to get to the bottom of the matter and take direct action.

I say "just another incident" because there are several others which could be published here but have not been so far as they would have a negative effect on the efforts that the governors are making. However, as a general statement I think it would be fair to say that the governors stance has been defensive rather than welcoming and co-operative as it should be.

If I were on a board of governors of a school and was made aware of misconduct of the staff for which I was responsible, then I would personally aim to be totally transparent in my dealings with the matter. I would hope to be seen as impartial as possible so as to distance the school from the allegations, and as such would welcome any suggestions made by the complainants.

By trying to defend the situation, it gives the impression that not only were the governors aware of said behaviour at the time, but that they are actually more concerned with the bad PR rather than the incidents themselves.

Given that a number of comments made by current teachers, parents and ex teachers alike, point to the fact that a reasonable amount of what went on was known about at the time, then surely the only credible way forward for the governors is to come clean, admit mistakes and act to ensure that these incidents cannot happen again. Do they not see that a defensive stance is hurting them far more?

[daska]

Somehow it wasn't surprising to hear that there was a link between Mr Pincham and the original silk - even if could be argued that it might be tenuous - or that there is a possible/probable link with Mr Boddy. Leolin Price is, no doubt, a man of the highest integrity who would have done the job to the best of his abilities and without partiality, but this alone could never have made him the right man for the job. Whoever chairs this inquiry needs to be trusted by all parties involved and their credentials need to be appropriate. Bearing in mind the enormous power SES wielded over our lives 24/7 any possible link should have been investigated - especially the political ones as these would be most high profile and easist to establish.

Sadly, my experience during my times in StV and SES led me to expect that the schools would attempt exactly this: the appointment of a person whose impartiality cannot be guaranteed and/or who has no experience in the relevant field of inquiry and/or whose age might render him more partial to a belief that sparing the stick spoils the child and/or have very old fashioned views on gender roles. etc. etc. etc. This fits the fundamental attitudes that I, and by the sound of it many others, remember with such clarity.

Doing the minimum is seldom enough, doing the right thing is sometimes enough, but sometimes it is even more important to be seen to be willingly doing more than is necessary.

[Tom Grubb]

Roger Pincham was chairman of the Liberal Party for some years. He has attended and/or chaired umpteen conferences, at which goodness knows how many people have been present. It turns out that four years ago he did indeed attend one at which Leolin Price also participated and spoke. I understand that he has no recollection of meeting him, however, and I suggest that he believed in good faith that he had never met him.

Katharine, have you actually asked Mr Pincham whether he has any recollection of meeting Mr Price, or do you just base your understanding on your faith in Mr Pincham's good nature? And are we to understand that Mr Price's memory suffered a similar failure about this political meeting? Are we further to understand that neither Mr Price nor Mr Pincham (nor any of the other governors?) ever took the simple step of checking whether the chairman of the governors and the man approached to chair the governors' inquiry had ever met each other, let alone attended a political meeting together?

I believe Mr Boddy now owes all former pupils an apology for his claim (which I have in writing but will, for reasons of confidentiality, refrain from quoting here) that Mr Price and Mr Pincham had no private or professional association.

Tom Grubb

[daska]

My sister rang today to say that she has received a letter about the enquiry. (yes, she has started to pen her response and I don't think it will be nice!)

[Stanton]

Good for her!

[daska]

Just for those of you that won't receive it because you're not ex-pupils or have moved a sufficient number of times to be unfindable, here is the full text of the letter that my sister received:

********************************************
23rd March 2005

Dear Former Pupil,

Inquiry into Discipline Policy at St Vedast and St James Schools during the formative years.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Governors of St James Schools and at their request to inform you that they are seeking to establish an inquiry into discipline policy and its application during the formative years of St Vedast and St James Schools, with particular regard to 1975-85, but not restricted to that period.

The Governors hope the inquiry will be conducted by a Queens Counsel, who is wholly independent of St James Schools and The School of Economic Science, which inspired the development of the schools for children some 30 years ago.

The decision to hold an inquiry has arisen following various adverse comments brought informally to the Governors' attention, along with a handful of specific complaints about the application of the schools' discipline policy in the 1970s and 1980s. The Governors' wish is to establish the truth about these complaints, and then, if appropriate to facilitate any reconciliation between past pupils, the teachers and the schools.

Former pupils wishing to participate in the inquiry should submit any complains to the Clerk to the Inquiry, Mrs Christine Betts, whose email address is vedast@vwl.co.uk by April 29th 2005. (This date is an extended deadline from March 16, as notified to former pupils, both boys and girls, via the 'Seventh Form' website).

Any complaint should be specified as fully, clearly and accurately as possible. Recognising that these matters may have taken place up to three decades ago, it would nonetheless be helpful to the inquiry if complaints could say what was said or done, by whom and against whom, in whose presence or hearing and with what effect, and when and where the incident occurred. If a complaint about the incident was made straight afterwards, then details of that complaint should also be given.

Discussions are continuing witha small group of former pupils as to the Chairmanship of the proposed inquiry and its terms of reference. The precise nature of the inquiry depends on teh volume and nature of complains registered. The Governors are hopeful that all detailed matters affecting the conduct of the Inquiry can be settled soon after Easter.

The Schools have also been approached by former pupils who wish to express their positive support to both teachers and the schools during the time of this formative period. Those wishing to make general statements rather than specific complaints, should also write to Mrs Christine Betts at the above address, but to mark the correspondence or email with the title "General observations on St James and St Vedast".

If this letter has been forwarded to you from the address we possess, we would be grateful for an update for our files and records.

Finally, Mrs Laura Hyde, Headmistress of the Senior Girls School, Mr Paul Moss, Headmaster of the Junior School and myself would also like to extend a warm welcome to any pupil, at any time in the school's history, who would like to come and visit us now. All three of our schools have recently been inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate and have achieved very positive reports. Much has changed as the schools have gained experience and matured. We are confidnet you would find today's Schools interesting and refreshing.

Thank you for your attention.

Yours sincerely

David Boddy
Headmaster
********************************************

[Pink womble]

Maybe I'm just being a bit touchy, but I feel the bit which suggests ex-pupils who had a nice happy time at St James also write in is a bit cheeky. I get the feeling their comments are almost considered as valid as ours. Surely the handful of people who got something out of St James can tell the school how much they enjoyed it direct, it won't take long.

I will definitely be replying.

Sorry Katherine if that sounds bitchy!

[NYC]

I think this letter is the first strong sign I?ve seen that the School is actually prepared to face its past. Here?s a quote from Mrs. Christine Betts on Jan 25, 2005:

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.

And here?s Peter Sanders Reynolds response, which I think says it all:

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.

Institutions and individuals seldom admit wrong-doing unless someone or something forces them to. The School would never in a million years have sent that letter if the student?s committee hadn?t stayed on them. And I don't think the School will be able to appoint an unbiased person as Chair, without a lot of "help" from the former students' committee.

Please keep them honest!

NYC