Terms of Reference for all to see!

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Gandalf
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:05 pm

Postby Gandalf » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:41 am

Gandalf wrote:
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether there is now a time limit or is the period of the inquiry from 1975 to the present moment?

Spark replied on 20 June:
The Governors original draft Terms of Reference (December 2004) specifically and clearly stated that the inquiry would only consider events from the period 1975 to 1985.
The Terms of refernence published by Townend contain many references to this same time period - presumably because much of his TOR are a 'cut and paste' job from the Governors draft, however, the current inquiry is into complaints relating to ANY PERIOD OF THE SCHOOLS HISTORY. THERE IS NO TIME BAR!!!
This may not be clear at the first reading of the TOR which is a rather confusing document containing a number of apparent contraditions....it is there if you look closely...
Quote:
The Chairman should be at liberty to call on whomever he wishes for any assistance he may need as to the School regimes from 1975 onwards.

Gandalf writes on 21 June:
Yes, HOWEVER, because the Inquiry is about COMPLAINTS I understand from sources who have written to the Inquiry that the timescale to be considered will be, as it were, defined by the timescale of complaints. There is no shortage of complaints in the 1975-85 period but a substantial body of more recent ones will be ESSENTIAL if the inquiry is to be broadened as it should be.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:13 am

So please submit a complaint (regardless of when you were at the schools) if you feel you were unfairly treated there.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:15 am

And to people who were there sometime between 1975 and 1985: please don't assume that someone else will have made your complaint for you. Send yours in now!

Gandalf
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:05 pm

Postby Gandalf » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:22 am

Daska,

Why is your father surprised at the arrogance of Boddy and the Governors?

He has clearly been 'in the school' for a long time so he must have seen the fallout from the Secret Cult publication in 1984. The general response then was the stoically Churchillian: 'Never complain and never explain'. (Churchill was a great favourite of many SES nobs of that era for his ready quips about women, his swaggering disregard for all things ?ordinary? coupled with his comfortingly safe Great Britishness). The idea of all students being in some way ?special?, sort of Jose Mourinhos of philosophy, is embedded in the SES ?ahankara? (ego, personal feeling of existence). But a brightly coloured dyed-in-the wool sheep is still a sheep (or is it a Lamb)?

Don't forget also, the access to special knowledge bestowed by the link to Shantanand Saraswati through the hitherto highly possessive and jealously guarded agency (and translation) of Mr Jaiswal, is like a magic potion, it gives a feeling of strength and certainty of purpose that Gurdjieff?s 'ordinary man' can only dream of.

Unsurprisingly, that feeling of righteousness in turn fuels the arrogance and justifies the high-handed staging of the very legalistic whitewash this inquiry is in danger of becoming. When dropped into the weak psyche of many of the St James and St Vedast teachers it also undoubtedly fuelled their latent unresolved personal issues, their aggression and frustration. And that is the real crux.

SES is about sniggering at and minimising personal issues, about making grandiloquent public declarations that 'ahankara must go' whilst being frozen in a pseudo-optimistic shell, (the Sankskrita word for that state is Kshaya), in complete denial of the legitimacy of exploring one's real inner feelings. As Shantanand Saraswati once said in the context of blind faith:?....it can lead to trouble later...?. Well here we are Ivan Osokin.......later is here.

But times are changing. Even the Chinese are having trouble controlling free speech and dissenters on the internet. No doubt the web is already dubbed ?demonic? (i.e. out of control) in SES circles but I surmise you ain?t seen nuffin? yet.

These postings could not have been circulated widely even ten years ago when the age old system of cultivating anonymity whilst dividing and ruling behind the scenes worked just fine for those 'in charge' everywhere including the SES.

Now the control freaks have not got it all their own way. If Boddy and Co don't genuinely allow an open response the inquiry will be turned into a complete sham and they will surely reap the whirlwind. The truly wise course would be to take guidance from the late Alan Clarke, that other great Tory wit, who, whilst being interviewed as prospective candidate for Kensington and Chelsea, was asked by a prim lady if he had any skeletons in his cupboard. He quipped: ?My dear, I have so many I can hardly close the door!?. Given the SES has an IKEA warehouse full of overflowing cupboards that would be a pretty honest response but the SES hierarchy is far too self-regarding and po-faced for that.

The knee jerk response of trying to keep it all ?controlled? through legal gamesmanship is typical of the barrister-led SES psyche spilling over into St James but is just not going to work here. It is pathetic that the covert and sinister triumvirate of Lambie, Boddy and the ultra-low profile multi-millionaire Jeremy Sinclair, pulling the puppet Governors' strings, should even attempt to do so.

When something challenging happens to individuals the SES line is that it should be accepted as karma and the 'Will of the Absolute' but when it happens to the SES and its high priests it is something to be resisted and fought tooth and nail by all means possible.

But, as Daskas father must know, when you have spent all that time and effort in an organisation you have an investment to protect and the hardest thing is to admit that it is no longer the one you joined. Discretion being the better part of valour the strategy must be to smile sweetly on the outside (if a gal) or engagingly (if a fella), whilst inwardly hunkering down and toughing it out

Tragic and ironic that, in seeking to distance themselves from the misapplication of the philosophic values that sparked this whole web site and to cynically cast doubt on young peoples? ability to remember traumatic events in their childhood, these manipulative figures only succeed in paralysing themselves and prevent any kind of open-hearted simple and genuine public apology. Like the orange, the inner divisions are to be concealed inside a smoothly smiley exterior skin not, like the cantaloupe, freely allowing the expression of superficial differences in the sure knowledge of an undivided and whole inner being within. Advaita it certainly ain?t.

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Postby Shout » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:50 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

ToR

Postby Shout » Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:36 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby NYC » Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:40 pm

Gandalf wrote:the covert and sinister triumvirate of Lambie, Boddy and the ultra-low profile multi-millionaire Jeremy Sinclair, pulling the puppet Governors' strings


Is Jeremy Sinclair the same Jeremy Sinclair who co-founded the ad agency Saatchi & Saatchi?

I'm interested to know more about how the SES worldwide is funded. It seems that they must rely heavily on large-scale donations, since the relatively small amounts charged for adult classes would never cover the property tax, upkeep, etc on the large & magnificent buildings the School favors.

"seemore" wrote that
the SOP [in New York] is awash with money...Bequests in the last ten years or so have left it with considerable amounts of loot...It is only a matter of time before more skeletons emerge from various cupboards. This time they will more than likely be of the 'financial mis-management' variety ... excess of money seems to have that effect.

http://www.whyaretheydead.net:/phpBB2/v ... .php?t=129

Gandalf, what can you tell us about the money? Where it comes from, how it is accounted for, etc?

NYC

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

Postby Free Thinker » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:03 am

As I just PM'd Gandalf, did you know that the residence in Wallkill is having a huge wing added to the building? This must be costing a fortune.

All I can say is that many (most, I dare say) of the Senior group members are VERY rich. They must give a lot of money to the SoPP.

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:13 am

FT - were they ALWAYS rich? Or has being in the "scret club" of the SES somehow helped them amass their wealth? Any thoughts?

Gandalf
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:05 pm

money money money

Postby Gandalf » Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:07 am

I think this important topic would be best explored on SES schools worldwide string so I will post something there. Yes, Sinclair was the invisible 'third man' in S&S and creator of many of Thatchers adverts in the 80's. He made one bad purchase (of a New York agency which ripped them off something wicked) in the mad bad 'greed is good' era which culminated in him trying to buy Midland Bank. That hubris was the beginning of the end and they all got booted out in the 90's by the shareholders only to come up smelling of roses in M&C Saatchi (still the invisible man you see). Was the major creative force behind Thatchers 80's campaigns ideologically he fits perfectly with her speechwriter Boddy. I wonder whether Cherie Blair was told all this when she met some St James girls recently?

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

Postby daska » Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:44 pm

Shout

Shout wrote:He was one of those who gave their consent for these crimes in the first place!


Do you have any basis in fact for suggesting my father knowingly gave consent to any crime being committed?

Your post reads pretty much along the lines of 'The Truth is this and all personal and familial responsibilities shall be negated in service of The Truth' - now, I wonder where I've heard that before...?

And no - I was referring to the internal fallout bestowed by SES on individuals not whatever fallout SES experiences as a result of the inquiry or any other action taken by individuals or groups seeking acnowlegement or revenge.

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

Postby Free Thinker » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:01 am

ADG - Most weren't always rich. Some were well-off before and have amassed more since being in the SES. I don't think that being in the SES has anything to do with their being wealthy. They would have gotten rich even if they weren't members. But although the SES does attract many types of people for the early parts, most senior members are upper-class (financially) white people.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests