Origins of the SES schools abuse ?
Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:44 am
The following will be a start to unravelling the basic pretexts and subtexts behind the SES particularly in so far as they might determine the running of it's juniour schools and provide some clues as to the excessive discipline and physical punishment that seems to have permeated them.
It is hoped that a different line of investigation and research might turn up evidence to 'explain' the behaviour of the teachers and the schools' ethos in general that allowed the growth of what is now seen as pathological and extreme conduct.
It is taken as fact that such conduct did occurr and certainly much more frequently and severely than even admitted by the Townend report so that the fact of 'over discipline' as testified to on this forum is used as a starting point -- the question to be posed is WHY did this occurr ?
Some hypothesis' to explain it might be ;-
1. Psychopathic teachers
2. Unusually 'bad' students.
3. An outcome of Policy of the school.
4. Other.
Let us examine each in turn as possible explanations (keeping in mind the interaction of more than one factor as likely )
1. Psychopathic teachers .
This is probably the factor most students at the time would identify to explain the sadistic,voyeruistic, brutal and innappropriate behaviour of their teachers and abusers.
As students they are fully occupied with studying,growing up and trying to avoid punishment to be able to research or ponder upon the reasons for what is unjust and unfair blighting of their daily existence -- much of the fear and loathing that was engendered is conveyed by personal anecdote and testimony . It is concluded that psychopathic behaviour did occurr on numerous occasions frequently featuring 'canings on the bottom' and humiliatings in front of other students ,berating for the most minor infractions of rigid rules for conduct and intolerance of any perceived shortcoming in manners or 'etiquette'.
Taking psychopathic behaviour as established and frequent and characterized by much of the behaviour as above (bottom canings etc etc ) what can explain this fact ?
A. Did the school select persons with these traits as teachers ? (if so was this deliberate or inadvertent )
B. Did psychopathic traits develop over time as a result of the 'cultural' environment of the school? (that is, was such conduct permitted ?)
C. Did the school governers or controllers (SES) have no knowledge of the severity and extent of abuse ? (that is, did individual psychopathic behaviour by teachers go unnoticed ? Did any earlier enquiries into abuse conclude that no excessive or unusual punishment or discipline had occurred?)
D. Did the school actively encourage apparent psychopathic conduct and both approve and be aware of it's occurrence? (ie this behaviour was no mistake or covertly carried out or disproven but known of and condoned by the school )
Starting with A. It is likely that psychopathic personality was selected for by using SES members to start the school(s) -- this was deliberate and also ensured that the teachers would know the "big picture" with the SES and it's ulimate aims and be fully conversant with the philosophies and doctrines that it sought to promote and to further via the junior schools (ie indoctrination from childhood rather than conversion to the SES cult later in life.) It may therefore be taken that the SES teachers knew then all the background relating to the "approved method" for the upbringing of children espoused by the SES's honoured panopoly of ancient and medieval philosopher- masters (most significantly perhaps with the schools being Erasmus of Rotterdam of which more later ) and undertook to apply those teachings.
"B". No doubt the exercise of untrammelled power over children would have reinforced psycopathic tendencies, encouraged the excesses and possibly caused those unwilling to participate to resign -- only in rare cases would initially dilligent teachers become sadistic except perhaps if they too fell under the mind control and influence of the SES.
"C". It can be dismissed as infeasible that the SES and govenors could not have known about the physically abusive disciplinary practices given the scale and severity of the problem disclosed and the close interest taken by the SES founder -- it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that the discipline regime was NOT approved by the SES let alone not known of or condemned -- it had to be consciously approved and fostered. Any prior complaints would have been deliberately denied and concealed .
"D". This resolves to be the only tenable hypothesis -- basically that psychopathic disciplinary behaviour was known of by the SES and actively encouraged as a participant. The question of WHAT teachings of the SES could have inspired and justified such a campaign of brutal pschological and physical discipline and punishment ?
2. Unusually bad students -- probably the SES "explanation" after both initially denying any abuse then effectively 'cutting loose' those teachers employed to impose their strict disciplinairinism (ie sheeting home the blame to individual teachers following the Townend enquiry for the purpose of public relations but really knowing to have supported and allowed it all) -- the SES would like to impose a 'zero tolerance' attitude to it's pupils and get the sort of automatic compliance that years of brainwashing has acheived from it's adult members. "Bad" in this context would mean any degree of non compliance rather than the sort of reform school situation with hardened young criminals, miscreants etc which might require some degree of physical force.
We now come to 3. "An outcome of policy of the school"
This next installment.
It is hoped that a different line of investigation and research might turn up evidence to 'explain' the behaviour of the teachers and the schools' ethos in general that allowed the growth of what is now seen as pathological and extreme conduct.
It is taken as fact that such conduct did occurr and certainly much more frequently and severely than even admitted by the Townend report so that the fact of 'over discipline' as testified to on this forum is used as a starting point -- the question to be posed is WHY did this occurr ?
Some hypothesis' to explain it might be ;-
1. Psychopathic teachers
2. Unusually 'bad' students.
3. An outcome of Policy of the school.
4. Other.
Let us examine each in turn as possible explanations (keeping in mind the interaction of more than one factor as likely )
1. Psychopathic teachers .
This is probably the factor most students at the time would identify to explain the sadistic,voyeruistic, brutal and innappropriate behaviour of their teachers and abusers.
As students they are fully occupied with studying,growing up and trying to avoid punishment to be able to research or ponder upon the reasons for what is unjust and unfair blighting of their daily existence -- much of the fear and loathing that was engendered is conveyed by personal anecdote and testimony . It is concluded that psychopathic behaviour did occurr on numerous occasions frequently featuring 'canings on the bottom' and humiliatings in front of other students ,berating for the most minor infractions of rigid rules for conduct and intolerance of any perceived shortcoming in manners or 'etiquette'.
Taking psychopathic behaviour as established and frequent and characterized by much of the behaviour as above (bottom canings etc etc ) what can explain this fact ?
A. Did the school select persons with these traits as teachers ? (if so was this deliberate or inadvertent )
B. Did psychopathic traits develop over time as a result of the 'cultural' environment of the school? (that is, was such conduct permitted ?)
C. Did the school governers or controllers (SES) have no knowledge of the severity and extent of abuse ? (that is, did individual psychopathic behaviour by teachers go unnoticed ? Did any earlier enquiries into abuse conclude that no excessive or unusual punishment or discipline had occurred?)
D. Did the school actively encourage apparent psychopathic conduct and both approve and be aware of it's occurrence? (ie this behaviour was no mistake or covertly carried out or disproven but known of and condoned by the school )
Starting with A. It is likely that psychopathic personality was selected for by using SES members to start the school(s) -- this was deliberate and also ensured that the teachers would know the "big picture" with the SES and it's ulimate aims and be fully conversant with the philosophies and doctrines that it sought to promote and to further via the junior schools (ie indoctrination from childhood rather than conversion to the SES cult later in life.) It may therefore be taken that the SES teachers knew then all the background relating to the "approved method" for the upbringing of children espoused by the SES's honoured panopoly of ancient and medieval philosopher- masters (most significantly perhaps with the schools being Erasmus of Rotterdam of which more later ) and undertook to apply those teachings.
"B". No doubt the exercise of untrammelled power over children would have reinforced psycopathic tendencies, encouraged the excesses and possibly caused those unwilling to participate to resign -- only in rare cases would initially dilligent teachers become sadistic except perhaps if they too fell under the mind control and influence of the SES.
"C". It can be dismissed as infeasible that the SES and govenors could not have known about the physically abusive disciplinary practices given the scale and severity of the problem disclosed and the close interest taken by the SES founder -- it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE that the discipline regime was NOT approved by the SES let alone not known of or condemned -- it had to be consciously approved and fostered. Any prior complaints would have been deliberately denied and concealed .
"D". This resolves to be the only tenable hypothesis -- basically that psychopathic disciplinary behaviour was known of by the SES and actively encouraged as a participant. The question of WHAT teachings of the SES could have inspired and justified such a campaign of brutal pschological and physical discipline and punishment ?
2. Unusually bad students -- probably the SES "explanation" after both initially denying any abuse then effectively 'cutting loose' those teachers employed to impose their strict disciplinairinism (ie sheeting home the blame to individual teachers following the Townend enquiry for the purpose of public relations but really knowing to have supported and allowed it all) -- the SES would like to impose a 'zero tolerance' attitude to it's pupils and get the sort of automatic compliance that years of brainwashing has acheived from it's adult members. "Bad" in this context would mean any degree of non compliance rather than the sort of reform school situation with hardened young criminals, miscreants etc which might require some degree of physical force.
We now come to 3. "An outcome of policy of the school"
This next installment.