Page 1 of 4

Don't be Intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 1:05 pm
by Justice

Numerous parents with children at St. James Independent Schools together with parents who were planning to send their children there are now planning to remove them or cancel their places, partly due to concerns over the pending Police investigation coupled with negative press reports in the Times Educational Supplement (Jan 20 ? page 14) and the local newspapers.

Some parents who are planning to remove their children are alleging that they are being ?hauled? into the Head?s office and given the ?third degree? with questions such as:

?Why are you removing your children??

?Who have you been talking to??

?What have they been telling you?? Etc. etc.

Some people regard this as blatant intimidation and feel genuinely nervous about the situation. You DON?T have to give a reason why you are removing your children or why you have changed your mind about sending them to St. James.

If you feel you are being intimidated then complain to the local Education Authority. If you are not satisfied with their response and still feel intimidated then call the police.


Some parents are desperate to talk with other parents about their concerns but are worried in case they are members of the SES. If you are worried, then doesn?t this tell you something about the situation you are in?

Parents should be brave enough to speak to other parents without fear, listen to their point of view and then make up your own minds. Some are concerned that they will have to pay a full terms fees in lieu of notice, but ask yourself what is more important: A full terms fees or your children?s future happiness?

Why shouldn?t you refuse to pay a terms fees in notice? After all, did the School tell you about the possibility of an Independent Inquiry into serious matters which they have known about for a long time BEFORE your children started at the school?

Ask other parents what they think about the Independent report and if they suspect that teachers who allegedly committed ?criminal assault? against children are still employed at the schools and if it is possible that criminal charges might be brought? Why were there two reports and why cant you see the secret report prepared for the governors?

Print information off this Bulletin Board and give it to other parents and discuss it with them.


The Independent report on St. James was commissioned by the schools who obviously dictated the terms of reference for the report, which obviously limited the scope of coverage.

Consider taking your own independent advice and speak to one of the independent Cult Advisory organisations and ask them what experience they have had in assisting people affected by involvement with the School of Economic Science.


Cult Advisory organisations that help people affected by cults understand that people who have suffered from Mind Control and Coercive Psychological Indoctrination are not bad people but victims. Some may still be in denial and would laugh at that suggestion. Others may be starting to understand the truth about their situation but are afraid and don?t know what to do about it. You may well meet people in both situations.

Suggest that they look at the FAQ List (Frequently Asked Questions) published by one of the Cult Advisory Organisations such as:
1. Steven Hassans Freedom of Mind Centre
2. Cult Information Centre
3. FAIR ? Family Action Information and Resource

A good example of a Cult FAQ list can be seen at:

A final plea to all Parents, Children and SES Members:
Do your own research
Talk to each other
Don?t allow yourself to be bullied (Just like previous generations of children at St. James were)
If you are confused or worried ? SEEK HELP!


Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:37 pm
by Zathura
Justice this posting would seem to be to some extent fabricated. As far as I know over the last two years only a handful of parents have withdrawn their children from the day schools and the school has been completely open about the website to parents sending out letters about both it and the enquiry more than once. So I don't want to dampen your alarm but it would seem you are stretching reality a little in a way that Matthew Wolf and co are not. The contacts are killers. ITN etc. But you must realise the nature of newspapers and TV. Yesterdays news disappears in a week. You must be aware of this. And think about it. The police don't prosecute a good majority of street assault and abuse let alone incidents that happened 20 years ago.

Legally unless the law changes as I understand it the Police can't do anything about a claim of assault unless a complaint is filed within three years. Now I think St James and the enquiry downplayed the 'abuse' and you the complainants spin it in the other direction.
Now I think it important that persons that were very badly treated do get justice for themselves although one wonders where this justice is going because with every capitulation by St James a further one is demanded by those that want justice. They seem to be making it up as they go along.

Persons might find this posting disrespectful. Well it is and it isn't. I think the campaign has been good. I took part in the enquiry and had plenty to say. However with people like Justice ! one is reminded of the chap that told Townend that he had been caned hundreds of times. But the fact remains that those that want justice and Justice! himself do not represent the majority of ex St James leavers. I may be completely wrong but I don't think I am. I also don't care that this posting is bound to get a tongue lashing on the site. I actually am looking forward to the fact that it might.

I certainly as an ex St James pupil will be making sure that ITN at least hears that there are 'the majority' of the rest of the ex pupils who weren't 'mistreated' and don't have militant views like your own as far as I know. I can only state an opinion. It is up to journalists to get a wide view by interviewing all kinds of St James leavers not just the ones on this site. There is not one person out of the 23 people in my class on this site as far as I know. There are many classes that have come out of St James not just the first five boys and first five girls. There were 200 leavers in the first five classes boys and girls and probably an extra 30 to 50 St Vedast persons. There were 50 against in the inquiry almost all I presume from years 1 2 3 4 5. When the kids leave this Summer there will have been 28 classes in the boys and girls that have left since 1985. That is a hell of a lot of people. And there were also quite a few double classes in one year. We are talking at least 2500 ex pupils all included up to 2006. How 50 people possibly think they are speaking for 2500 to 3000 is questionable. They may be they may not be. It is infact unlikely especially considering the way that for the last decade, that's 20 classes of school leavers, the education has been almost unrecognizably watered down. Not totally for sure. But these are the facts that this site spins away. Big time. Bitter though it would seem that an eighth of the persons from the first five years are, they just do not represent the mass of St James leavers in the manner that they presume to. This is a very big deal and I hope this statement puts this site into perspective. If the journalists want to get it right they would have to interview a hell of a lot more people than just the ones that didn't like the education in a very big way that have found their way to this site. There are many people even in the member list on this site that I recognise as people who are interested but not at all 'against' the schools.

You can judge the S.E.S to be a mild cult, some of you might judge it to be an extreme cult (which it most certainly isn't) a society of willing victims, or a society of people that enjoy what they do. There are many other interpretations of S.E.S and St James other than your own and the 15 to 30 people's on this website. And the majority massively outnumber the small minority here. What they think is anybody's guess. I imagine the thousands of people in S.E.S enjoy it as I know my parents do. Despite it's oppressiveness I greatly enjoyed 7 out of my 8 years in the S.E.S but then it was time to move on. This is just my view and it is one in thousands. This site at least at the moment is not well qualified enough to be 'the true' exemplifier of all things S.E.S. It's membership is too small, too narrow in the type of people on it. This site just happens to be 'the only' open forum on which the subject is discussed.

The S.E.S and also the many many people in the S.E.S should speak up. Give their side of the story perhaps set up another site. God knows why they don't. How many people are in the S.E.S? They seem to be unnecessarily embarrassed of themselves or perhaps fearful of the bullies on this site. Perhaps cult members really are unsure of themselves in the face of such violent opposition. As it is this site could be read as just a slanging match facilitator. There are apparently 17 public schools having similar enquiries at the moment including Eton. I would not be suprised if the damage done at St James is minute compared to 'real' public schools like Gordonstouns for instance. I also reckon almost every school has it's shameful secrets. If a teacher misbehaves then the obvious thing is to fire the teacher or handful of teachers. Not blame the whole school or governors. The fact is that St James never was the place that people on this site like to paint it as. This is just my view of course and is just one view out of thousands. I just don't see why a small group of people should be believed in such a wholesale way when they spin out a reality of the past that in my view is exaggerated biased and infact on one level, the deepest level a lie.

I believe very firmly that there is a huge spin campaign going on by this parents and pupils in action group that equals the schools efforts to dust off any squalid stories and point to the bright sun.

I also however believe there were and still are serious and deep rooted ideological mis alignments and stupidities within St James. Mainly to do with the sexism. This is still massive officially. (Not so massive infact underneath) Many of the S.E.S women my mother included have become stronger over the last decade. But in the official texts of the S.E.S this sexism is still deep rooted and completely unacceptable. This is just my opinion as is this whole statement. One opinion in thousands not to be taken as anything other.

The lies and spin being used by the 'abused' is laid quite open when one member announced quite openly shortly after the inquiry that his wife or girlfriend was a journalist and although the report looked generally good for the schools there were certain sentences that could be lifted in isolation from the report with no reference to the rest of the report and made to look bad in a newspaper.

' as a journalist, there were loads of lines that she would use in a press release (such as the one above). '

It wouldn't suprise me if that very person supplied the information to the Times and the Richmond paper. I could be completely wrong.

But this example of lifting just the worst sentences which were perhaps twenty among hundreds also exemplifies the reality going on on this site where 50 people are claiming to represent three thousand. Perhaps they are not but we must be sure that the 50 suffered or was it three or 7 or ten or 20. What really constitutes suffering and are a lot of the people on this site the misfits and underachievers that would be the offshoots and accompaniments to any educational establishment, and about in this ratio? This is a possibility. I would like to just offer this as a possibility among many. I infact notice several very intelligent people on the site and other types also. So it is infact unlikely that we have a site full of losers. But you never know what is going on. Unless we have three thousand people sitting around a table and then the 1500 to 2000 S.E.S members this site is nowhere near a democracy.

The majority of St James kids are not on the site and for some reason S.E.S people are not speaking up for themselves. They should show a little character just as some of the people on this site at least in the first year had to show some before the site became a kind of easy f***off machine.

It would seem to be a fact that people seem to have to speak so loudly on this website because of their scarcity in number.The S.E.S and St James will survive and this is obvious and also rather annoying to people on this website. The reality of the 'cult' situation is that the responsibility lies with the parents and it's your bad luck that you had parents that had views so contrary to many other people and to your own.

Many people have unsettled beginnings in my opinion in whatever stream of society or class of upbringing. To complain legally is a unique opportunity but not one which will eventually topple the schools. Matthew and his father's call for the resignation of the governors is actually a very wise step because it will cause the running of St James to be in the manner of a school like any other. The school would become a school rather than a dispenser of S.E.S ideology no matter how covert. This would be great but then it would cease to be St James as we know it and would become just like any other school which is precisely not the ticket that St James sells itself as. However already it's New Age Victorian spiel has become so watered down that the reason it would seem that people sign onto the 50 strong waiting lists is because of it's availability as a private school in an otherwise over booked crowd. If Boddy feels he is strong enough to carry the essence of his teachings into the world without supervision from Lambie and 'governors' just as a school among others with slightly different ideas and with completely 'secular' governors I think the sinister aspect to St James would melt.

However in signing up to 'the world' he would have to either out of peer pressure or a change of heart sign up to the idea of equal opportunities of the sexes and thoroughly wipe the curriculum of biased educational spiritual leanings and present a far more normal and broad curriculum that embraces certain ideas realities and cultures that previous to this time St James has either spurned or shied away from.

I think the non S.E.S governors is a great idea. It doesn't make that much difference on ground level at least in an overnight sort of way but it is hugely symbolic and in time would greatly change the hierarchical and sort of British Empire feel to the schools and prevent them from being spiritual academies with captain referring to admiral and admiral to prime minister and king. They love all of that stuff unquestioned. Secular governors would change a lot.

As for bullshit postings and alarmist exclamation marks we can do without that! The fact is that the world and greater society at large is playing out the themes and clashes that are happening within the microcosm of S.E.S and St James. Much as this site likes to proclaim St James as taking part in debates that were over thirty years ago - This is simply not true. Liberal/conservative is still a reality outside of St James. The 'Eastern cult thing' can only be put down to one thing at the end of the day: The judgement and responsibility of the parents. It is doubly difficult to find sense if your parents are like Emile and Anita and changed their mind about your education after you had it. At least with parents who are still enjoying the inner peaceful climes of the inner sanctums of the Bond Street residence and Waterperry - At least with parents like these a person has some kind of barometer to measure their own beliefs. Then again it must be hugely rewarding also to have parents who renounce their previous strictures and come down on the side of their kids.

Then again are all S.E.S parents the same? All chauvinist etc like the parents of those on this site or are there various degrees of all themes within the S.E.S within each of the various individuals. Is it much less black and white than the people on this site would suggest just as the pure teaching of the S.E.S is more black and white than they of the S.E.S would like to admit.

Are we not talking about the confusion of human interpretation and the confusion of the basic human condition in toto? There are two sides to this battle and a multiplicity of variations on either side. Nothing is black and white that is why militancy of any kind shows itself to be like an unresearched argument.

'Justice' would appear to be like the Muslim who is burning flags of St James over a cartoon representation of some inner God only he holds so sacred yet is also in so much doubt about that he has to scream his belief, scream his faith and let rationality and fair play fall completely by the wayside. He is the democratizer that believes in dictatorship and basically the whole of this post is an alarmist lie that undermines the slow and searching work done by the more reasonable yet solid members of this site.

However the media contacts are great. Amazing. But I will certainly be doing my best to give my version of the truth to Dan Wright when we go out for a pint and exchange notes and quotes if we do. I'm not too bothered. I'd like to see change but I am not the head politician of a party that does not exist. I believe in nothing but also would like to see justice (!) of my own kind. Like we all have our versions of the truth and what justice should be and where it is needed and why it is to be applied. Reality is a multiplexity of different beliefs and belief systems both inside and outside the S.E.S. The debate on this site and within the S.E.S pays no heed of this reality actually being a reality. The world swallows up stories of abuse and bad education as swiftly as the decades themselves move through time. The world swallows up a few individual's claims to be honoured next to the war dead and together with the victims of Auschwitz. The world is not interested in justice just as the press only ever looks for a dirty story then looks for the next one the next week. St James is not important. Nor is this site.

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:04 pm
by Keir
Dear Zathura,

If you think this site isn't important then why go to such great lengths! to post an ambivalent/confused opinion?

I don't expect to know how what is good can be saved from what is bad about either SES or St J. I don't pretend to have recent experience of the SES or ST J. And no, I dont think that all SES parents are sadistic or mislead.

I am glad that you appear to have avoided some of the most serious abuses of position/responsibility described in this BB, that or buried the experiences perhaps. However, the original point of this BB was to talk about our 'unique' schooling in a way that was clear eyed and true to our experience, rather than some PR version of the experience that cut out the crappy bits.

I think that maybe you are blind to the fact that for 30 odd years the school has been putting out edited highlights in the way which you so despise. Is this how the governors can complain that they didnt know this was going on? Youbetcha! And now they have got a very PR savvy headmaster. Not unusual then for interested parties to only offer a partial view, but surely not healthy to have only one view represented?!

For many this site has given them a forum to express themselves - and yes, anger is a valid form of expression, one that is alive and well in the world outside. The discussion has enabled them to really understand the FULL impact that the SES St J education had on them. What often comes up is an innability/discomfort with confrontation and uncontrollable rages. I have had personal experience of this.

To belatedly acknowledge the wrongdoing of past tutors/governors/headmasters is only meaningful if the fingers aren't crossed at the same time behind the back.

That there is so much anger on this board is because of the arrogance that is characteristic of the 'old' and the 'new' SES and St James leadership. Possibly what you might have mistaken for 'natural authority'.
Their handling of the inquiry angered a lot more people than their initial innability to apologise. Their 'hidden' and rather less than fullsome apology read more like a press release than true contrition and regret. This is what presses my buttons. And yes, I know how to deal with my own feelings healthily, but at some stage you have to decide whether you are taking part in this world or not. On balance I think it would be an improvement if there was genuine contrition and more balance on the governors comittee, but I am realistic so I will simply play my part and see what happens. How does that work with your 'poisoned dwarf' theory of posters?

In response to your numbers comments, please check how many people are signed up as members vs how many post. A lot of people are interested in this outlet, so dont kid yourself that it is irrelevant. Maybe just to you it is irrelevant. But then like you keep repeating in your post - that is just your view. So how representative do you think that makes you?

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:26 pm
by anti_ses
Keir, you really think a significant proportion of the members on this BB trawls through every new message that appears? I think the apathy described by Zathura may well be more widespread than some may feel or want. Tom, Alban, a different guest and Matthew, four of the most prolific posters on this site, joined this BB in February or March 2004. Two years on and almost 50% of the posts on the SES board have been written by just a dozen contributors. Many have joined the BB, offered a few posts and left or, as I am sure you would like to believe, are now lurking and monitoring the posts here (and, by the way, I am not one of these). I left this board as soon as a seemingly worthwhile cause became a PR battle.
St James is not important. Nor is this site.

Never were truer words spoken.

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:44 pm
by Keir

St James is not important. Nor is this site.

Why post then?

This bulletin board has many uses, not all of them are about a PR battle.

That it exists has brought about an enquiry. That it continues to be read and posted to has shown it has interest to an increasing number of people of a different view. I think that classifies it as important.

You don't like? quit posting!

Re: re:justice

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:20 pm
by Alban
Zathura wrote:...although one wonders where this justice is going because with every capitulation by St James a further one is demanded by those that want justice. They seem to be making it up as they go along.

Actually, not so. We just want reconcilliation - that means that we want to feel comfortable that responsibility has been taken for the actions of the past. Three teachers made an excellent start by appologising and I optimistically thought we would get there a lot sooner than we have. Unfortunately, the olds SES-machine has whiled into place and gagged any further acts of regret - prefering to try and defend themselves (because essentially they are liable for not doing their job properly). As for capitulation on behalf of the schools - twaddle! all they've done accuse us of wild exagerration and of being militant.

Zathura wrote:... I certainly as an ex St James pupil will be making sure that ITN at least hears that there are 'the majority' of the rest of the ex pupils who weren't 'mistreated' and don't have militant views like your own as far as I know. I can only state an opinion. It is up to journalists to get a wide view by interviewing all kinds of St James leavers not just the ones on this site...[etc]

You seem to have missed the point here Zathura. We are not speaking for everyone, we are speaking for ourselves - as are you. It does not matter if 3000 pupils were treated well, it is enough that one was treated badly. In actual fact, the systematic violence that was the norm in my days affected so many more than just one person. It is this that we are seeking recognition of. Unfortunately instead of treating the opportunity to come clean and start affresh, the school has decided to treat this as a battle - yet again attempting to take the moral high ground.

Zathura wrote:...I also reckon almost every school has it's shameful secrets.

I sincerely hope not, but abusive behaviour towards children cannot be tollerated

Zathura wrote:...If a teacher misbehaves then the obvious thing is to fire the teacher or handful of teachers. Not blame the whole school or governors.

If there was a single incident then it could be blamed on the teacher concerned - any more than that and it is the responsibility of the governors...sorry, but that is life

Zathura wrote:...The lies and spin being used by the 'abused' is laid quite open when one member announced quite openly shortly after the inquiry that his wife or girlfriend was a journalist and although the report looked generally good for the schools there were certain sentences that could be lifted in isolation from the report with no reference to the rest of the report and made to look bad in a newspaper.

It's the way of the world, Zathura. No report is totally one-sided - the school had their chance to say what a wonderful place it now is - unfortunately the report also highlighted a fraction of the abuse that actually went on. And as I said before - no amount of good behaviour can spin that away. That is why the media quite rightly picked up on those "certain sentences".

Zathura wrote:...St James is not important. Nor is this site.

I have to disagree there as well. This site has been hugely important to the many people who have started to come to terms with their times at the schools. Personally I feel a lot of good has come from it....and if the school authorities hadn't stepped in with their huge boot then who knows, we could have had an on-line reconcilliation and have moved on.

You will notice that I have not commented on large amouns of you piece. That is not to say I am in agreement with all the rest of it, but there are some good observations in there. Maybe I will come back to those when I have more time.

In the meantime I recognise that you hold more of a moderate view than some on here, but I would also guess that you are not of the same generation that went through those times. I think it is important to have all views on this site so please stay and debate your points - yes you will get some arguments, but who knows maybe a little bit of wisedom may pass back and forth in the exchanges.


Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:27 pm
by Zathura
Numerous parents with children at St. James Independent Schools together with parents who were planning to send their children there are now planning to remove them or cancel their places, partly due to concerns over the pending Police investigation coupled with negative press reports in the Times Educational Supplement (Jan 20 ? page 14) and the local newspapers

This above is what Justice wrote and it is simply not true. It is infact a barefaced lie. Now there is so much that can be levelled against St James that is actually true. I find the Justice spin to be unbearable. Confusion is an interesting condition to analyse. I may or may not be confused at a deep level. That would be up to an analyst to decide. I probably am confused about a great many things. I think many people are. However I don't think Justice was confused when he or she knew they were completely lying by writing the statements above. Perhaps my attitude is confusing to you? It may not be confusing in itself. I could go into the same kind of analysis of ambivalence but can't be bothered. I could be ambivalent or not ambivalent depending on my mood and depending on the day. Like most humans I have a variety of different emotions towards things. I could be spinning my own story and be a PR confusion expert and planted a 'wobbly' post completely intentionally.
I have nothing against you Kier personally infact I enjoy reading most of your posts. I have a lot in common with you from a philosophical or life outlook perspective. However I do have a midway opinion to the guiltiness of St James and feel some attachment to much of my past in a positive way. That said I am seriously against some of the key things that were taught. This may be confusing to you but not confusing to me as it is me. I may be a confused person I think most people are. Infact where do the negative connotations of confusion and ambivalence enter the equation. They are worthy human experiences.

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:31 pm
by Zathura
Thanks for the welcome Alban

Dont be intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:56 pm
by Justice
Dear Zathura,

Thank you for your reply.

My posting was based upon conversations held with parents of children at St. James who are deeply concerned about their children.

I have no doubt that many parents and pupils will consider that for you to suggest that their claims are 'fabricated' and that 'The police don't prosecute a good majority of street assaults and abuse let alone incidents that happened 20 years ago' to be ignorant, ill-informed and offensive.

They may also consider that your posting reads like an SES lecture - it rambles on and on and makes little sense.

I have faith in the justice system in this country and those who enforce it and now that parents and ex-pupils are finding the courage to stand up and be counted, children who have been abused (even if it was 30 years ago) will have the chance to make their case.

The outcome of any serious allegations made will be decided by the public, the press and, if appropriate, the Crown Courts and not by SES Bully Boys and their apologists.

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:47 pm
by Zathura
Please Mr Big Bully Boy. Tell me how many of these conversations were had and do they count as 'numerous'. 10 20. 1 2 3 or 4? I myself am in touch with a parent with newspaper contacts. The problem we encounter is not that there are numerous parents defecting but the complete opposite. No one seems to be batting an eyelid. I am in touch with persons within the St James establishment within which no one is spinning anything at least to each other. The facts are around five or so parents have withdrawn their children. Also two persons withdrew from the 50 on the waiting lists after the newspaper articles. The word numerous means everything here. Are your conversations in the region of 10 or 20 or 4 or 5. I suspect the latter, which makes you a serious bullshitter that no amount of self rightious or succinct (although not so succinct. You have plastered this site with your pronouncements in the last two weeks) official sounding reappropriation of other people's journalistic work can hide. You have posted a whole post that sounds like almost the entire St James parents are flying the roost. You wanted to create this illusion. The complete opposite is true. If it weren't then you would not have to make such a big deal as there would be no one to persuade. If they are all leaving why call so loudly for them to leave? It doesn't make sense. All your other posts are valid but rather self important just like the choice of the 'final solution after all the vagueness of everybody else' style of your nickname. You are rather tedious in your own apology for yourself. It is easy to hide behind seemingly well worded and politically correct and vogueish sentiments and you have given a list of authorities that you imply you have direct contact with and can predict such institution's reaction to such a situation as St James. But you will find that using the words Crown Court and quoting cult books looks just like that, as it is, to a less maniacal eye than yours. You will find the best words are those that have some truth in them and these are certainly not those of the SES. But you have stabbed yourself in the foot by being as low as you accuse them of being. By blatantly lying and exagerating. It's not personal. It's theoretical.

Dont be intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:27 pm
by Justice
Dear Zathura,

I'm sorry that you find it necessary to use offensive language to try and make your point.

You accuse me of lying and exagerating about the number of parents removing their children from St. James whilst at the same time providing specific details about the fact that 5 or more parents have already withdrawn their children, and two have withdrawn them from the waiting list, even before the outcome of a Police investigation.

If this information was supplied to you by a staff member of St. James', as you suggest, then they may be guilty of contravening the Data Protection Act, and one would have to question their motives for doing so.

I will end by simply repeating the advice I gave to parents in the title of this topic:

Dont be intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Re: Dont be intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:38 pm
by Alban
Justice! wrote:...If this information was supplied to you by a staff member of St. James', as you suggest, then they may be guilty of contravening the Data Protection Act, and one would have to question their motives for doing so...

I think you'll find that the DPA covers personal details not general statistics.

If the names and addresses of those parents were posted here then that would be a direct contravention of the act...but they haven't been...which is a shame because I would love to talk to them about their experiences.

Dont be intimidated by St. James Staff or SES Parents!

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 am
by Justice
Dear Alban,

If statistical data about parents and their children is being released by those in authority without the prior consent of those concerned, and if it is given to outsiders who have no right to access it, then this would clearly be a serious matter.

I have to ask the question again: What would be the motive for doing so?

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:30 am
by Keir

I too would count myself as one of the moderate thinkers precisely because of my innability to see clearly a black and white answer to the question of whether ANY philosophy should exist in St J. What I do see clearly is the arrogance that I remember from my time at St J and the SES that has not changed and continues to mean that the SES and ST J governers think that the outside world is unimportant.

Whilst I do agree there are positives in every situation one can draw on there seems to me to be a very clear case for a thorough and open investigation into any breakdown in reporting of abuse whether then or now. With the structure as it was then I do not think that has a chance of happening. Has it really changed so much that these breakdowns will no longer occur? The sound from the governers is all about self preservation and nothing about meaningful action.

I absolutely defend other people's right to have a different opinion from me but I will argue passionately for my own point of view. I am open to persuasion but I am not encountering much argument that they are emotionally repressive places. I am not arguing that they are unusual in that but arguing that it is unhealthy wherever it exists. In a bizarre way you could say it is because I care so deeply about the good things in the St J education that I argue so hard for the bad things to be removed.

It is easy to take on a siege mentality when dealing with an organisation that is unusually dismissive of any point of view other than their own. Talk to a hardliner and you become more hardline. This more than anything else makes me an angry poster. The more so because it was a feature of our schooling that you were seldom valued for your contribution other than in their rigidly controlled model. If the organisation is to show that it is truly RESPONSE-ABLE to the changed priorities and awarenesses of the modern world then the very least it could be was open and honest about the past.

I welcome a diverse discussion and dont expect my voice to be the only one, and rather hope that it wont be. I recognise that I can get things wrong, can become over-passionate about things, and lose sight of 'the facts', but I also have a healthy skepticism about whose facts they are.

In the end, when people have to hide their identities to speak their truth, there is something wrong. badly wrong. Be it in society at large or in one organisation in specific it is unhealthy. Yes I would change society if I could, but you have to start from where you are.

There will always be bandwaggoning and spin, but as long as you stick to your experience and keep an open mind, ain't nobody can tell you you're wrong. If you dont share my priorities for ensuring the St James school is free of the SES influence, that's fine. I hope to convince you but am open to being convinced that there is another way to safeguard the current pupils from the treatment that was meted out to us and the culture that enabled it. I don't think that the governors have even scratched the surface of a full and frank apology in truth. I think that what they put out was the most shamefull PR nonsense in the face of an independent report of quite damning proportions, and smacked of damage limitation. I would fight this anywhere I saw it. If this is idealism I got that from both parents and school as well as mistreatment at school and in the SES.

Please keep posting as it is clear you have a lot to say, and it would be good to hear in-depth what your experience was. You never know, we may be closer in ideaology than you think.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:56 pm
by Zathura
Justice I used the offensive word bullshitter because it is halfway between a real swear word and a limp wristed response like 'idiot' although I could have used that word too. I don't think you really have a point when you say I should not using a word like bullshitter because to anyone less sensitive, pathetically sensitive may I add, the word bullshitter would not bring out the politically correct police. This is a casual website with casual views expressed. This as I'm sure you know with all your superior legal knowledge is not a court of law. Notice how you try to turn everything into an official crime. I am related to someone who is a member of staff in one of the day schools. Now because of your stupidity I have to compromise myself. Now this information was not released but was part of a casual conversation. Now ironically also I am actually in touch with a parent who withdrew their child and she also gave me some of the information I released in my original post as hearsay. You will noticed that quite intentionally I said 'as far as I know' to accompany all my notices. I have not released any official information. It is information I have gleaned in casual conversation with my relative who had no idea I would be on the site or even took part in the inquiry. Your stupid attitude makes a mockery of the campaign for reconcilliation or even accurate revenge. By nit picking unsuccessfully this time you show yourself to be a bickerer who holds a degree of knowledge about the terms used in law and in particular the law as relating to personal liberty and abuse of children. You know the law but you have a naive belief that just by shouting these words, the Crown Court, the data protection act (I'll analyse the rest of your law speak later) it is enough to scare everybody and cajole everybody else. These things exist, the data protection act, the Crown courts but it just so happens that those in positions of authority DO'NT just believe people if they cry rape, or assualt, or robbery or anything else for that matter. You have to prove these things. Now the best way to do this is with a singular and methodical approach that actually shows abuses of power that are plausable and believable to be that which they are. You have way way more chance of winning your case with a milder approach. If you go about screaming it is unfortunately rather obvious to the detached observer that you have a bee in your bonnet that could possibly be blurring your vision. Now you don't know who I am. You don't know if I'm telling the truth and you don't know if my relative even exists in the St James staff of the day schools. You have no idea 'legally' that there is of any real abuse of anyone's data. There is so much we are talking about hear loosely that could be called 'data' also. In short you are like the monster in Ridley Scott's Alien film shorn of most of it's limbs scrabbling around on the floor making a demented sound that masquarades as authority and as the friend of authority, the 'real authority/real law' Well it is all mainly show. And your searching for such a weak legal case such as the abuse of the data protection act in this case shows you to be wimpering now perhaps and not quite so sure of yourself. The parent that I'm in touch with would very much like more people to know that the child was withdrawn but it seems difficult to get through to the 'mass' of the St James parents. Why this is is a matter for debate. And I'm afraid the law courts would not take you as seriously as you presume. I advise that you ride more closely in alignment with the others on this site because your screeching 'legal' squawks could just start to piss some people off. That is a very quiet 'could'. Now I've nothing against you personally.Out of approx 800 parents, for 5 to leave is a pitifully non big deal. pitifull. One wonders if any of the parents have read this site or if from the outside this forum seems as sheltered and self referential as the S.E.S is.