Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Leeds (currently in NZ)

Postby james » Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:53 pm

Ok. Its just that an investigation of the current goings on would turn up very little, if anything.

The end of my post about not being insulting was directed to sam, not to you. You have done nothing to insult us directly. Its people attacking the current school (st james not SES) thats making us angry.

Please lay off attacking the current St James, theres nothing wrong with it, but if you feel you must attack the SES then please carry on!

Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:09 pm

Are they attacking your school - or the cult behind it and it's influence on the current schools.

User avatar
Sam Hyde
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: St James boys school

Postby Sam Hyde » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:17 pm

Dear Bella,

Firstly, thank you xStJ for explaining Bella's position to me.
Bella, I can understand how I may come across in this way, however, I don?t mean to be condescending towards you, but appreciate I am really hot under the collar at the moment as I have received a lot of comments both general and personal on this post. Just a defence mechanism, rude to me, I feel intimidated = me rude to you.

I will make an effort to loosen my top button and avoid a yellow card hopefully! lol

Love, Sam xox
thats old now, like me, only 4 weeks to go!!!!!
"I've never let my schooling interfere with my education"

Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:17 am

Multiple investigations

Postby sparks » Thu Feb 23, 2006 8:30 pm

For your information Sam, as far as I am aware there are at least THREE separate investigations: the Metropolitan Police - into allegations of criminal assault; a combined Education Authority, child protection and NSPCC investigation; and, an investigation by the Commission for Social Care. An investigation by Richmond upon Thames Social Services Department may be a FOURTH.

Sam Hyde wrote:To follow up on your post Justice!, for your information the services have been WORKING ALONG SIDE the schools and their OWN investigation for OVER A YEAR. And have revealed nothing to deem further action necessary.

Your assertion that "the authorities are WORKING ALONG SIDE the schools" may be slightly misleading. It was CURRENT and very recent parents who called in the education authorities last year NOT the schools! You are peddling the direct line that the schools have given and it is not entirely straight. I can assure you it was the NSPCC who contacted the schools and not the other way round.

Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Leeds (currently in NZ)

Postby james » Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:20 pm

Well if the NSPCC are holding an inspection of the current school, I for one am glad. They will find nothing wrong with the current school.
The only thing they could say is that the school is employing past offenders, and they may resign. I would gladly provide evidence for those in question, DL etc. By saying that in my 7 years I was never laid a finger on or threatened verbaly in any way. (other than "do your lines, or detention!". Other than that the current school has nothing to fear.
Another inquirey of the school of 20 years ago will have different results but hasn't that allready been done.

Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:40 pm

Postby Planet » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:57 pm

I doubt they will find anything today. But it depends what they are looking for and how hard they look. Also if they think its for some reason in the "public interest" they will look even harder.

But I expect they will probably look under the "cloak of anonymity" and the "shadows of the past" to see if theres anything under it or anything appears.

But I wouldn't worry too much for now. I doubt they will take you in for questioning on this occasion.

Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Leeds (currently in NZ)

Postby james » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:56 am

I hope the do take me in for questioning! I have nothing I want to hide. As I have said I was never abused, physically or mentaly. The education St James offered me, especialy extra-curiculla, (climbing club etc.) was fantastic.

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Postby Zathura » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:23 pm

Well done Sam and have succeded where I have failed. You have made Justice show some quite apparent signs of edginess. A feat. The in black and white Justice phenomenom is looking distinctly grey.
This is because you know much more than I did. Once we start hearing the details all these legal talks are once again looking rather thin. I suspected so. But as Justice admits we will have to await the outcome. To admit this fact is the first sign of Justice showing he or she is actually 'unsure'. This is all I was trying to get Justice to admit.

I am pretty sure a lot of this is a smokescreen. but not completely The future will tell.This has always been my position. It is up in the air. Nothing is factually certain. This was my point from the beginning. I feel vindicated by Justice him or herself. It's not much of a position but it was my position. I feel honoured to be right about having a vague position. However if you look into it. This is quite a tellingly impotent reality that Justice has admitted too. My position isn't such a vague thing. Vagueness in this case is rather solid.

User avatar
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:34 pm

Agreed, Zathura. But perhaps not an 'impotent reality'. This is where spelling is so important. St James' boys please note, spelling and grammar are not insignificant. It's your mother tongue, you ought to use it with strength and accuracy. Why not ask your school for lessons from St James' girls - they recently did well in a national spelling bee, I believe. Possibly why they're higher up the league tables than you.

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Postby Zathura » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:39 pm

impotent was meant as impotent clever clogs. It may or may not be impotent but that was what 'I' said

By the way I am in my early thirties not a St James kid and also I presume it's the use of IT ironically and spellcheck that has declined the kid's abilty to spell without using it. I must agree some of the spelling is not kind of forgivable spelling but way out there dilinquent stuff. However I quite easliy see through this. The force of argument is quite good adult and mature beyond the spelling.

User avatar
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:27 pm

An 'impotent reality', Zathura? You make my brain hurt. You'll have to explain that. On the other hand (quickly said) ..... perhaps not. You've read too much Nietsche. Why not write simply instead?
I would agree about the use of computers and Spellcheck - devastatingly bad for spelling.

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:05 pm

Postby Zathura » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:35 pm when you can't get it up. It's a common word I think

Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Free » Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:59 am

Last edited by Free on Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby mm- » Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:03 pm

Junior school parents received a letter yesterday informing that, and I quote;

'Whilst the Governors have been working to address these past issues, there is a group of past pupils who appear to remain unsatisfied. As part of a campaign to bring attention to their complaints, they have attracted the interest of Channel 4 News who are presently preparing a ten minute news item to go out sometime this week.'

We are also told the following;

'We are told that many schools are faced with issues of this kind related to their past......In a letter responding to a communication from the Headmaster of the Senior Boys school, Maria Eagle MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families at the DfES said the following:
'I can confrim that an historic allegation of abuse was received from a man in his 40's that related to his time as a school pupil in London. Following a joint investigation by the police, social services, the NSPCC and Education welfare that involved St James Independent School for Senior Boys, no further action is being taken by the Metropolitan Police...

I fully appreaciate the anxiety the Independent Inquiry into past discipline policies must have caused the school. I commend the Governing Body for commissioning the Inquiry which sparked the investigations referred to above, and their willingness to address very difficult issues in such an open and transparent manner. The findings of the police and the Inquiry do not have any bearing on the conduct of the school at present, which is reflected in recent published inspection reports by both the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Independent Schools Inspectorate,'

User avatar
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:12 pm

It might be pertinent to add that if it is the complaint that I am aware of, the investigation faltered on a lack of witnesses.

I happen to know that there were a plethora of witnesses at the time as I was in the same room.

Might it be that this assault will go the way of many of the complaints that we had at the time - suffocated by the fear of the children to say anything against their teachers or to their parents.

They can hide behind spin but they cant bullshit us.

What is annoying is that they have yet again ducked the issue, transerred the blame on to nasty horrible media seeking people rather than taking the responsibility for not acting immediately and effectively on the recommendations of the inquiry.

Reconcilliation CANNOT start until they recognise their part in all of this, privately AND publicly.

Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests