Boddy's Spin: Metropolitan Police Investigation

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
sparks
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:17 am

Boddy's Spin: Metropolitan Police Investigation

Postby sparks » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:15 am

CBetts wrote:David Boddy, Headmaster of St James Senior Boys School has asked me to post the following message:

"Parliamentary Question: Ruth Kelly Secretary of State for Education and Skills, was misinformed. No such investigation is being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police or by Social Services."

David Boddy Headmaster St James Senior School for Boys"


At the time of the Inquiry and the publication of the Inquiry report there WAS an active investigation by the Metropolitan Police. This investigation may now have been concluded. Boddy's statement that Ruth Kelly was misinformed may be technically correct with regard to timing - but it is highly misleading in its inference.

Confirmation that (until at least a few weeks ago) there was indeed such an investigation can no doubt be obtained by contacting the schools in the normal way at St James Senior School for Boys on communications@stjamesboys.co.uk.

Other investigations HAVE been instgated by other authorities - the schools should also be able to confirm this - and whether these investigations have now been concluded.

.

Justice
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:13 pm

Boddy's Spin: Metropolitan Police Investigation

Postby Justice » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:18 am

Ruth Kelly's statement was made LAST WEEK!

whitedevil
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:22 pm

Postby whitedevil » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:26 am

All,

This is the kind of thing we're fighting. This is the reason we came here. After a while i'm beginning to see who is genuine and who is a cretin. Justice what is your motive. WHY ARE YOU HERE? So far you have explained nothing and asked for so much explanation. What do you intend to do?
freedom wears your scars of desire

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

Postby Alban » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:51 am

White Devil,

Try and detach yourself from your position for the moment, disregard the knowledge that you have of any individuals involved, and look at the bear facts.

Essentially at the moment, we have two statements from two people - both holding positions that demand great responsibility. We have no hard evidence to back up what either of them are saying...yet.

So until we do, it's a 50-50 call.

Please see this for what it is...a slightly, tongue-in-cheek voxpop.

lighten up mate! we're not all doom and gloom you know.

Alban

whitedevil
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:22 pm

Postby whitedevil » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:53 am

Alban,

Neither am i!! I will do some investigating of my own. Find out what's really going on. BBC parliament here I come!!!
freedom wears your scars of desire

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

Postby Planet » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:05 am

Whitedevil, I can kind of see what your saying but it seems some have to axe to grind and from my own knowledge I can think of more than a few persons that I knew that were treated badly (and in a way that seems unbelievable today) by both teachers and sometimes their fellow pupils.

If their anger has boiled and bubbled for 20 + years they may well suffer from the volcano effect most probably triggered off by the inquiry and its result.
Unfortunately such is human nature that the fire will burn most probably some time longer. Unfortunately it seems in defending your school you St James chaps also feed the fire. But now its your school and your choice and now also your fire.

Unfortunately or fortunately given Justice's posts he/she is highly unlikely to have been a pupil at any of the days schools or a member of the SES or SoES and is more likely to be linked to the press possibly to drum up business for TV or a paper.

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

Re: Boddy's Spin: Metropolitan Police Investigation

Postby sparks » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:16 am

sparks wrote:At the time of the Inquiry and the publication of the Inquiry report there WAS an active investigation by the Metropolitan Police. .


The above is a fact and can be verified by calling the Mets press office and asking for a copy of their press release.

The point I was actually trying to make was that Boddy's statement seems to imply there is/was no investigation by the Police - this pure spin. He knows there is/was one.

I would imagine that when the Police do/did conclude their investigation they will probably decide not to pass the file onto the CPS because the likelyhood of a successful prosecution is slim due to the passage of time since the abuse / criminal assault.

No doubt if/when that happens we will all be told by Boddy that the school has has been cleared - which of course it hasnt!
.

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

Postby daska » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:34 am

whitedevil wrote:This is the kind of thing we're fighting. This is the reason we came here. After a while i'm beginning to see who is genuine and who is a cretin. Justice what is your motive. WHY ARE YOU HERE? So far you have explained nothing and asked for so much explanation. What do you intend to do?


Are you trying to imply that Justice! suffers from "a congenital condition caused by a deficiency of thyroid hormone during prenatal development and characterized in childhood by dwarfed stature, mental retardation, dystrophy of the bones, and a low basal metabolism?"

Or possibly you have the french meaning of Cretin in mind: "deformed and mentally retarded person found in certain Alpine valleys"?

Surely not!

Perhaps, following your classical education at St James, you are using the Vulgar Latin form meaning *christinus, Christian, human being, poor fellow, from Latin Chrstinus, Christian?

I'd hope you were just looking for the antonym for genuine. False might suffice, but Bogus would be closer.

One thing's for certain, Justice! is provoking but not an 'idiot'.

If my response appears deliberately fatuous then please be assured that it is intended to be. My intention is to demonstrate that it serves no purpose to be insulting at the expense of saying what you really mean. There are a lot of different agendas at play here so making assumptions about people's motivations is tricky to say the least. Can we really tell who is playing devil's advocate...? Even the motives of the current pupils can be 'read' different ways.

Believe it or not we can understand how you feel about your school seemingly being under attack - it happened when we were there over 20 years ago, before you were born! Your university prospects are not affected one iota by what happens on this BB.

The schools need to solve their problems once and for all and remove the ammunition that could, and most probably will, be used against them if the governors continue to stick their heads in the sand.

nilsabm
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:31 pm

Postby nilsabm » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:55 am

Daska's right WD. The school has been in the media spotlight for a good couple of decades now, and not on account of internet message boards I might add! I remember Capper being interviewed by ITN in the garden of Sarum Chase, the issue of the day being caning, and watching it on TV later on. Secret Cult and the Evening Standard investigations were in process when I left. I remember, years after leaving, seeing Debenham on TV defending the right to cane.

Adverse publicity has dogged the schools, because, by and large, the schools have deserved it. They have, all too often in their arrogance, thought they were better than contemporary society around them. If media attention has brought about some positive change over the years, then that can only be good. But unless the schools have truly learned from their past mistakes, there is a danger that history will continue to repeat itself.

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

Postby Stanton » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:30 am

Planet - if you look at Justice's posts you will see that he has no connection to St James or the SES. So what is he doing he? And why no
introduction? I've posted him asking if he has any links - at all - to the Channel 4 enquiry. It's my view, as of now, that he's here to stir up as much trouble as he can and then milk the situation for his own purposes.

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

Postby Zathura » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:12 am

Planet...everyone has an axe to grind on this site. That observation is a non sequiter. (spelling?)

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

Postby Planet » Sat Feb 25, 2006 11:52 am

Zathura wrote:Planet...everyone has an axe to grind on this site. That observation is a non sequiter. (spelling?)


Good to see you agree with something. Then we can chop wood together and feed the fire with our extra sharp axes.

Obviously the spelling issues on this board are possibly due to a lack of basic education at this "St James" establishment. Maybe I should ask for a refund ?
PS As I think you did you spell ?sequiter? wrong so you should also request a refund assuming you went there. I assume you mean an absurdism.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:35 pm

Imo the spelling issue is a non-issue. Often people have a couple of windows open at the same time, listen to an MP3, search for a movie on bittorrent, have a muted TV on in a right upper window and have MSN windows poping up distractingly and since this is not a formal letter, don't pay much attention to spelling.

Be glad they don't use SMS language exclusivly :-)
Mike Gormez

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

Postby Zathura » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:13 pm

A non sequeter is a statement that sounds official and impressive that is meaningless. An absurdism is more intentional perhaps. Everyone has their favorite words. I like the word 'absurd' but non sequitor or whatever it is more cutting. To be absurd is just to be a fool. To be guilty of a non sequiter is to think the follishness was wise.
I have no desire to be able to spell correctly. I'd rather be able to think. like a lot of creative people logical formulations are not always my strong point. Spelling is no big deal to me as I've mentioned about the boys. I'm not too bad at all infact and certainly I have never worked in an environment that requires me to spell.
Is there a point here? No not really it's rather a pointless argument. Some people can spell naturally (office types) others can't. Not everyone leaves school with good grades. Maybe I should claim a receipt off Fate or God. this is getting absurd now. I think it's pointless to get at St James with non issues it just makes the complainants seem even more pedantic narrow minded and up their own arses.

PRAISE BE TO THE HOLY SPELLER.

Let's all go down to watch the spelling compitition!
Wow this beats lap dancing.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest