Your conclusions are correct. I am biased. The more I hear and read about the SES the sicker I feel.
From her postings Mary seems a nice kind-hearted girl but it is hardly surprising the she is in direct contact with Boddy. I see from my deceased uncle's diary notes that her parents and the Boddies are all long standing members of the 2 most senior SES groups (i.e. men and women ? 2 separate groups of course) ?tutored? by Lambie.
In one of my replies about how genuine Marys's post was, I said:
I was just interested to know how she knew for a fact that statements being posted were genuine ...if she knows for sure as she states, then she implies that she gets that info straight from the horses mouth, which suggests that she is in direct contact with Mr Boddy. If this is true then I have to look at her picture of life at St James with a little bit of suspicion.
I didn't know of the connection between Mary and Mr Boddy when I wrote this, but obviously my assumptions were correct.
I have read all of the current pupils posts recently and also Mary's post on how much St James has changed. I couldn't quite put my finger on it but I really felt that some of these posts had been influenced by parents and teachers who belonged to the SES.
I felt that although Sam stated he was no longer a member, he could still, and probably would be influenced by his mother, who is actually a senior member of the SES.
From Mary's post it is clear that like Sam she is getting information from senior members of the SES.
Therefore their posts have to be read from the view point of an SES member. Posts written by people who are not only directly linked or related to senior members of the SES but who are also given information from those members, have to surely be biased in favour of the SES. Can we totally trust what they say?
This is why I raise my eyebrows when current pupils proclaim that so much has changed at St James....is it the truth or just more SES spin?