Apology? Contrition? Responsibility? - Boddy & SES on C4

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

Apology? Contrition? Responsibility? - Boddy & SES on C4

Postby sparks » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:44 am

Channel 4 report on St James:

The following are the entire interviews (the sections that were broadcast) with David Boddy and Graham Skelcey. What they had to say begs a few questions....

David Boddy on the nature of the abuse at St James?
?There is a balance in any good education of love and reason and of love and discipline and I think perhaps there were occasions when teachers were rather over zealous in trying to apply that balance?


David Boddy on what the Governors (including those that were there from 1975) knew of the abuse?
?This was the first time that the governors had really heard of all of this?.


David Boddy on how to respond to the abuse?
?There was the need to bring about some reconciliation with our former pupils and so we were really inspired I think by the book by Archbishop Desmond Tutu book ?No Future without Forgiveness? who speaks of ?establish the truth first as a lead up to reconciliation?


David Boddy on what will happen to current teachers found by Townend to have mistreated or criminally assaulted pupils?
?They will be disciplined they will receive disciplinary warnings that in the future their employment would be terminated but there is no plan to remove them from the schools?.


David Boddy on how the abuse may have been a misunderstanding in how to develop the human soul!!!?
"There is a wonderful analogy often used in terms of the development of the human soul. And it is the analogy of a potter with two hands, the inner hand of the wheel as it were expands the pot or expands the individuals and the outer hand is the hand which gives it shape and if you apply that analogy to the human being what may have occurred is a misunderstanding that too much pressure was necessary on the outer hand".


Graham Skelcey (Executive Committee of the SES) on the relationship between SES and St James?
?The schools are controlled by the Governors, there is obviously communication between the two but that?s really borne of a strong and genuine and sincere interest in the welfare of the schools. I know it often get portrayed as something sinister but I guess one has to remember that the schools were founded by parents of the School of Economic Science?.


Anyone care to comment on the above?

Watch Channel 4 special report at http://www.channel4.com/news/special-re ... sp?id=1946

sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

Postby sugarloaf » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:09 am

why is st james trying to 'develop the human soul' in children? I thought the point of a school was to educate.

NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:20 am

well the st james website does have a tab for "Education - Spiritual," so presumably parents who send their kids there want spiritual matters to be a part of their kids' school day... what's wacko to me is that there is no mention of the SES and the strong ties the teachers and school administrators have to that particular org. why hide it if you have nothing to be ashamed of?

edit - should clarify that there is no mention of the ties to the adult org on the "Education - Spiritual" tab, although it is on the combined page for all four schools under "About Us - History."
Last edited by NYC on Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Apology? Contrition? Responsibility? - Boddy & SES o

Postby mgormez » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:27 am

sparks wrote:Graham Skelcey (Executive Committee of the SES) on the relationship between SES and St James?


20th May ? Advaita: A Philosophy of Unity ? Graham Skelcey
United Reformed Church, just north of Shelley Fountain
http://mission.diochi.org.uk/content/07 ... F_2006.htm

I don't know if www.justeconomics.com is another SES site but I found in this Google's cache.
Mike Gormez

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:28 am

Well, giving DB and GS the best of it, they are failing to inspire me with confidence.

The thing about truth is that until you hear it you don't necessarily know what it is. But when you do hear it you feel immensely relieved - "thank goodness SOMEONE had the guts to say it!"

Is there anyone in the present SES / St James hierarchy who isn't afraid to tell the simple truth? All this humming and hawing and might-haves and maybes is just embarrassing to those of us who are not so close to the guilty parties. On behalf of a generation of younger people in the SES / St James (and many others who are feeling very let down):

Mistakes were made - the Inquiry has proven it - now can someone responsible please apologise WHOLEHEARTEDLY?

Because it would be a good start.

DB and GS had the chance to do this on national television, and they dropped their bundle, muffed their lines, equivocated and trimmed. Pathetic. Unimaginative. Shameful.

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Hardline activists

Postby chittani » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:33 am

Does anyone know what happened to the phrase "hardline activists" which I remarked on just a few short days ago in the Governors' follow-up response?

It no longer seems to be there. Have I missed it?

Or did I just dream it?

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

Re: Hardline activists

Postby sparks » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:40 pm

chittani wrote:Does anyone know what happened to the phrase "hardline activists" which I remarked on just a few short days ago in the Governors' follow-up response?

It no longer seems to be there. Have I missed it?

Or did I just dream it?


No its still there...see point 7 on this page http://www.iirep.com/page11.htm
The small group of hardened ?activists? who wish to remain anonymous in their criticisms of St James and, in particular, the SoES, are encouraged to step out from behind the shadows of the past and meet the Governors openly.




Note also from page 9 http://www.iirep.com/page9.htm

The Governors will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the reputation of the present schools is completely protected.


Perhaps they should consider internal steps rather than threats....have they considered whether it is their inaction rather than the actions of 'hardenend activists' that are currently most damaging to the the "reputation of the present schools"?

.

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:20 pm

Sparks,

Thank you.

1980sstJ
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:21 pm

Postby 1980sstJ » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:49 pm

?This was the first time that the governors had really heard of all of this?.

When David Boddy said that he was lying. As the programme clearly demonstrated, the claims of abuse had been published in a book in the 1980s and Boddy and the governors were well aware of this book. He even chaired a meeting in response to it during the early 1980s.

Boy he slipped up there.

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

Postby Stanton » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:59 pm

Could you give us the exact quote(s) from Secret Cult about which you are concerned?

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:53 am

The Standard stories had already been picked up by the national Daily Telegraph and now the BBC radio program The World at One also ran an item on The Standard's findings. p178

"I shall call a meeting of parents within a very short time..." (Sheila Caldwell) p.179

The meetings took place the following week.... p.179 (meaning at the 2 st james schools and 2 st vedast schools)

...raised the question of the secrrect over the links between the cult and the schools, and the excessive corporal punishment..." p.179

Others (at the meeting) who spoke in favour of the schools included David Boddy... p180

Devenham went on to deny that cold showers were used, saying the question sounded malicious. Capper, however, was happy to admit that the regime at his school included cold showers. :There's nothing wrong with a cold shower, even in winter" p. 199

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

Postby Stanton » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:11 pm

Would any former pupils - preferably those spanning the period pre-1983 and post-1983 - like to speak about the differences (if any) in 'excessive corporal punishment' over that period? Also cold showers if it comes to it.

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

Postby Planet » Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Bit off topic so removed by author :changes:
Last edited by Planet on Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby Stanton » Sat Mar 18, 2006 4:09 pm

Your post, Planet, has made me wonder if I asked the right question. What I was really meaning was - was there any change in discipline/punishments at St James in 1983?

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

Postby Planet » Sat Mar 18, 2006 6:42 pm

Stanton of course it changed over the years as it did in many schools.
I suppose I could start a thread where did Debenham go to school instead. I'm not very good with these boards when it comes to actually posting on them.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests