A simple question for David Boddy

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:22 pm

Patrick,

Any further news re your planned intervention with the SES seniors? I am curious to know how you got on.

Trying not to be sarcastic and cynical is all very well, but with the greatest respect, with seemingly no forward motion despite solidarity from current pupils in St J and members of SES, you have to expect a little dissapointment to seep out in the way that it does.

One would think we are asking for the moon, not an apology from people found to have been either negligent or criminal in their roles of teacher/governor/headmaster.

I don't expect you to be as passionate as people that went through what we did, but the constant calls for calm and decorum tend to inflame me, as it ignores the gaping injustice and asks that everyone dresses nicely.

It seems from your earlier posts on this board that you were critical of the way that the StJ/SES had handled the inquiry report, can I ask if you are showing the way with your temperance and actually getting somewhere or have you met the same brick wall that we have found for the last 20 years or more.

I would really like to know.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sat Apr 01, 2006 8:32 pm

Alban wrote:It is a shame that they cannot bring themselves to communicate with us on here - I don't know what they are scared of. Dialogue is after all the key to reconciliation.

Someone on another thread wrote:Remember who you represent, you are all the voice of the SES.

On the one hand, there is talk of the need for dialogue. On the other, any dialogue is futile given any statement by DB will be the 'voice of the SES' and nothing more.

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

Postby Alban » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:11 pm

Antises,

It didn't make sense the first time you wrote it - what is the point of repeating yourself!


Alban

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:44 pm

Point is that nobody is willing to communicate with DB as a person as opposed to the 'voice of the SES'. However justified this may be, this means that any attempt at dialogue is doomed to failure, since most people here have issues with the SES.

gadflysdreams
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:30 pm

To anti-ses

Postby gadflysdreams » Sun Apr 02, 2006 7:06 am

Further point is that DB would not be able to communicate with anybody as anything other than a member of SES - especially as headmaster of their principal day school. Have you tried?

StVSurvivor
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:04 pm

Postby StVSurvivor » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:11 am

anti_ses wrote:Point is that nobody is willing to communicate with DB as a person as opposed to the 'voice of the SES'.

But is it really possible to separate the two things?

Anti-ses, I was very willing to "communicate with DB as a person as opposed to the 'voice of the SES'", so I did - and it was like coming up against a brick wall. My words made as much impression on him as a fart in a tornado. His eyes glazed over as he auto-switched into SES doublespeak. By then the meeting had lost all value for me, but was nonetheless a fascinating process to observe.
Last edited by StVSurvivor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:07 pm

I don't see how on earth it would be possible to meet with DB to discuss the SES/St. James with him "as a person" when he is the headmaster of the school itself and has been a PR person for the SES for years. That's like trying to talk to me about my job as a "person" when I'm a supervisor and have been doing my job for years. You can't separate it.

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

Postby Keir » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:35 pm

I just cant get a handle on where you are coming at this from anti_ses!

Are you suggesting that poor old DB is suffering silently, a tortured soul just dying to break the party line and rush hands outclasped at the nearest group of ex-students shouting 'mea culpa'?

He hides it well!

Are you on the other hand saying that we are all rotters to not recognise that he is a private individual and not just his job? The problem with that is that given that the BB title is discussion of the SES, and as a member as well as the headmaster of an SES-inspired school, and a recent spokesman for the school on the subject of the enquiry - his role and personal beliefs are highly relevant topics for discussion and criticism, as they would be in any other human being in a similar circumstance.

What is your major malfunction?

Do you not think that his genuine apology is long overdue? Did you not catch his 'contrite' analogy on the telly? Not a vote-winner here I feel.

So, what IS your point?

anti_ses wrote:...this means that any attempt at dialogue is doomed to failure, since most people here have issues with the SES.


How about a monolgue from him saying how sorry he is that these things went on and something more than a slapped wrist will be administered to those teachers still teaching at the school, and some compunction will be given to those involved to apologise too.

All this talk of dialogue is somewhat of a sideshow.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:50 pm

So we agree, Keir. You really didn't need to launch a tirade to say that you concur with my view: dialogue with DB won't solve anything. (Note our reasons differ, yours being that DB is the 'voice of the SES', mine being that DB is perceived to be the 'voice of the SES'.) Regardless, we agree dialogue with DB at this point is a dead end.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:41 pm

anti_ses wrote:So we agree, Keir. You really didn't need to launch a tirade to say that you concur with my view: dialogue with DB won't solve anything. (Note our reasons differ, yours being that DB is the 'voice of the SES', mine being that DB is perceived to be the 'voice of the SES'.) Regardless, we agree dialogue with DB at this point is a dead end.


Why should those who you think perceive ND to be the 'voice of SES' be unable to enter into a dialog with him? It is not his religious affiliations but his conduct as a headmaster that would be the major issue up for discussion for most ex pupils. It is absurd to suggest that those have prejudiced ideas about ND will be unable to enter into a conversation with him.

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:35 pm

leon wrote:It is absurd to suggest that those have prejudiced ideas about ND will be unable to enter into a conversation with him.

I never said it would be impossible to converse with someone against whom you hold prejudiced ideas - only that the resulting conversation will also be prejudiced, and naturally unproductive. Besides, I'm talking about DB, not ND.

User avatar
Ben W
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:33 am

Postby Ben W » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:50 am

OK - so there is violent agreement that DB (or ND) are probably prevented from apologising (even if they wanted to) by their formal roles. This makes the "simple question for DB" rhetorical.

HOWEVER, it is not for those who have been wronged to stop asking. It is for those who refuse to answer, or those who are preventing them from answering, to explain themselves.

Let's ask the question again ...

"What level of abuse do you think it is appropriate for a teacher to have on his record?"
Child member of SES from around 1967 to around 1977; Strongly involved in Sunday Schools ; Five brothers and sisters went to ST V and St J in the worst years

anti_ses
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby anti_ses » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:19 am

Ben Wheaton wrote:"What level of abuse do you think it is appropriate for a teacher to have on his record?"

That's a pretty loaded question, Ben. I mean, you wouldn't have even considered asking, "It it possible for a teacher who has been overzealous in his punishments many years ago to successfully fulfil his role today?" Both questions are loaded, PR-induced, and don't really help.

Ben Wheaton wrote:OK - so there is violent agreement that DB (or ND) are probably prevented from apologising (even if they wanted to) by their formal roles.

Please refer to my previous posts. In particular,
anti_ses wrote:Note our reasons differ, yours being that DB is the 'voice of the SES', mine being that DB is perceived to be the 'voice of the SES'.

Everyone else seems to be in violent agreement, though.

User avatar
Ben W
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:33 am

Postby Ben W » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:59 am

Hi anti-ses,

On the first point, I don't really agree the question (which was not mine) is loaded.

In the context of this site there is no serious contributor who doubts that abuse took place, nor that some of those responsible for it are still involved in the school. To call it "overzealous" is inflammatory. Surely we are not going to debate this point.

Clearly the obvious answer to the question is "none", but it seems to be the case that those speaking for SES and/or St J/V (or those advising them) think differently. The lack of an answer is telling and needs to be looked at.

On the second point they say perception is reality - so perhaps we agree there after all.

Cheers,
Ben
Child member of SES from around 1967 to around 1977; Strongly involved in Sunday Schools ; Five brothers and sisters went to ST V and St J in the worst years

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

Postby Keir » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:04 am

Anti_SES

I sometimes wonder if you are deliberately misreading my posts or just doing it to piss me off.

I didn't say that David Boddy is the voice of the SES - that was YOUR comment. I merely made the point that as the man in post as headmaster of St James school he is responsible for talking on behalf of the school.

I concur with Leon that it shouldn't preclude useful discussion if two parties differ, it is more important that they are open to learning something from each other, or at least open to it.

My so called 'rant' was about the fact that by not addressing themselves to the business of apologising in a meaningul way (as Townend suggested would be appropriate) they have shown themselves to be uninterested in anything remotely like dialogue. Given the thread that says even the letters that were requested be marked 'Private and Confidential' in reply to the governors 'outreach' letters, which then were discussed within the SES at Waterperry or somesuch I am not in the remotest degree convinced that there is a willingness to treat the so called 'reconcilliation process' with any seriousness.

This differs from your posts which suggest that it is the posters on this forum that are making dialogue impossible by the fact they have negative feelings towards the SES.

I personally do not think Boddy is the mouthpiece of the SES, but I tend to believe that he is responsible for the school's response to the inquiry findings, the re-assessment of staff suitability to continue teaching, and instituting a policy of transparency about the role of theSES in St James.
It kinda goes with the job title.

If that is a tirade in your book, you are a sensitive soul.


:crazyeyes:


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest