The mysterious (and mysteriously anonymous) PPIAG

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.

Complainants Only: Do you know who the PPIAG are?

Yes, I know who they are
8
47%
Haven't a clue
9
53%
 
Total votes: 17

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

The mysterious (and mysteriously anonymous) PPIAG

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 20, 2006 3:58 pm

Well aren't PPIAG a nice bunch of people?

http://www.stjamesinquiry.org/

I'm sure most of us, from whatever camp, can happily endorse most of their aims. Change is needed and overdue. They seem reasonable and moderate.

We should all regard them as friends. Or should we?

Is there a good reason for anonymity? Who put up all the money for this web site and why? Are there ulterior motives behind the friendliness? Is there a connection between these people and the solicitors who were engaged over a year ago to serve notice of legal action by an anonymous group of ex-pupils against St James?

In short, I'd like to know whether these people really represent the interests of the complainants.

So I?d like to ask all of you who have a complaint against St James /Vedast (whether or not you made it to the Inquiry) or the School of Economic Science : do YOU know who these people are? You don?t have to reveal their identities.

Let us hope they are what they seem...

PS Mike, Daffy ? is it possible to monitor whether we suddenly get numbers of new members on the site?

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

Postby mgormez » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:23 pm

Sure, press the "Memberlist" link at the top of the page.
Mike Gormez

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:33 pm

Mercy bucket!

Mike,

May I say at this point that this is not to cast any aspersions on THIS web site. With each passing day the pain of reading it becomes easier to reconcile with the reflection that it was and is so necessary.

My only concern is that if there are sinister people sticking their oars in ('hardened activists'), then they are muddying the waters for all.

User avatar
Merry
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:25 pm

Postby Merry » Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:37 pm

Hello Chittani,

I think it is an important question you are asking.

If a group purports to represent others then surely it should be transparent.

It does concern me where you have the 'The Parents & Pupils Inquiry Action Group' taking on responsibility without accountability - certainly a potential dilemma with this board site.

I believe I know who plays a major part in the PPIAG but of course am not in a postion to name.
When someone posts on this site clearly they represent themselves and their views - I would not dream of suggesting that I represent the school or anyone else here. It is interesting that the concerns raised have been from both those adversely affected by St James and St Vedast and broadly supportive members of the SES.

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

Postby NYC » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:37 pm

Chittani wrote:Who put up all the money for this web site and why?

I don?t think its takes a lot of money to create a web site. Time, yes.
Attended Parts 1,2, & 3 and a Plato study group in the NY adult school 2004 - 2005. Also explored advaita philosphy in other organizations since 1995, and continue to do so.

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

Postby Stanton » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:46 pm

At some point PPIAG will have to come out into the open if it wishes its claim to represent former pupils to have any validity. You can lurk in the shadows for only so long, but after a while you just look silly.

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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:48 am

Stanton

Well, let's wait and see. So far the results suggest more than anything that not many complainants are actually reading the board at the moment.

Thought for the day:

The superior person is neither for nor against anything, but on the side of what is moral. (Confucius)

xstJ
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: London

Re: The mysterious (and mysteriously anonymous) PPIAG

Postby xstJ » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:01 am

chittani wrote:
I'm sure most of us, from whatever camp, can happily endorse most of their aims. Change is needed and overdue. They seem reasonable and moderate.



chittani wrote:
My only concern is that if there are sinister people sticking their oars in ('hardened activists'), then they are muddying the waters for all.


You've contradicted yourself completely, if you can 'happily endorse their aims' and they seem 'reasonable and moderate' then surely it's clear that they're not 'sinister people sticking their oars in'.

Just be grateful that someone's made the effort to produce a comprehensive and informative website expressing aims that you can 'happily endorse'.

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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:07 am

Not so.

If there is no difference between the stated aims and the actual aims, then we are at one. But if there is a hidden agenda or undercurrent of something else, then we should know. Don't you think?

But then, maybe you do know. The rest of us don't have the luxury of peeping behind the curtain, so forgive us for the suspicion. Especially when there are people like 'Justice!' about.

Someone telling you about the truth who then turns out to be insincere ... ringing any bells for you? Just because the words are good doesn't mean we'll all roll over to have our tummies tickled. I would have thought that your experiences might have given you a lifelong insight into hypocrisy.

My bullshit monitor was just quietly beeping ... but maybe the goddam thing's broke!

4/5 so far say they do know the people involved. That's beginning to suggest to me that maybe the anonymity doesn't mean something sinister. But it's hardly a massive sample.

If anyone feels happy to PM me with any reassurances ... I'm not digging for information. Just want to be clear.
Last edited by chittani on Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

xstJ
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: London

Postby xstJ » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:16 am

chittani wrote:
If there is no difference between the stated aims and the actual aims, then we are at one. But if there is a hidden agenda or undercurrent of something else, then we should know. Wouldn't you want to know?

I would have thought that your experiences might have given you a lifelong insight into hypocrisy.

My bullshit monitor is just quietly beeping ... maybe it's broke though.


Ok, maybe I'm being dense I just don't see what the hidden agenda could be, so far I agree with everything PPIAG has said so I'm quite happy for them to say it. Even if I didn't agree I'd still support their right to say it.

Please enlighten me, what could the hidden agenda possibly be?

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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:29 am

Fair enough.

Within the SES what is being said or hinted at is that there may be an effort going on to gather evidence that will strengthen a claim for substantial damages.

St James has been advised by solicitors representing an anonymous group that a claim is being considered.

If that is the case, I would rather know about it.

Not that I would necessarily oppose such a thing - I really don't know whether it would be feasible, just or desirable. For my part, if the coffers had to be emptied it wouldn't be too high a price for truth and reconciliation.

The real issue here is that the smokescreen is giving support to the reactionary forces within the organization. Nobody wants to see St James destroyed ...

The dark suits want us to be afraid of you. Don't forget that. Anonymity gives protection, but it makes things more difficult.

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

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:06 am

if there is a hidden agenda or undercurrent of something else, then we should know.


Not much of a 'hidden agenda' with the PPIAG - they state their aims quite plainly on their website. UNLIKE the SES (or SoES if you prefer).

You talk of 'smokescreeens', but hasn't the 'official' reaction (or is that 'non-reaction?) of the "dark suits" in the SES (or SoES) been just that?

Why this persistance in trying to "out" these people?

Here in Au, with no SES background, I have a good idea who is behind it, basically cos they told me so. :-P And they have their (v. good) reasons for anonomity at this stage.

Ahh, the 'circle of trust' - you ever watched Meet the Parents chit? :D

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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:24 am

You talk of 'smokescreeens', but hasn't the 'official' reaction (or is that 'non-reaction?) of the "dark suits" in the SES (or SoES) been just that?


ADG

Well, of course it has! Hello?!

Hey, forgive me for asking, but are you in any way tone-deaf? Or is just that you and Anton gave all your Oz humour to Bella?

Let me turn xstJ's question around then:

Please enlighten me, what could the hidden agenda possibly be?


Please somebody enlighten me - what could the reason for anonymity be? It's natural that some people will not want to step out of the shadows; but others already have - Tom Grubb, Matthew Wolff etc. Now if the PPIAG isn't Tom or Matthew, who the hell are they? And what different aims do they represent, if any?

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

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:28 am

Or is just that you and Anton gave all your Oz humour to Bella?


Of course not - to quote a new tourism campaign - "where the bloody hell" have you been not to notice the humour here? :D


what could the reason for anonymity be?


Well here's a joking question for you - "how may SES members are lawyers?"

Now, where's my lampshade, I feel the macareena coming on. ;)

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Postby Daffy » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:54 am

Chittani, I really think you should give up your near-obsession with finding out the real identities of other contributors to this site (Justice!, PPIAG etc).

If users choose not to reveal their identity, or even the general nature of their involvement in this site, then so be it. What counts is whether they have something useful to contribute to the discussion.

You may believe that unless you know the history of a given person, then what they say doesn't carry much weight. To a small extent I agree - knowing what experiences a particular person carries with them helps us understand what drives them. However, the users whom you pursue so relentlessly have been quite clear about their motives and they obviously have some past or present connection with the SES/SoP/St James/Vedast. They have every right to continue to speak - just as you do.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests