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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:55 am

Too bloody many IMHO!

OK, maybe that's a good reason. And I'm beginning to disbelieve the conspiracy theory.

But the guys and girls also need to recognise that it is St James that has the threat of legal action hanging over it, and not the other way round. If they want to make use of lawyers, why not employ one to monitor the site, making sure that there are no vulnerabilities? If there's nothing slanderous or defamatory, who cares who knows who you are? They can't touch you even if they wanted to.

It's not like the lawyers are going to come round your house with a tyre-iron.

Another question might be, who is employing the lawyers that have put St James on notice? PPIAG? Tom / Matthew etc ? Or a third group altogether?

Do you see what I'm getting at? The legal threats and the anonymity are both undermining the assertion that the agenda is to move things forward.

Maybe that's how they want to play it. But it seems to me that such tactics are going to generate more heat than light.

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:55 pm

chittani wrote:Another question might be, who is employing the lawyers that have put St James on notice? PPIAG? Tom / Matthew etc ? Or a third group altogether?

Not I. All we asked for from day 1 was simple apologies. They then decided to turn the heat up by holding an inquiry. The findings of which led to what is being called for in the open letter. It?s as simple as that. Certainly no question of employing lawyers. So whoever is doing so (if indeed it?s actually true), then your guess is as good as mine who?s behind it.

Free
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Free » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:58 pm

<delete>
Last edited by Free on Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby mgormez » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:28 pm

chittani wrote:But the guys and girls also need to recognise that it is St James that has the threat of legal action hanging over it, and not the other way round.


Everyone can be sued, certainly those in the UK with the draconian libel laws:

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Government initiate a wider review of the whole question of the libel laws of this country? England has some of the most draconian libel laws in the world, which is why it has become a preferred forum for litigants from all over the world, even though publication may have been very limited in this country.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 222-03.htm


And keep in mind the Governing Body reported quite clearly:

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

http://www.iirep.com./page9.htm
Mike Gormez

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

Postby chittani » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:41 pm

Mike,

You may have a point there.

However, what I pick up from Matthew's post (thank you) and from other private contacts I've had with complainants, is that there isn't unanimity or a single agenda.

On both sides, there are people who want to find truth and effect reconciliation, as well as people who want other things. So we will all have to be careful. That is just the fact. How much risk we take will depend on each individual.

Free,

It's all very well calling for someone to be courageous, but if you alienate people you don't carry them with you. It takes not just courage but also intelligence to bring about change.

Fortunately, things are about to take a turn for the better.

Free
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 9:30 pm

Postby Free » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:58 pm

<delete>
Last edited by Free on Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby a different guest » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:57 am

chittani wrote:On both sides, there are people who want to find truth and effect reconciliation, as well as people who want other things.


The thing is that one "side" consists of various individuals with a variety of experieces - of course there are differing views.

The other "side", however, is a hierarchial organisation which has had it's own (generally secretive) strict goals and beliefs since McLaren's day.

stjparent
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:36 pm

Postby stjparent » Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:20 pm

I don't have any links to PPIAG and may be speaking out of turn here, but as a parent (one of the P's in PPIAG) I fully understand the need for anonymity.

My daughter is a current pupil at St James. While I plan her exit route, she remains effectively a hostage. I have heard stories that the school's behaviour changes dramatically when a pupil is known to be leaving and that the degree of "lock-in" activities increase - briefings to the child along the lines of "you will never be happy in any other school" etc. With this in mind, I face a very difficult choice between withdrawing her abruptly and home-educating in the interim or keeping on sending her there while monitoring very closely.

Exactly what happens behind the closed doors, I do not know and probably never will, but this does give a very good reason for remaining anonymous and presenting the school with a fait accompli once the exit route is fully established.

Many parents have followed or are following this route - while I know of a pretty large number who have "declared" (to fellow parents if not to the school) that they are leaving at the end of the year, I suspect that there are many more who will just abruptly withdraw their children at the year end.

So I think it is absolutely essential that this discussion forum and the PPIAG allow and preserve anonymity if the individual wishes it.

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

Postby chittani » Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:37 am

All right.

Look, guys - I'm sorry if making a few enquiries to establish the truth is upsetting, but I think that that attitude in the past might have forestalled a few problems ...

OK, for the record I am now reasonably satisfied that the PPIAG is not a sinister cult-like bunch of cult-busters, and that there are understandable grounds for their anonymity. And the lamp-shades.

As for Justice! ... well we shall see. I think this could be a surprise.

mm-
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby mm- » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:07 am

Many parents have followed or are following this route - while I know of a pretty large number who have "declared" (to fellow parents if not to the school) that they are leaving at the end of the year, I suspect that there are many more who will just abruptly withdraw their children at the year end


Not if the school can help it. A letter was sent out yesterday informing parents that meetings are being planned with the Junior school headmaster and Donald Lambie to answer any questions that parents may have regarding the school and the SES.

It will be interesting to see if these meetings are going to be similar to those held after the inquiry was published, where there was a very poor turnout with respect to non SES parents in contrast to the large number of SES members that were obviously placed there to stand up for the school. At these meetings questions posed were left unanswered and parents made to feel as if they were complete idiots. The schools have a nack at turning things round to suit themselves.

They are highly deceptive and many parents , even those that are unhappy, run the risk of being duped once again.

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

Postby chittani » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:29 am

mm-

Well, why not give him a chance? If it is damage limitation, fire away. But I don't believe that it is. Don't tar DL with the same brush as his contemporaries. I think you would be making a 'mistake' (dirty word).

SES members that were obviously placed there to stand up for the school


As for 'placed' ... you have no idea as to the contempt and ridicule with which such a suggestion would now be received.

Keir made an interesting remark (off-board) the other day to the effect that it was significant that this was all happening 20 years on, just when the complainants (wish there was a better neutral collective noun) are having their own kids. Well, those that went through the same things but have stayed in the SES are having a similar experience - 'it's all very well having these things done to me, but if it were MY children ...'

Change is in the wind. Withold your judgement.

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

Postby a different guest » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:51 am

It will be interesting to see if these meetings are going to be similar to those held after the inquiry was published, where there was a very poor turnout with respect to non SES parents in contrast to the large number of SES members that were obviously placed there to stand up for the school.


Spooky. This is almost word for word the way the meetings (post publication of The Standard articles, where reported in the book The Secret Cult.)

mm-
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby mm- » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:59 am

As for 'placed' ... you have no idea as to the contempt and ridicule with which such a suggestion would now be received


I can imagine. During the last couple of months I have experienced contempt and ridicule at the hands of some SES members, when you dare question the SES and what the school stands for.

Perhaps 'placed' was the wrong word to use. I should have used 'asked to attend'.

Whether you like to believe it or not it was obvious that some people were present only to give their own accounts of how lovely the SES is and how 'happy' the children are. Personally I dindn't attend those meetings to sit there and listen to SES members go on and on about how wonderful life is being an SES member and how I should take myself down to Manderville place and experience what is taught for myself. I went to these meetings to get the truth about what the SES is and what is being taught to my child. Needless to say I would have been better off sitting at home having a cup of tea.


Withold your judgement.


I certainly will not withold my judgement. I have a child who has been affected quite badly by this lovely 'happy place'. I couldn't care less what Donald Lambie or the headteacher of the junior schools have to say. I am afraid it is a little too late for that, for me and my child. Give them a chance, you've got to be joking. Who is going to pick up the pieces of the psychological manipulation that my child has been through at the hands of these people. It is most certainly not going to be Donald Lambie or the minions which surround him.

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

Postby sugarloaf » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:31 pm

Its interesting to hear that St james has called a meetings with Parents, at which senior members of the SES will attend.

I have copied below some passages from theSecret Cult book, describing events at the schools following negative newspaper coverage.

June 83: media coverage of complaints about St james and SES in Evening standard, telegraph and BBC

One week later: Parents of St james and Vedast schools pupils receive a letter inviting them to meetings (where school heads and senior SES members will be present)

A number of parents at both meetings, which were at times stormy affairs, raised the question of the secrecy over the links between the cult and the schools, and the excessive corporal punishment which they claimed took place in the boys schools. Many who attended however, were either members or sympathisers of the cult, who spoke out strongly in defence of the schools, and would not believe others in the room knew nothing of the SES?


It was one of these meetings that David ?this is all a surprise to me? Boddy attended, along with 500 St James parents:

Others who spoke out in favour of the schools included David Boddy, Press officer of the SES, who is a former director of press and public relations at the Conservative Central Office, and served as a press aide to Margaret Thatcher during the 1983 election


Another mother said that the meeting appeared ?packed? with members of the SES. She added:

We knew we would be outnumbered. They were all very clever at twisting questions. The whole meeting seems to have been stage-managed. They were selective in picking people to ask questions.


At both meetings, undertakings were given that the Governors would consider forming a parent ? teachers association, and would consider allowing non-SES parents representatives a place on the board of Governors. These proposals did much to diffuse criticism, but so far neither development has taken place


That was written in 1985

Instead, a series of small meetings between form teachers and groups of parents was suggested, if after these, there was still a desire for an association, the schools would be willing to meet parents to discuss how it would be set up. The schools added that one important prerequisite would be discussion of the relationship between such an association and the ?existing friends of St James and ST Vedast? a group of supporters from within and without the School of Economic Science who have given very generously of their time, energy and sense of humour over several years?


At both meetings pro-SES parents urged the schools to issue writs for libel against The Standard. None have been forthcoming. For what started as a mere suspicion that the schools were being used to instill SES Philosophies had quickly hardened into fact, as the authors? research went further. And accounts from parents who contacted The Standard in the days following the articles made that fact unassailable


The authors make the following assessment:

Whatever the verdict, whatever the problems the schools face in overcoming the suspicions they have raised by keeping their links with the SES secret, it is highly unlikely that the cult will relinquish their self-imposed task of moulding future generations into the SES versions of model citizens.


It would be interesting to hear feedback from parents as to how these current meetings go.

The full chapter on st james and st vedast ifrom the Secret Cult book can be downloaded at: http://www.stjamesinquiry.org/LINKS_pag ... _page.html
(it?s a very bad copy - PPIAG ? perhaps you could improve it?)

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

Postby chittani » Sat Mar 25, 2006 5:18 pm

mm-

Well I'm sorry you feel that way.

Some people are on this Board to vent their anger; and that's valid.

But others, whether or not they are angry, also have a constructive purpose - such as pressing for positive steps from St James in the direction of transparency, proper governance and independence. I think maybe there are people with a lot more reason to lose their cool than you who fall into the latter camp.

You're right - it's you who has to care for your child. No-one else can do it.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests