David Lacey

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Postby Goblinboy » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:57 pm

Ben Wheaton wrote:Daffy / Goblinboy,

I've noticed a few comments about David Lacey in other places - e.g.

Experiences at St. Vedast (now St James) and the S.E.S.

and

PLEASE SUPPORT AN OPEN LETTER TO ST JAMES SCHOOLS

Does it make sense to consolidate all direct comments about DL in one place - ie here.

I've sent a PM to you on this also.

Ben


Ben,

Makes a lot of sense to consolidate this and other information. However, as Daffy has explained, the software won't allow this to happen easily. NYC has developed a number of useful consolidated postings, which is a labourious task.

Your post highlights a need for consoldidated, readily accessible information for people wishing to find out more in less time than it takes to trawl the BB - a need also expressed by a number of posters.

There is clearly scope for a website that systhesises material from the BB into a more accessible form. The PPIAG (whoever they are) seem to have the skills in website development - perhaps they would be interested in having a go at this? Or anyone else with the appropriate capablities?

GB

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

Postby chittani » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:31 pm

You're making me start to feel sorry for the man.

So let's get this straight. You're proposing to gather together systematically all of the remarks made about the guy on this site? I'm sorry, but it starts to seem like a witch-hunt.

Leaving aside his guilt or innocence, I'd be VERY wary of doing anything to take remarks out of their context. Whatever the reservations about the Inquiry, it's a model of justice and due procedure compared with what you are contemplating.... might as well break out the pitchforks and ropes now eh?

So I think NYC's example isn't a good one to follow. Let's not forget, these are largely anonymous comments posted on the internet with no means of establishing whether they are 100%, 50%, 25% or 0% true. Liberating perhaps, but deeply flawed as a means of deciding guilt or innocence.

GoblinBoy, are you going to take the 'moderate' out of 'moderator'? So soon? Because that doesn't leave a lot ...

One of the things that Gitmo Bay teaches us is that the moral high ground is not hard to lose.

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

Let them speak

Postby Ben W » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:53 pm

Chittani,

You are protesting too loudly. First we need to hear what people have to say. Moderation comes next. (You have to have something to moderate.)

I am concerned that the effect of the "smell the coffee" SES contributions here will be to shut this thread down without giving those who want to speak a chance.

I hope this is not the intention - as it can only lead to division on this board.

I for one want to hear what people have to say.

Best wishes,
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

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:06 am

Ben

I do too, but what would be wrong is a catalogue of statements about him taken out of their original context.

That's all I am saying. In the context of an angry and cathartic post certain things may be said and understood as such ... out of that context those things take on a different slant.

EG in the Report the claim from someone that they had been beaten "hundreds" of times. I'm sure if we heard that statement in full it would have been very different.

Context is everything ...

now, it's not as early in Tasmania as it is here ... gotta go, mate.

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Postby Goblinboy » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:32 am

chittani wrote:GoblinBoy, are you going to take the 'moderate' out of 'moderator'? So soon? Because that doesn't leave a lot ...

One of the things that Gitmo Bay teaches us is that the moral high ground is not hard to lose.


Chittani, thanks for the feedback - I may have written too hastily and not conveyed the meaning I intended.

Essentially, there's a lot of information contained on the board, which is hard to contextualise if you haven't spent a considerable amount of time absorbing it.

There are frequent enquiries about making it easier to access, as randomn dips or use of the search engine demonstrate the difficulty of providing a coherent story. The software limits what is possible. If parties were interested in creating a webspace to provide more accessible context, drawing from board content, AFAIK there's nothing to stop them, other than recommending that it's good form to request permission to repost stuff.

My response to Ben is intended as offering a suggestion to an enquiry rather than blanking a request with a "it's too hard" answer.

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

Postby NYC » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:20 am

So I think NYC's example isn't a good one to follow.


ummmm -- quoting someone when it's relevant, with a link to the orginal thread, is not chuknow, this singularly unusual thing to do. I didn't make it up.

Let's not forget, these are largely anonymous comments posted on the internet with no means of establishing whether they are 100%, 50%, 25% or 0% true.


duh. if readers do not already realize that anyone can say anything on the internet, and nothing that's posted here is verified or confirmed in any way, then they must be SES members. long-time.

as far as consolidating "David Lacey" material, it seems like a non-issue since you can do a search for "David Lacey" and everything that's been posted will come up. Unfortunately, there are so many allegations of abuse & discussions of it, a search for "abuse" even with modifiers, doesn't really filter. it would be terrific if some type of software could help.
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.

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:51 am

NYC

All right, mebbe me getting crotchety late at night. Sorry.

I just found your catalogue of stuff on sex a bit OTT ... in my experience over 20 years:

- the School is a place where sexual matters are far less prominent than other places (of course we are all sexual beings ...) and the dress code has a lot to do with that. It's a blessed relief, frankly;
- sexual discrimination has lessened very greatly;
- formal 'arranged marriages' have not taken place during that time, to my knowledge (although there were about half a dozen before that - so far as I know only one survived);
- the 'social engineering' agenda seems thankfully to have died a death.

The '50 women' stories were as someone else remarked pretty hilarious, as well as chilling. But that hasn't been my experience, and let's not forget it relates to a period 30 years back or more. Women were still locked up in the Magdalene laundries in Ireland. Perspective, people.

Anyway, I still think this has degenerated into a witch-hunt after David Lacey ... when it gets as personal as this, how can it not?

So far as I can see the objectives are to get him to apologise, and to press for his sacking or resignation. Without debating the value of these aims, I would suggest that there are far better ways to achieve them than this.

GoblinBoy, I do understand what you're saying, but again I think that this site is usefully non-structured ... it means that the discussion can move on. There are loads of rash statements from either side that could be left to slip into obscurity. Other things come to the surface again because people want to hear about them.

This is conversation, not litigation.

And just to back up Bella's recent remarks, how many from the 'other' side are still posting on the site after a week? They can be counted on the fingers of one hand. None of the bold St James boys and girls left ... if you guys like alienating people, it's working.

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

Postby a different guest » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:24 am

and the dress code has a lot to do with that.


Oh gawd! You seriously believe that? :roll:

let's not forget it relates to a period 30 years back or more.


Ok, we've gone from 'up to 30 years ago' to "30 years back or more". Watch how complaints receed further and further into the past (end message: 'get over it")

if you guys like alienating people, it's working.


I don't thinl they felt 'alienated', I suspect they got bored. Pub anyone?

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

Postby xstJ » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:47 am

chittani wrote:Anyway, I still think this has degenerated into a witch-hunt after David Lacey ... when it gets as personal as this, how can it not?

So far as I can see the objectives are to get him to apologise, and to press for his sacking or resignation. Without debating the value of these aims, I would suggest that there are far better ways to achieve them than this.


You are addressing this board as if everyone on it has the same objectives, they don't. Some people might not be interested in apologies, resignations etc.. they might just want the chance to 'talk about' the abuse they suffered at the hands of David Lacey and they might want to hear from other people who suffered too. Don't underestimate the value of sharing experiences, and don't underestimate the damage DL has done, nobody's got any pitchforks out, it's not a witch-hunt, these are words on an internet forum which everyone can choose to read or not.

chittani wrote:And just to back up Bella's recent remarks, how many from the 'other' side are still posting on the site after a week? They can be counted on the fingers of one hand. None of the bold St James boys and girls left ... if you guys like alienating people, it's working.


They may have stopped for any number of reasons:

1. They learnt more about what had happened in the past and they agreed that what most ex-pupils were calling for was pretty reasonable.

2. They got bored chatting with a bunch of old fogeys who didn't understand their language

3. One got barred for being offensive and flouting the codes of practice.

Please stop trying to stir up trouble and create divides where there are none chittani, this is a discussion forum, people are free to debate and discuss and due to the sensitive subject matter it might get heated sometimes.

What is it you want???

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:48 am

I don't think they felt 'alienated'


You seriously expect us to believe that? Others don't agree with you - see some recent postings.

As for 30 years or more, I was referring to the stories from Stanhill Court. I don't know the dates of that, but I would think early 70s? Don't assume that I'm trying to minimise anything.

ADG, we live in a sexualised world. Girls of 10 are reading teen mags giving advice on oral sex. Ice creams are advertised using the same overt message and the sales shoot up (ahem). Money is driving the use of sex in this way, because it works. That is immoral.

Sorry to be stuffy, but if a thigh or cleavage tends to attract men's eyes (don't pretend it doesn't) then it is only sensible to advocate modesty, at least where a philosophical atmosphere is what is desired.

I know that my own toned buttocks drive women crazy, which is why I always conceal them beneath heavy woollen garments. It itches like hell, but it's just the cross I must bear ...

My sexual powers are used only for good.

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

Postby xstJ » Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:07 am

chittani wrote:
Sorry to be stuffy, but if a thigh or cleavage tends to attract men's eyes (don't pretend it doesn't) then it is only sensible to advocate modesty, at least where a philosophical atmosphere is what is desired.


Faces tend to attract men's eyes as well, I suppose it would be a good idea for women to wear the burkha too.

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:28 am

What is it you want???


I totally agree with your view of the forum. What I am saying is that IF we start cataloguing what people say, we are changing that.

As for burkas ... in some cultures they believe that the sight of any part of a woman incites male lust ... that's not my view and i presume it's not yours. But your position seems to be just as extreme as theirs, just the mirror image.

And before anyone says, I'm opposed to the 'women who get raped are partly to blame' argument.

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

Postby chittani » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:20 pm

What is it you want???


Didn't really answer your question there.

I personally want to belong to an organization whose aims and methods are entirely consistent with the ethical norms and standards of reasonable people.

To this end, I believe that there has to be:

- a sincere apology from the School of Economic Science and St James, both public and private;
- new procedures and structures put in place to ensure full openness and accountability in the management of both organisations;
- face to face meetings with complainants by representatives of both organizations, in a mutually unthreatening environment;
- actions taken where possible to bring about reconciliation;

Having achieved that, I think that the new management structure, including trusted non-combatants (where are you Mr Townend?), should be asked to review the Inquiry Report again, with a view to establishing a just resolution which is known to be fair by all reasonable observers, whatever their affiliation. It is not right for the governors to be the only people privy to a Report that calls into question their own competence.

I see no reason not to involve complainants in the review, either as observers or even as participants, provided that they can demonstrate that their purposes are positive and constructive.

Maybe that could be refined, but I think the first sentence sums up where I'm coming from and hopefully the rest of it follows.

User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:55 pm

I agree entirely with what you suggest Chittani and this would be significant progress.

I also think a clear mechanism for dealing with complaints and grievances needs to be set up in both organisations. This is partly due to the fact that there may still be some, like myself, who were not sufficiently aware of the inquiry in time to participate. Also there are others who's grievances were not investigated due to the limitations in the inquiries terms of reference.

I think both organisations need to recognise that there are people that have attended them who's time in them have been very negative. I think both organisations would benefit from being open to listening to these complaints when they occur. This would certainly provide a framework for both organisations to learn lessons and evolve and not make the mistakes of the past.

If, as the Governors have stated in their apology, St James teaches the belief that we are all from one human family (http://www.iirep.com/page8.htm) and that this is a principle established from the relationship with the SES and its philosophy then it would do well to establish clear and open procedures by which both organisations can deal with complaints and grievances with empathy, humility, dignity and respect.

Nobody should ever leave St James or the SES on bad terms. I am not sure that either of these organisations do all they can to minimise that people do.

Bonsai

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

Postby xstJ » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:15 pm

chittani wrote:As for burkas ... in some cultures they believe that the sight of any part of a woman incites male lust ... that's not my view and i presume it's not yours.


Actually it is my view, of course of course men and women feel lust when they see someone they're attracted to and it's not limited to certain body parts.

chittani wrote:But your position seems to be just as extreme as theirs, just the mirror image. And before anyone says, I'm opposed to the 'women who get raped are partly to blame' argument.


What are you imagining my position to be? I haven't stated it yet so I'm not sure how you can say it's extreme.

You seemed to misunderstand my point, what I was intending to demonstrate is that women are not responsible for the feelings they arouse in men based on what they wear and men are not responsible for the feelings they arouse in women based on what they wear. We are all responsible for our own feelings.

By suggesting women should wear burkhas I was trying to show you what happens when you follow through on your arguement for female modesty.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests