Letters to governors "private and confidential"

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
JC
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: UK

Letters to governors "private and confidential"

Postby JC » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:48 am

My sister and I recently replied to the letter sent out by the Governors and having marked our letters "private and confidential" as requested I have now found out that this has not been respected.
Members of my family are currently at Waterperry and have been informed that we have written these letters. This has resulted in an extremely distressing phone call to other members of my family and has made an already very difficult, upsetting and stressful situation a great deal worse.
I would therefore like to warn others that have or are going to respond to the Governors to be aware that their confidentiality may not be respected.
I am extremely angry and fed up with this situation and the tiny amount of trust I had stupidly allowed myself to have in these people has now completely disintegrated.
JC

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

Postby Keir » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:08 am

That is what I suspected might happen so I simply said the same things I have been saying on this site for god knows how long and signed it 'Keir' without giving any further details of my address or surname.

I have experienced promises being broken before on so many occasions that it is almost like it is part of the SES religion according to some.

Who the hell do they think they are?

Same old shit.

User avatar
ET
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:49 am
Location: Gloucestershire
Contact:

Postby ET » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:32 am

Just to add a further note to my sister JC's post - it is just possible that our family members at Waterperry were told about our signatures on the open letter, and not about our individual private letters to the governors.

If this is the case, then obviously there has been no breach of our confidentiality. We are trying to clarify exactly what they were told, and one of us will post on here in due course.
Pupil at St James Girl's School from 1979-1989, from age 4-14. Parents ex-members of SES.

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

Postby bonsai » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:08 pm

I don't know what it is about the SES but it seems to have an insidious nature to use information about people in such a disrespectful and unethical manner.

Whether or not the information passed on is contained in a letter marked as private and confidential or whether the information was from being a signatory to an open letter, the point is that the information was for the attention of the Governor's of St James school and the trustees of the Independent Education Association.

What has it got to do with the SES, let alone any current members of the SES who happen to be on a residential or involved in any other SES matter?

These two organisations may be legally constituted as separate yet again here we have a clear example that there are no demarked boundaries between the two and that those with responsibilities for one or other or both demonstrating their inabilities to separate their distinct roles.

And this certainly doesn't back up the statements by David Boddy or Graham Skelcey on channel 4 that these organisations are separate but shows them to be completely meshed.

Family matters have nothing to do with the SES or St James. Matters arising between SES and St James and an individual adult have nothing to do with the family of that adult.

The SES has capitalised during its entire existence on family ties and has consistently used them to undermine individuals. This is one of the most disrespectful and cultish aspects of the organisation. And it remains one of the most significant reasons why I left.

In case anyone was in any doubt about why some of us here use pseudonyms then here it is.

Bonsai

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

Postby Stanton » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:47 pm

If it's an open letter then it's an open letter and anyone can read it - that's what an open letter is. Let's see what JC and ET tell us.

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

Postby Keir » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:48 am

Yes Stanton, wise words. But can you also see that it is very easy to distrust anything to do with the SES because in so many people's experience they have been let down over the subject of privacy in the past.

This distrust is something that at present the governors will have to overcome by explicitness and trustworthyness in everything they do. This is no mean feat with a critical audience, but necessary before any further steps can be taken towards a resolution for all concerned.

Correct me if I am wrong, the open letter was addressed to the governors alone and therefore is implicitly open to all of the governors only, not the entire SES.

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

Postby Stanton » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:23 am

So far as I'm aware, Keir, an open letter is just that - it could be pinned up in Oxford Circus without objection. If it was intended for any particular party (for their eyes only) it would be private and confidential. Open letters are often published deliberately - you quite often see them in newspapers; for example, a letter signed by lots of doctors about some aspect of government policy is an open letter. It's a means of directing comments in the form of a letter to an individual or individuals but with the aim of letting all who wish see it.
In that sense an open letter to the governors of St James is directed towards individuals (governors) but with the intention of making it freely available.
If this is the case here, this thread may be a red herring but we await confirmation

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

Postby bonsai » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:45 am

Keir wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, the open letter was addressed to the governors alone and therefore is implicitly open to all of the governors only, not the entire SES.


And that was exactly my point. I realise that the contents of an open letter is known publicly, mainly because there has been a public solicitation of support. The letter however was addressed to the governors not to the membership of the SES. Even here on this forum we haven?t seen a list of the signatories and nor would I want to. Those signatories are for the attention of the governors only. What are the governors doing letting members of the SES know about the signatories of the open letter when supposedly the two organisations are not related?

I realise that the connections between St James and the SES may be a topic on the governors minds and may warrant some dialogue between those in responsibility for the two organisations. This may be as a result of the open letter sent, in which case the contents of that letter (not necessarily the signatories) may be exchanged.

Now if ET's and JC's relatives are in positions of responsibility SES then this presents a conflict of interest from which their relatives should absolve themselves of the responsibility.

Whether this has been a breach of confidentiality of a letter clearly marked for to be treated as confidential or not, the fact that the SES members have been made aware of the signatories of that letter would appear to be an insidious attempt to undermine certain individuals.

This is one of the ways the SES has worked in the past to undermine individuals and this is an area where the SES needs to clean up their act big time.

Bonsai

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

Postby Stanton » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:20 am

Assuming that the letter referred to is the open letter (and we wait confirmation of this) then it is perfectly in order for anyone to see the content and the signatories. I'll repeat again - an open letter is just that. To suppose that an open letter is somehow still 'confidential' is an oxymoron. An open letter is an open letter.

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

Postby Matthew » Thu Apr 06, 2006 10:46 am

I?ve just seen this thread. Sorry for not posting earlier. The open letter was sent to the St James Chair of the Governors. As the letter directly concerns and involves St James and the SES it was also Cc?d to the four heads i.e. DB, PM, LH, and DL. I do stress that all the letters to these individuals were marked in bold ?Private & Confidential'.

JC and ET, if it was in fact the open letter, and not your individual reply to the governors, which was the source of your names being revealed, then I sincerely apologise for the part I may have played in this. The last thing I would want to have any part of is to cause any further distress. I understand we still await verification of this.

Matthew

User avatar
ET
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:49 am
Location: Gloucestershire
Contact:

Postby ET » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:20 pm

Matthew, please don't feel any guilt, we chose to sign our names to the letter and take the consequences.

We are still waiting to be sure of which letter our relatives were told about. They are at Waterperry until Saturday, so I doubt we will get anything definite before then.

However, it does appear that it probably was our individual private and confidential letters that they were told about, as there was specific mention of John Story and Mary Pickering. I can't see why, if it was the open letter, these two names should have been singled out. There was also consistent mention of "letters" in the plural. Interestingly, our relatives had no idea that we had written these letters in direct response to letters we had received from the governors - yet another example of people not being told the whole truth. It seems that the content of our letters was also wildly exagerrated.

If the open letter was marked Private and Confidential, then (if it was that letter) it still constitutes a breach of confidentiality. JC and I will write a joint letter of complaint as soon as we are sure of our facts.

Obviously, one of us will post something on here if and when we know anything definite, but I would still advise people to be careful.
Pupil at St James Girl's School from 1979-1989, from age 4-14. Parents ex-members of SES.

User avatar
Sam Hyde
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: St James boys school
Contact:

Postby Sam Hyde » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:45 pm

this all sounds potentially very revealing! However we must not jump the gun.
It reminds me off the phrase my mates and I use alot of the time, the 'SES grapevine' Marvin Gaye eat your heart out!! Make way for the gossips that are the 'H' Group! Sounds like a new 'M-people'!!
lol

Sam xox
thats old now, like me, only 4 weeks to go!!!!!
"I've never let my schooling interfere with my education"

JC
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: UK

Postby JC » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:46 pm

We have now had it confirmed that it was our private letters that were discussed and shown to members of our family at Waterperry.
We know this to be true as we have had a personal message of apology from Mary Pickering.
We are in the process of sending a reply asking for clarification and will now continue dealing with the fall out which has been considerable.
We believe that this may have been an isolated incident but we cannot categorically say that this could not happen to anyone else.
Anyway, this was just a post for clarification.
JC

User avatar
Sam Hyde
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: St James boys school
Contact:

Postby Sam Hyde » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:53 pm

I am sorry to hear this. Things obviously havent changed in the gossip areas!

Sam xox
thats old now, like me, only 4 weeks to go!!!!!

"I've never let my schooling interfere with my education"

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

Postby a different guest » Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:56 am

JC/ET - I am appalled!
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests