Stanton: "...otherwise the children will be harmed"

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
xstJ
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: London

Postby xstJ » Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:54 pm

Ben W wrote:I personally would be upset if Stanton were to be driven away from the site. I see her as a valuable contributor, and someone who is capable of helping us forward.


Can you point me in the direction of her valuable contributions? I must have missed them.

Ben W wrote:We are enouraging Mary Pickering to come here. She is probably reading this site as we write, making up her mind what to do.


I'm not clear who you mean by 'we', who are the people encouraging Mary Pickering to contribute to this bb? What are you hoping would be achieved by her presense here?

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

Response to xstJ

Postby Ben W » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:20 pm

Hi xstJ,

On the first point - fair question. I'll try and answer over the weekend, unless others want to have a go.

On the second point, I believe a number of people are asking for this through the BB - certainly ET and Alban's names spring to mind. I include myself in the group. Others who are supportive please chip in.

As to what is hoped for, I sense a general hope from most sides of this multi-faceted debate that the more open we are able to be on this BB the more progress we can make.

Sorry for the rushed response - at work right now.

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

Postby Ben W » Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:29 pm

Well - you poor northern hemisphere people are still at work, whereas we upside down folk are well into the weekend. I'm a few white wines in, though hopefully coherent enough for this posting.

xstJ - In response to your question I looked through Stanton's postings over the last 7 days (a period when she has attracted significant criticism for her postings) and found the following. I don't subsribe to the view that she is posting cynically.

Stanton wrote:Good luck with this ET - a positive move. Mahomet and the Mountain.


Stanton wrote:My position is uncomfortable. However, I am sincere, I hope that counts for something.


Stanton wrote:Are you surprised that more people don't post on this board if the penalty is to get mugged?


Stanton wrote:Sam could you change the question as suggested?


Stanton wrote:xstJ- I admire your postings and completely agree with everything you say


OK the last one was a joke, but the rest are real, and they are open and positive. I could look further but these are good enough for me.

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

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:07 pm

Stanton, It is unfortunate that your most insightful and positive post was 'accidental', swiftly removed and not reposted. Perhaps you could reconsider posting it so that more recent members of the board and those who missed it could pass a fairer judgement.

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

Postby Stanton » Fri Apr 28, 2006 1:19 pm

Daska - I did repost it only a few days after I first removed it. Several people asked for it - so up it went. Thanks for the suggestion.

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:29 pm

So you did, many apologies I must have missed it (have been very very busy). For anyone who missed it:

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... ight=#5971

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:41 pm

bella wrote:but when you start grouping together members of an organisation that has been around XX years, and calling them XXXXXXXXXXXX as an entity, there's going to be a problem with communication.


Yes, good point, can be applied throughout history...

lots of lovely people belonging to an organisation doesn't make the organisation itself a totally beneficent one...

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

Re: Response to xstJ

Postby Alban » Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:16 pm

Ben W wrote:...On the second point, I believe a number of people are asking for this through the BB - certainly ET and Alban's names spring to mind. I include myself in the group. Others who are supportive please chip in....


Yes, I certainly think it would be a good idea for some of the current governors to come to this site and talk. I and others have been through the arguments elsewhere, but a summary is this:

1) Anything they say will be to all of us and will be responded to by all of us, thus enabling them to see that we are far from the bunch of hardened activists that they have labeled us as.

2) No-one will be left out for to reasons of geography or anonymity

3) We will all get a change to put questions in a reasonable fashion to them and they will get a chance to reply - again in an orderly fashion.

4) Their responses and justifications will be up here for all to see, not as off-hand comments or whispered appologies to individuals behind closed doors.

5) It might just get us to a position where we feel that they have listened and have accepted responsibility for their predecessors actions.

I would of course prefer to have Roger Pincham here and one of the other governors who was presiding at the time, but they seem to be shielded away (probably by the lawyers).

I am also under no illusions that to a large extent, if they did come on here, they would carry the party line that no-one can be removed without hard evidence against them (for fear of unfair dismissal). However, if they come and they are prepared to act, then we can try and work together to achieve a solution that will appease the majority. You can't please everybody, but I think it would be an achievable goal as long as they were prepared to act with the same magnanimity that those three teachers did in the beginning.

The alternative is, a never-ending diatribe of criticism for the schools which is not good for them, but eats away at us, our time and our families as well...or expensive legal action that has a very good change of being of no use to anyone apart from the lawyers charging for their services.

Maybe we need to start a new thread on this!

Alban

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

Postby Alban » Sun May 07, 2006 11:46 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

It would appear that the "...Otherwise children will be harmed" letter that Stanton thought wise to report on...

...was none other than the open letter from Matt to the governors.

ROFLMAO

Sorry, Stanton, but you've been duped...how does it feel?

:eggface:

...The sad thing is, there's going to be a bunch of people wondering around the SES who will not be told the whole truth (what's new) and will go around believing that they are dealing with a bunch of hardened activists intent on harming the children.

Alban

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

Open letter

Postby Ben W » Mon May 08, 2006 3:25 am

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... ight=#4535 if anyone is looking for the open letter
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

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Mon May 08, 2006 7:29 am

Alban wrote:It would appear that the "...Otherwise children will be harmed" letter that Stanton thought wise to report on...

...was none other than the open letter from Matt to the governors.


Alban, for the benefit of those here who are not in the know, could you explain how the letter Stanton 'quoted' from has been identified as the open letter - seeing as the open letter doesn't actually contain the words that she 'quoted'...

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Mon May 08, 2006 11:14 am

Stanton

Could we please have your explanation of how the following sentence from the Open letter:

"Decisive action is needed now to minimise disruption to current pupils, ensure that the Schools are places where children are happy, safe and fulfilled, and to facilitate the reconciliation you seek with former pupils."


was transformed into:

Stanton wrote:I heard this evening that a letter has been written to the governors of St James demanding this and that, and ending with the chilling words, '...otherwise the children will be harmed'.


and your assurance that you will use every opportunity given to you to make sure that ANYONE that could have heard this lie (not just from yourself) is fully informed as to the truth of the matter.

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

Postby a different guest » Mon May 08, 2006 11:57 am

Daska - it seems it is Pincham's (and others) interpretation . How they came by this interpretation is a mystery.

The same paragraph seems to contain the threat that if specified action is not taken, there will be disruption.


http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... .php?t=570

and this is the par referred to
Decisive action is needed now to minimise disruption to current pupils, ensure that the Schools are places where children are happy, safe and fulfilled, and to facilitate the reconciliation you seek with former pupils.
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

concerned-parent
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:59 pm

Postby concerned-parent » Mon May 08, 2006 1:23 pm

I would also like to ask for clarification of this paragraph in the open letter. I do not see that it is a threat, but what actually is meant by it? Why is it in the open letter; what disruption to the current pupils is being referred to?

Why is decisive action required to ensure that the schools are places where the children are happy, safe and fulfilled? Does that mean that they are not? Who has decided that they are not? I have read the opinion of a few current parents, and also the opinion of some pupils themselves, and I have not decided one way or the other (although I will admit that the opinion of the pupils holds a far greater sway with me). Or is this someone else's opinion? An independant finding?

This paragraph mystifies me - not the reconciliation part- but the rest. As someone who has followed this board I do not imagine for a moment that it is intended as a threat, but I do not understand what the intended meaning is.

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

Postby leon » Mon May 08, 2006 1:52 pm

This illustrates how members of SES are conditioned to believe exactly what they are told without question and without being sure of the facts first hand. Stantons well meaning but misinformed post was useful, it shows how paranoid and prejudiced SES is towards it's former pupils, looking only for the negative interpretation, and finding it where non exists.
Last edited by leon on Mon May 08, 2006 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests