Page 2 of 5

Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:06 pm
by Alban
Actually, I think it is a pretty irresponsible action to report this letter in the way that you did Stanton.

I say this because you are either:

1) Jeopardising any enquiries the police may have by revealing it's contents, or

2) Reporting hearsay (you have no evidence) from a source closer to the governors than yourself. Ironically, information received while discussing your status as a "Stooge"


Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:00 am
by Free Thinker
There's also the insanity of the idea that the message means "if nothing is done to punish those who hurt children, I or someone else not working as a teacher will hurt more of them." I mean, whoever wrote it, if it's real, is angry that no one is being punished for abusing children. That person is hardly likely to be threatening to hurt more children as way of forcing the school to take more action.

If that is really what the person mean,t then they are :drinking:

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:50 am
by a different guest
Stanton - where did the editorialising phrase "chilling words" come from? Yourself or your informant?

As to the letter - as others have pointed out, if it does exist and was a blatent threat against kids in the current school, rather than spread gossip among the ranks of the SES why are not the Governors contacting the police?

Or, perhaps the quote has been taken out of context. Certainly I think (and current ex-parents of both the UK junior school and an Australian school) think the methods used in the schools are, indeed, 'doing children harm'. Try reading the last 2 pages of "The Melbourne School" thread.

I don't think anyone, who has suffered abuse as a child, would threaten to harm children. It is a furphy that children of abuse become abusers themselves.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:31 am
by Stanton
I understand that a letter has been written to the person concerned asking him what he means by saying that 'otherwise the children will be harmed'.

It would be quite wrong to suggest that I'm implying that anyone who has responded to my orginal post on the subject has been involved with this. As ET says, I know that most posters are reasonable people and I have never said otherwise. My appeal was to the person who wrote the letter.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:57 am
by a different guest
I understand that a letter has been written to the person concerned asking him what he means by saying that 'otherwise the children will be harmed'.

There's that phrase in no context again.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:11 am
by daska
I'm sorry, am I hearing correctly, the school have written to the person who wrote the letter...? But there's no mention that they've contacted the police?

If they have any reason to believe it is a threat they should be contacting the police first in order to protect the children rather than the letter writer to protect their reputation...

So, in other words they do not believe that it is really a threat...

... which leads to the conclusion that you were fed this information and encouraged to pass it on in an inflammatory fashion in the knowlege that it was not a threat...

... methinks you may now have earned the title of stooge. "One who allows oneself to be used for another's profit or advantage; a puppet"

So have you been used, Stanton, with or without your knowlege or is there more information that you and we have not been made aware of...

or are the schools so obsessed with not admitting anything could possibly be wrong that they are putting the children at risk by writing letters instead of protecting the children as they should...


Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:27 pm
by leon
..and the person who has claimed they intend to harm children has provided his contact information? As as it's a letter being sent , even an address?


Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:53 pm
by 1980sstJ
So, Stanton starts by describing a note ending with "chilling words" and containing "blackmail" and "wicked threats to harm children".

She then admits she hasn't seen the letter and has no idea of the context or even if it exists.

Now, she claims that the school have replied to the original letter writer and asked for clarification on the "children will be harmed" line.

As I said, it seems that she is either being duped or are attempting to dupe us.

But oh dearie me Stanton, you really must try harder. Are you really telling us that someone who issued a blackmail note that threatened wicked harm against children would provide his name and address on the letter?

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:14 pm
by Ben W
Dear All,

I think the point has been made.

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.

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

Best wishes,

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:43 pm
by bella
Yeah, I have little doubt Stanton posted her limited info because she thought she was doing the right thing. Hearing from someone else that a letter had been received containing blackmail with threats against children might nudge anybody to react, let alone someone who'd just been unfairly painted as a "stooge" by a moderator of the site. I reckon a "hey, wait a minute, what about this crap?" reaction is understandable, even if the lack of verification has made it more problematic than useful.

Come on - SES/SOP members can't win with some folks here. We're either emotionless droids with no empathy or human feeling, or we're naiive for being too passionate and neglecting rationale or reason. If those two fail, we're just victims of the system. Or possibly stooges. Leon's comment was particularly ironic:

It's interesting how some SES members posting here cant get out of the "them and us" perspective and want to "group" all ex pupils together as a single entity. They seem to find it really hard to grasp individuality.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 1:51 pm
by mm-
If those two fail, we're just victims of the system

Couldn't agree more, we are all victims, whether we are members of the SES or not.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:31 pm
by 1980sstJ
Sorry Ben but I refuse to temper my comments or opinions in the hope of gaining the approval of SES members.

As someone who was abused by them as a child, I really will NOT do that.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:51 pm
by bella
Um, I didn't abuse you when you were a child. Can't speak for Stanton, but I suspect she didn't either. Or did you mean Mary Pickering? Nobody is expecting you to kowtow to anyone, or ignore what happened to you, but I for one am saying that if you plan to be demanding respect, you should be prepared to give a little...or at least not make scary blanket statements like you just did. Not unreasonable.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:18 pm
by daska
I think most of us, or at least those of us that come from SES families, probably have a lot of affection for many people that belong to the organisation. I certainly do. I think they are deluded but then they probably have difficulty understanding some of the things I do as well. But an individual is not the same as a membership. A person is sensible, people are stupid.

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:37 pm
by bella
That's fine, daska. I was referring to 1980sstJ's contemptuous response to Stanton, and subsequent indifference to any offense caused, simply because Stanton was a current member of an organisation whose members had caused pain to 1980sstJ in the past. Also, and especially, the comment that there was no need to be "gaining the approval" of people who had abused children in the past. Ben referred specifically to Stanton in his post, and 1980sstJ responded to that.

Rage against the machine - fine, great - but when you start grouping together members of an organisation that has been around 70 years, and calling them abusers of children as an entity, there's going to be a problem with communication.

1980sstJ would be better off, imo, pursuing the "how can current members conscionably belong to an organisation which has/had members who allowed such things?" argument.