Roger Pincham's Retirement Video

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
bonsai
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 12:08 am
Location: London

Postby bonsai » Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:15 pm

Matthew wrote:Did I miss something? I don't remember anything like that happening in the video... :?


I had to go and rewatch it because I don't remember anything like that either.

It is insinuated in the video that Pincham was/is the Fat Controller.

Other than that the tone of the video is quite sarcastic but with all the denial that doesn't surprise me.

I certainly wouldn't have said that there was anything offensive in it.

Bonsai

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

Postby daska » Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:21 pm

I hope the resemblance is superficial - the fat controller is actually a decent chap who looks after his little tank engines, unlike Pincham who abrogated his responsibilities to us so comprehensively!

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

Postby chittani » Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:14 am

Matthew wrote:
Did I miss something? I don't remember anything like that happening in the video...

I had to go and rewatch it because I don't remember anything like that either.

It is insinuated in the video that Pincham was/is the Fat Controller.

Other than that the tone of the video is quite sarcastic but with all the denial that doesn't surprise me.

I certainly wouldn't have said that there was anything offensive in it.

Bonsai


So Bonsai you think that is OK? And what about the use of the potter's hands analogy - suggesting Pincham has been too much expanded from within? Or did that point not get through? The courageous protesters should have called him 'fatty' to his face, since that seems to have been their main point.

It's childish, 6th-form humour at best, made by adults who know better.

I support these efforts in so far as they are aimed at reform and bringing the truth to light, but I'm afraid that everyone involved with this video has lost my respect, because it's clear that they are now as bad as what they're attacking.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:19 am

So Bonsai you think that is OK? And what about the use of the potter's hands analogy - suggesting Pincham has been too much expanded from within? Or did that point not get through? The courageous protesters should have called him 'fatty' to his face, since that seems to have been their main point.

Chittani, do you really think the main point of the video was to call Pincham 'fatty'? Congratulations on spotting the (admittedly childish) Sir Topham Hatt reference and the new twist on the potter's wheel analogy (which I myself missed) whilst managing to ignore the far more important message about Pincham's shocking lack of leadership during and after the years of abuse! Oh, and what about Cselko's opinion on the Inquiry?

It's childish, 6th-form humour at best, made by adults who know better.

I thought you liked schoolboy humour. You are a Molesworth fan, are you not?

I support these efforts in so far as they are aimed at reform and bringing the truth to light, but I'm afraid that everyone involved with this video has lost my respect, because it's clear that they are now as bad as what they're attacking.

Please explain exactly what you mean by: "it's clear that they are now as bad as what they're attacking".

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

Postby daska » Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:45 pm

I think this is what Chittani is referring to...

Here's the quote from David Boddy on the channel 4 interview: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/w ... iry/162790
"There's a wonderful analogy often used in terms in the development of the human soul. Two hands of the potter. The inner hand expands the pot and the outer hands give it shape and if you apply that to the human being what may have occurred is that too much pressure was applied to the outer hand."

Here's the version from the order of service in the film:
"There is a wonderful analogy often used in terms of the development of the human soul; the analogy of a potter. The inner hand expands the pot on the wheel and the outer hand is that which gives it shape. I think what may have happened with Roger is that at some stage we failed to recognise that there was too much pressure was applied on the inside, and not enough on the outside."

Personally I think the reference to the pressure on the inside clearly refers to the pressure from MacLaren (and his minions and successors). It's such a shame that with Pincham being similar in shape to the fat controller this comment might be construed as being a reference to his physique...

Of course, Pincham is fat, he's also rude and overbearing - but those qualities weren't ridiculed, which I think supports my argument in the previous paragraph. N.B. This is a factual report as I am speaking from personal experience and observation.

:-)

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

Postby chittani » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:56 am

Daska is being disingenuous.

As it happens I agree with what Tom says about Pincham's lack of leadership back in the day. A friend of mine put it well, "one of the most damning things in the Inquiry Report was where it described the Governors as 'MacLaren's men'". My point is not that he did a good job, but that the level of the insults says something about where you guys are right now - IE in arrested development.

But here's a story I heard that might interest you. It concerns one Emile Woolf. Emile, you may recall, set up the modestly-titled Emile Woolf Colleges, that have done so much to educate our bold new generation of accountants. He is also the father of a couple of boys who went to St James in the early days and who have been very active recently in attacking its staff and governors. Although Emile was a member of SES himself and (obviously) sent his boys to its schools, he has so far shown no obvious regret for what he put them through. Some say Emile has been active himself in the struggle against all those past wrongs.

A couple of years ago a deputation from St James went to see him, to ask him a question. "Emile, how come you're supporting all this stuff, when you yourself were a Governor of St James?"

Emile was said to be shocked - the man apparently had no memory of such a thing! Like canoeist John Darwin, Emile's memory seemed to have developed a gap. But there was no getting out of it - he was shown the evidence that proved he had been a Governor. More than one person has confirmed that this really happened.

I just had another look at his one and only post on this forum

http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4340&highlight=#4340

and, nope, he still hasn't edited what he said in the light of his memory being jogged. Maybe he forgot he wrote it. Here are some of the best bits:

That many pupils speak of their time at the schools as a happy one is completely irrelevant to the circumstances that compelled the Governors, in the face of unremitting internet pressure following decades of wilful blindness, to instruct Mr Townend to conduct his own independent investigation. This investigation has unreservedly vindicated the complaints and allegations, brought by a significant number of former pupils, of unreasonable, unlawful and criminal assault.

That the Governors should say that this is deeply regretted, and that they hope "now that the facts have been established" that there will be a period of reconciliation which they will support in every way they can, is not only specious but grossly insulting to the intelligence of the victims. There is absolutely nothing that Mr Townend uncovered as "facts" that any remotely conscientious governing body worthy of the name could not have discovered for itself if, over twenty years ago, it had taken on board the evidence that was staring it in the face. The Governors' acquiescence in the shameful conduct of the teachers and the Headmaster, if not actively condoning it, disqualifies them from offering any regrets that merit serious consideration.

These expressions of regret are being offered by Governors who were guilty of gross dereliction of their collective and individual responsibilities over the past twenty-one years and more. Mr Townend has made it clear that at the relevant time the Governors paid no more than lip service to their duties and were in fact acting under the pervasive sway of Leon MacLaren as "senior tutor" of the SES.


Hard words, Emile. "Decades of wilful blindness" ... "conscientious" ... "gross dereliction of ... collective and individual responsibilities". And there's more. I should have just quoted the whole thing.

I am well aware of the beneficial influence on my own life of many aspects of the teaching which I imbibed as a member of the SES. The injunction that stands out most prominently is that taking personal responsibility for one's actions is the imperative of any citizen.


Yuk! Yuk! That's a good one. Or did you mean, "conveniently forgetting what one did is one's number one ass-covering imperative"?

He signs off with the lofty remark that

This is not a case of retribution being sought. Nor is it uttered on behalf of my sons or any of the other victims. It is a personal view of what responsibility in action demands in the light of Mr Townend's findings.


Well, say what you like about Emile, he can certainly turn a sentence. I haven't met the man, but he reminds me a bit of Jonathan Aitken with his 'sword of righteousness' and 'shield of fair play', shortly before he got jailed for perjury.

Let's just imagine for a moment that it might be possible to be a Governor of a school and then forget all about it. What would that tell us about how 'conscientious' you were being at the time? Evidently at least some of the Governors didn't put a lot of effort in. Or is it like the 1960s - if you can remember them you weren't there?

But then when, years later, you are confronted with the truth, how do you react? Do you suddenly recognise your own culpability, don sack-cloth and ashes? Or do you keep your head down and carry on paddling?

Well, I hope he has at least privately apologised to his sons.

No-one, so far as I am aware, is accusing Pincham or the other Governors of anything other than negligence in their duty and, as Emile puts it so well, "wilful blindness" - Pincham, let's remind ourselves, was not actually hitting anyone. Neither was Emile. So, who is more guilty of negligence - the guy who was negligent when things were really bad and then pretends it never happened, or the guy who sticks around long enough to preside over positive change, and an Inquiry that leaves him, whether he likes it or not, carrying the can and being publicly humiliated?

I don't imagine either of these men can look back to the early days of St James/St Vedast with any great satisfaction. Maybe neither of them are wholly willing or able to accept the truth. But what I do know is that one of them, at least, has taken punishment for his sins of omission.

Maybe it's time for you lot to turn your attention to Emile?

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

Postby daska » Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:02 pm

Of course I am - I've posted a lot on this forum so it's very obvious from my writing style that my assertion was not overly serious - but what came to mind when I read Chittani's reaction to the video was the way the Lambie twisted that famous letter to claim that people on this forum were physically threatening the current pupils when it meant nothing of the sort. And then I remembered the way that we were always told we had to look for the good in everything...

P.S. I think Chittani can also be disingenuous at times but it's nice to see a direct, if not detailed, reference to the experience he had when he removed his children from St James. I don't think he's mentioned that on this forum before.

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

Postby Matthew » Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:36 pm

chittani wrote:He is also the father of a couple of boys who went to St James in the early days and who have been very active recently in attacking its staff and governors.

That's quite an accusation to be throwing around, Kevin. Where or what is your evidence for this?? I suggest if you want to maintain any credibility on this forum you're going to need to supply this.

As for your comments about Emile, he's away on holiday at the moment but I'm sure he'll respond on his return.

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

Postby chittani » Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:54 pm

Well, I would happily rephrase that as "who I believe have been very active on this website". I am not suggesting, of course, that you have been attacking anyone physically, and I don't have any idea whether you were one of those involved in Pincham-bothering.

But you knew exactly what I meant.

Anyway, it's hardly the main issue you're tackling there, is it Matthew? Do you have any reaction to this?

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

Postby daska » Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:16 pm

chittani wrote:Pincham-bothering.


I like that, it's amusing to think that after so many years of not being bothered about us, he might have been bothered by us.

(I didn't know anything about the demo or the video mentioned on this website until posts appeared on this website. The 'us' in the above sentence just acknowledging that I recognised a couple of faces as contributors to this forum)

But I still think it unlikely.

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

Postby Matthew » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:59 pm

chittani wrote:But you knew exactly what I meant.

Oh really? How do you figure that out? Did you think I too was being disingenuous? Believe what you may, but actually I hadnt the slightest clue what you meant by your accusation. Thats why I asked you to support it.

chittani wrote:Anyway, it's hardly the main issue you're tackling there, is it Matthew? Do you have any reaction to this?

Yes, plenty actually, but as your post is directed at Emile, I'll let him go first.

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

Postby ET » Thu Aug 07, 2008 10:46 am

chittani wrote: My point is not that he did a good job, but that the level of the insults says something about where you guys are right now - IE in arrested development.


Sorry to go back a bit to Chittani's post - just catching up on posts for the past couple of months, and couldn't let this go!

Leaving aside the Pincham video for a moment, I want to tell you about something that happened to me recently. I am currently having hydrotherapy following major back surgery. When I was at St James' I was unfortunate enough to be taught to swim by Chris Southwell. I have had a disability since birth which causes me problems with co-ordinated movement, and believe me, Mr Southwell never missed an opportunity to ridicule me for my inability to follow his bellowed instructions perfectly.
When I was in my first hydrotherapy session last week, it was amazing how this experience in childhood came back and hit me. The experience of someone standing on the side of the pool and giving me instructions, coupled with the fact that I struggled to follow them (due to my injury and my disability combined) brought all those feelings flooding back, and it was all I could do not to burst into tears and run away. Luckily, I have become used to these "flashbacks" over the years and was able to swallow my emotions, only getting upset in the car on the way home.

The reason I tell this story is to show that it is very difficult to put all that happened to us behind us completely, and the worst of the emotions we all feel is anger. I was full of anger after this experience for how Mr S has got under my skin so that he can still get to me almost 20 years after I left the school.

I agree that making fun of someone because of his/her size is not acceptable, but I think what I am saying is that it is understandable in this case. Anger and hurt can make us behave like children sometimes, particularly when that hurt and anger stems from childhood, and I really think that the brave protest this group made at Mr Pincham's service, and their even braver refusal to lie down and accept the situation as the SES has currently left it ought to outweigh the slight childishness of the "fat controller" reference.
Pupil at St James Girl's School from 1979-1989, from age 4-14. Parents ex-members of SES.

Jo-Anne Morgan
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:23 pm

Postby Jo-Anne Morgan » Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:27 pm

I don't understand why chittani is being so judgmental about the youtube video. He seems to think that he's qualified to comment and judge because of the type of school he himself went to. I don't see it. It's not the same situation.

I reread some of the accounts on the St Vedast thread and they're appalling. Moreover, they're upheld by an independent inquiry. If the only consequence Roger Pincham has to endure from those days is being called fat (which is factually correct anyway), he's got away extremely lightly.

Roger Pincham's weight is in his control. The pupils in his 'care' had no control over their situation.

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

Postby Matthew » Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:14 pm

Pincham presided over a regime found by a QC to be responsible for crimes and abuses against innocent and defenceless children from as young as the age of four. As a result many of those children, now adult men and women, are suffering marked psychological damage to this day.

The man was never sacked. He was allowed to retire gracefully in his own good time. They even gave him a commemorative church service. Yet like pedants, people still seek ways to defend this man?

You really couldn't make it up, could you.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests