The Christ's Hospital Blog

[Richard Ruck]

Link courtesy of the Guardian.

http://www.20six.co.uk/housey

Happy reading!

[Great Plum]

I bet that guy will get in trouble!

[Richard Ruck]

I don't know much about these things.

Is it easy to remain anonymous?

[Great Plum]

I guess so on the net - but it would only take a member of staff at the school to know the blogger's writing style...

[Richard Ruck]

That's true, but I presume some sort of proof of wrongdoing would still be required.

In the days before the advent of the electronic interweb thingy there were far fewer opportunities for this sort of self-expression, so I can't imagine what the official line would be, although I would suspect that disapproval would be high on the agenda (or should that be agendum?).

I'm sure the bloke at the Grauniad didn't stumble upon it by chance, either.

[Great Plum]

Well I'm pleased someone can make an expression about the school - at least this guy writes inteligently!

[J.R.]

It all depends on the amount of IT experience the poster has !

In most forums, the Moderator has the ability to trace the posters ISP identification number, and then is half way there, so to speak.

In the good old days of 'hacking', one had to run through two or three almost untraceable ISP's, but I am told that this loop hole is all but closed, (allegedly) .

(Look at the Brit who faces ten years for hacking into the Yanks defence systems !!) (Shame !!)

[DavebytheSea]

Not just the Grauniad article, but the whole blog site itself is such a revelation! What a wealth of spirit and talent the school seems to engender!

The CHblog, this forum and even the dreaded Lousey site all show a remarkable degree of inventiveness and creativity of which the school should be justly proud - it is just a question of coming to terms with the uncontrollable nature of the internet. No wonder the "powers that be" (I described them as "the authorities" in the limerick thread) are worried. However, their fears, though understandable, should be somewhat tempered by the knowledge that in terms of the achievement underpinning the content of these sites and also in the light of rapidly changing social mores (in which open criticism is seen as both a right and as something that need not always be taken too seriously) the threat posed by these sites may not be quite as serious as it seems.

Although I am not prepared to reveal my source, I have even heard our own revered moderator described as a "loose cannon". On reflection, I would think it is just possible that a loose cannon can sometimes fire off the unexpected shot in a direction which is unattainable by more controlled gunnery thereby, whether by luck or by sheer individual genius, producing a unique and advantageous result.

[J.R.]

We'll just have to wait and see for just how long FREEDOM OF SPEECH survives !

[Hannoir]

From the UN declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So...unless they want to contravene human rights then it will last forever....

[jtaylor]

Although I am not prepared to reveal my source, I have even heard our own revered moderator described as a "loose cannon".

I've heard this comment from a couple of sources recently - quite interesting to hear, and I'd love to be able to talk to whoever initially expressed the sentiment.

My involvement in CH since leaving (13 years ago) has been:-
1. Responding to the proposal for the CHA - expressing my concerns over HOW it would be different, and WHY it would be better placed to server the needs of the community.
2. Setting up this site (as a result of 1 above, and for reasons set-out elsewhere on the forum if anyone's interested)
3. Being invited to join the new CHA Shadow Board (I'm sure mainly as a means of trying to strap down the loose canon!)

With so few responses to the CH Club/CHA questionnaire, I guess respondants who expressed concerns may have been deemed to be loose canons?
If it's through the initiation of this site, then I have no problem with that perception - people are welcome to their opinions. The positive responses I've received have been numerous, and the negatives can be counted on one hand.

Given this extremely sparse involvement (compared to some), I quess I'm quite flattered I've made such an impression quite so quickly!

Anyone else care to get involved and joing the battery?!?

J

[DavebytheSea]

Well done JT - and, yes, I hope my comment was seen as commending what you are doing rather than the reverse. It is just that I understand that you, we, all of us who are contributing to this forum may be presenting something of a worry to anyone in authority who is of a nervous disposition!! We are by definition "unofficial" and therefore not fully under the control of the powers that be. This may be something that worries some people.

My own view (which I tried to express above) is that we are less of a threat than may be supposed. There may be a few gripes, but there is much positive comment and by our very nature we are seen to be honest in our opinions rather than merely presenting an official and therefore somewhat censored version.

What shines through in all these various forums (fora?? - my Latin is SO rusty!) is the wealth of talent and individuality of thought displayed by so many past and present students of our great and unique foundation. The opinions expressed may be varied and at times confrontational, but they are often presented in a clear and incisive manner and do more to portray the creativity and individuality which is the hallmark of so many Blues than the careful prose of some advertising agency or even (God forbid!) some poor teacher required by a committee to spell out an acceptable public image of what is after all a lively and energised community and thus, by its very nature, cannot be truly represented in such a manner.

[graham]

From the UN declaration of Human Rights

Come on, Hannoir - who pays attention to the UN these days?

But on a more serious note, I'm quite disturbed to hear that Julian is being referred to as a "loose cannon", if not only for the reason that it detracts from the bite of the term. As has been alluded to above, it is rather unclear how the bringing together of old blues, so that they can reminisce or discuss their experiences, can be considered subversive but congratulations to you, Julian, for having achieved it any way.

It really does disturb me that there are some people that take this view. It is almost as if the digital age poses a real threat to some portion of the powers-that-be and they are already taking damage control precautions by labelling those responsible and inviting them to join comittees (keep your friends close and your enemies closer, eh?).

It makes me wonder if there is something more going on. Perhaps a conspiratory theorist friend has been rubbing off on me (not literally, I hasten to add!!) but with boarding school admissions applications becoming more competitive these days, what is it that the school has to worry about? I guess that we are the future donors to the school and could be seen as a threat to others but I get the impression that most people on this forum (there are some notable exceptions ...) have rather fond memories of their time at CH and remain happy to spread the good name and help the foundation as and when they become able. I know that I fully intend to. Maybe the topics of a couple of threads are too close to the bone?

I'm interested to know from Julian ( although he may have already said in another thread) whether the school was initially supportive of this site and a what point he was invited to join comittees/ labelled as a loose cannon and the site blocked from inside CH? It strikes me that, in the long run, a lot more potential benefits to the school come from this site's existence than without it, particularly as it is promoting substantial dialogue between old blues of different ages and increases one's sense of being an old blue.

[J.R.]

So it's Julian at Horsham and Sir Bob Geldof at Gleneagles later for the G8.

Special Branch WILL be busy this year !!

As some wise old wag once said, 'The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword !"

[jtaylor]

I'm interested to know from Julian ( although he may have already said in another thread) whether the school was initially supportive of this site and a what point he was invited to join comittees/ labelled as a loose cannon and the site blocked from inside CH?

When the site was in it's fledgling state, I emailed the IT Manager at CH, to let him know about it - he was initially positive, saw no problem with it, and was most appreciative that I'd proactively contacted him to let him know about it. I'd asked that he let me know if there were issues with it etc. as I was keen not to ruffle too many feathers if I could avoid it.

The site then ran for around a month, when I learnt that it had been filtered within the school.

I've then heard varying reasons given - ranging from the content regarding bullying, and seemingly approving of it (which is the response I had when I questioned the filtering), the Children's Act being quoted (and the assurance that there is no solution which would allow the children to view the site) through to it being the school's policy not to allow access to forums or chat sites (which seems to contradict the initial positives I received).
It also appears that the message internally that the pupils receive refers to domain forwarding - I'm assuming this relates to http://www.chforum.info forwarding on to chforum.dyndns.org/chforum/php (a cost-saving measure, removing the need for costly hosting)

Whatever the varying reasons, it's certainly clear that the school are concerned by the nature/content of the site.
I've been unable to illicit a formal/official response from the school, outlining the reason for filtering - I'd have liked to be able to post a formal response on here, so that Old Blues and Blues can understand the concerns/reasons - the school are, after all, in loco-parentis, and hence do have to protect the pupils, so the decision is certainly theirs.

We will have to decide at some point whether the merit of allowing the pupils access to the site during term time outweighs the loss through having to moderate the content - my personal belief having thought long and hard is that it doesn't, and hence the site remains as-is. It will be a real shame if we can't bridge that gap between school and Old Blues through this site....

Obviously pupils will be un-censored during the school holidays at home, and I'm open to any suggestions for how to promote this so they make positive use of the site during the holidays.

All opinions and representations regarding this are appreciated,

J