Page 2 of 2

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:13 pm
by Kit Bartlett
Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:14 pm
by jtaylor
Typical lazy journalism, and I doubt any correction to them would have made a jot of difference after publication.

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:21 pm
by Avon
Kit Bartlett wrote:Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
Sadly, that's not remotely newsworthy. The HM foolishly wading in with an unnecessary rebuttal, is more so. Who does PR for CH? They need a kicking.

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:07 am
by Foureyes
Ref correcting the £30K error.
First, as a former journalist, it is simply not worth the effort unless it is a really serious or libellous error. Persuading the paper that they had made an error and then drafting and agreeing a rebuttal would take weeks, and even if that all went well would result in an obscure paragraph at the foot of column 6 on page 13 - i.e., somewhere where very few would read it and, if they did, would have forgotten what the original story was about, anyway. The attention span of the average newspaper reader - let alone a Daily Mail reader - is very short. So, 'least said, soonest mended.'

Secondly, regardless of any rebuttals, these stories soon disappear, anyway. As an example, who now remembers the worker at C.H. (not a member of school staff) who was sent to prison for offences against young women (not C.H. pupils)? There were some lurid headlines at the time (ca. 10-12 years ago).

Thirdly, it seems to be assumed that those now running C.H. would not like the school to be known as 'a leading boarding school with £30,000 fees.' Perhaps, that is exactly what they do want and the charitable element is an embarrassment for them? I am not saying that is the case, but it does seem sometimes that it is!

David :shock:

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:13 pm
by Katharine
Foureyes wrote: Thirdly, it seems to be assumed that those now running C.H. would not like the school to be known as 'a leading boarding school with £30,000 fees.' Perhaps, that is exactly what they do want and the charitable element is an embarrassment for them? I am not saying that is the case, but it does seem sometimes that it is!
I fear there is a lot of truth in that, David!

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:14 pm
by J.R.
The fact is, that todays 'society' if far more open about such incidents rather than brushing under the carpet.

Look at 'Operation Yew Tree' and the BBC.

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:14 pm
by Avon
Katharine wrote:
Foureyes wrote: Thirdly, it seems to be assumed that those now running C.H. would not like the school to be known as 'a leading boarding school with £30,000 fees.' Perhaps, that is exactly what they do want and the charitable element is an embarrassment for them? I am not saying that is the case, but it does seem sometimes that it is!
I fear there is a lot of truth in that, David!
I agree! I'm afraid that for all the puff, CH leadership are intent on moving from the founding credo.

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:01 pm
by J.R.
Kit Bartlett wrote:Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
A good question, Christopher. However, 'The School' do not tend to answer querstions on this site.

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:47 pm
by sejintenej
J.R. wrote:
Kit Bartlett wrote:Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
A good question, Christopher. However, 'The School' do not tend to answer querstions on this site.
I think that he was suggesting that the fifth estate be made aware - we already know

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:34 am
by Kit Bartlett
As a matter of interest is there a published figure anywhere of how many pupils' parents are in fact paying the full £30,000 per annum fees ?

Re: Oh dear..here we go again.

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 7:39 am
by Avon
Kit Bartlett wrote:As a matter of interest is there a published figure anywhere of how many pupils' parents are in fact paying the full £30,000 per annum fees ?
The campaign against FF was saying that the intake this September last was about 22%?