Who Knew What?

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

ZeroDeConduite
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:29 am
Real Name: PrA8PeA5

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by ZeroDeConduite »

J.R. wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:51 pm ...Dr Scott had no such psychiatric experience or knowledge.
My personal view of 'Tommy' Scott was, "I can cure illnesses and warts, but I don't do 'personal problems'"...
"You have personal problems ? Then sort them out yourself !" That was CH in the late 1950's.
After my AWOL experience in Summer 1960 I was seen by a visiting psychiatrist several times whilst in the sickbay. I rapidly realised that a) that the psychiatric profession had no idea how to help, and b) any 'cure' was going to be worse than the problem, so I feigned recovery. To be fair I was suffering an identity crisis rather than a real mental breakdown.
Those who have read Sylvia Plath's account of her treatment (ECT etc) will know how barbaric the psychiatric remedies were in that era.
PrepA 1951-2 Peele A 1953-60
User avatar
Great Plum
Button Grecian
Posts: 5282
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:59 am
Real Name: Matt Holdsworth
Location: Reigate

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by Great Plum »

CodFlabAndMuck wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:22 pm Is there a full intake in September?
Why wouldn’t there be?
Maine B - 1992-95 Maine A 1995-99
CodFlabAndMuck
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Real Name: J Eabnvu

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by CodFlabAndMuck »

Great Plum wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:38 pm
CodFlabAndMuck wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:22 pm Is there a full intake in September?
Why wouldn’t there be?
Because of all the bad publicity
User avatar
Great Plum
Button Grecian
Posts: 5282
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:59 am
Real Name: Matt Holdsworth
Location: Reigate

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by Great Plum »

CodFlabAndMuck wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:41 pm
Great Plum wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:38 pm
CodFlabAndMuck wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:22 pm Is there a full intake in September?
Why wouldn’t there be?
Because of all the bad publicity
I don’t think it has made a difference if I’m honest from what I’ve heard.
Maine B - 1992-95 Maine A 1995-99
harryh
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 114
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:27 pm
Real Name: Howard Holdsworth

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by harryh »

TMF wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:06 pm
Blimey. This would accelerate the path down which the school becomes ANO public school - losing its distinct charateristics. And lead to massive complaints on this forum.
No not really. And, by the way, the school has absolutely no interest in the views on this forum - as far as I can see.

The school was marketed as a place where pupils received benefits. Actually pupils received bullying, corporal punishment, and the vulnerable were preyed upon by sexual abusers. The abuse was hushed up by various people for various reasons for decades (e.g. Newsome did not want his corporal punishment predilection to become more widely known, some masters shrugged their shoulders and said 'well innocent until proven guilty' & 'lucky there is no need for _me_ to be a whistleblower', and carried on with their crossword puzzles). This was supposed to be a school that taught good character to its pupils.

The school has assets of 400m pounds - it can absolutely afford to demonstrate to the world and to itself that it is not a fraudulent operation.

All that happens if the school does not do this - is that the next scandal is more catastrophic when it hits (and the current lawsuits, movies, articles in the press, etc. more devastating for the current scandal when they arrive). The current headmaster was a teacher when various offenders 'suddenly departed' - this 'sudden departure syndrome' was known to all members of staff ('there were others', as one ex-member of staff recently said on this forum). This is all going to come very much into the public domain - and there will be no mitigating circumstances that people can hide behind. The school should immediately act to say that systematically preying on vulnerable pupils is appalling and it recognizes that this occurred in the past. The school is determined that this will never happen again. It has made all of its records available to independent investigators, it supports criminal prosecutions, a number of people who could have done more at the time but did nothing have resigned, and it is refunding the average fees it took in past years to parents and pupils - to those that would like to accept such a payment - in recognition of the fact that its charitable purpose at the time was not served by the school at the time.

Or the school can continue to play for time and people can try to divert attention to other topics - which perversely (no pun intended) is more likely to lead to the school's demise.
Presumably you would like the school to plead guilty on all " charges ", to show total humility, to bankrupt itself, to throw away all the good that has been done over the past 466 years and to deny all children of the future the chance of a fantastic education.
What happened was totally horrific. It was appalling. Like you I wish the courts would throw away the key when they sentence such repulsive criminals. CH will do the right thing. Of that I have no doubt.
Incidentally the phrase "There were others" refers to other staff who left quickly. Please do not "spin" my words.
CodFlabAndMuck
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Real Name: J Eabnvu

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by CodFlabAndMuck »

Golfer wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:36 pm Too true - I am rewriting my will tomorrow. There is no point giving to a failed institution.
I for one hope that things can be turned around.

I look at some of the great work that has been done in failed inner city schools to turn them around to benefit the disadvantaged.

Although the reasons for failure are different, the point i am making is, never give up.

It will take time to restore trust and confidence and we must see actions as well as words.

My thoughts are with the disadvantaged children who otherwise would not be able to learn a musical instrument, enjoy dramatics, sports , camps, foreign cultural trips, cycling trips and of course an academic education where you learn to recognise and appreciate high standards.

Im less concerned for the comfortable middle classes, some of whom have always viewed it as a cheap option.

The financial constraints are of course very challenging but I hope for the future
Jim Rayner
LE (Little Erasmus)
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:49 pm
Real Name: Jim Rayner

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by Jim Rayner »

TMF wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:36 pm Well - there were some questions about a refund of fees - here is what I would suggest. Return to pupils or their parents the average fees paid for their time at the school (this takes care of the variable nature of fees). The school can then say they have done something concrete. This would not cost the school too much - they would be paying the original amounts not inflation adjusted amounts. Pupils who have no concerns or more concerns can simply not accept the payment. The school might have to sell the ancient silver. The various people who have had their lives turned upside down by the weak people the school allowed to prey on children would have some small token compensation. The number of cases currently known is probably only 5% of what actually happened. The school can either block its way to oblivion - or get ahead of the situation.

Hence, in my view, it should issue a no fault payment to pupils (as above), analyze the extent of the problem properly (e.g. drawing up a list of the career trajectory and residence time of all teachers).
Several people have thanked TMF for this post. So maybe responding to it in the way I am about to is asking for trouble? But anyway, here goes.

It seems to me the biggest financial responsibility the school has as a result of this continuing disaster is towards the victims who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of CH staff. Leaving aside the question of civil claims for damages, CH surely has a moral responsibility to provide funds to enable these victims to have access to the very best professional help for as long as they need it.

Providing an automatic refund of fees to everyone who attended the school during a period of say 30 years doesn't help meet that responsibility at all. It's just a very expensive and administratively impractical way of achieving nothing of importance:
1. The amount a victim would receive from having fees refunded would be wholly inadequate to provide the professional and practical help they need and deserve.
2. Because refunds would go to such a large group the cost could be huge. Let's say we're looking at a 30 year period and that any one time there would have been 800 pupils at Horsham. That means 24,000 pupil years. I've no idea what the average annual fees were over that period, but let's take a conservative estimate of £500. That gives a cost to this exercise of £12M. OK some will have died and some will refuse a refund but the potential cost is still huge.
3. And let's assume that on average pupils stayed in the school for 6 years. That means we need to look at 35 years worth of pupils (to account for those who started before the 30 year period started and remained there for a further one to five years). So the number of Old Blues who need to be traced is approximately 800/6 x 35, which give or take is around 4,500. This is completely impractical and the cost of doing it is out of all proportion to the supposed benefits.
4. I see it's proposed to keep the cost down by ignoring inflation. How is that fair? If it's thought that everyone who had the misfortune to be educated at CH between 1970 and 2000 deserves to be compensated, why should their compensation be different depending on whether they started in 1975 or 1995?
5. Finally, almost certainly it isn't legally possible for fees to be refunded. CH is a charity and can only use it's assets for charitable purposes. I really don't see how spending millions to refund fees to everyone who attended the school over a 30 year period can possibly be considered to be legitimate charitable expenditure. However, setting aside funds to provide real help to real victims would definitely be legitimate.

The real problem I have with this proposal is that it draws attention away from the real victims: those who were abused by staff and then let down by the school authorities, and have been living with the damage ever since. If others didn't enjoy their time at CH and found it wasn't a nice place, that's a shame, and I agree, it shouldn't have been like that. For a year or so I was bullied too, and it should not have been allowed to happen. But let's face it, the world is full of people who didn't enjoy their school days. I think we need to get a sense of proportion; it's kind of like there's been a train crash in which 20 people have received life changing injuries while others are complaining that because the train was overcrowded they couldn't get a seat and should therefore get the cost of their season tickets refunded.
LHA 67-70; ThA 70-74
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by TMF »

I agree, Cod, I also hope that things can be turned around.

I am surprised to read some of the comments on this thread. They ascribe intentions that do not exist e.g. 'Presumably you would like the school to plead guilty on all " charges ", to show total humility, to bankrupt itself,...' etc. and talk about 'spin'.

Well, yes, it would be good for the school to show humility, is that a bad thing? I don't want it to be bankrupt - that is not what would happen if it were to refund average fees. What I suggested was that the school address the problem - is that not the sort of thing that a historically important foundation set up for honestly worthy purposes would do?

As to 'spin' anyone who reads that thread then anyone will see that phrase was as quoted, 'there were others' refers to sudden departures of staff - exactly as quoted. Here is the exchange for reference:

http://www.chforum.info/php/viewtopic.p ... 60#p142395

And a 'will' changing! That was probably a winning argument in Edwardian times to bring order to impudent (or imprudent) nieces and nephews.

I would say that there are two broad strategies that the school can follow.

1) Obfuscate, delay, deny, ascribe attack witnesses and victims (e.g. mention that undesirable publicity might occur to victims - I suppose that has been tried already), indicating that ex-pupils want to in someway punish the benevolent and magnificent institution that beat, bullied, and abused some of them during their childhood, perhaps mention 'spin', or legacy reassignments. This path leads to demise.

or

2) Clean up the mess by being honest and taking responsibility and offering to return fees taken fraudulently. This path leads to a successful future for the school.
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by TMF »

Jim Rayner - thank you for your post.

Your financial analysis looks approximately right to me - about a factor of 2 higher than I estimated. The school has assets of 400m pounds, by the way.

The logistics can be handled - see Kenneth Feinberg and how organizations get in front of catastrophes like this. (E.g. Volkswagen, BP, etc.)

My view is that if the school were to do this, then it would survive, and in fact might have a better reputation in the future. It might decide to sell the ancient silver collection and forego a media centre.

And I would say the refund is entirely orthogonal to the response to abuse victims.

...or the school can wring its institutional hands, say it is all pretty difficult, so long ago, so very different then, and wait for the court cases, movie, or television mini-series.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by richardb »

Where do you get the asset figure of £400million from?
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by TMF »

https://www.christs-hospital.org.uk/inf ... s-2016-17/

Page 6 says 405.2m pounds in invested assets in 2017...it is probably a lot more now.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by richardb »

TMF wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:33 am https://www.christs-hospital.org.uk/inf ... s-2016-17/

Page 6 says 405.2m pounds in invested assets in 2017...it is probably a lot more now.
Thanks. I hadn't seen that.

The accounts filed with Charity Commission show a significantly lower asset figure.

Not much chance of the school collapsing. Makes some of the predictions over the years of financial ruin and begging bowl strategies look a little bit hollow.

I am not sure they will miss Golfer's bequest.
CodFlabAndMuck
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Real Name: J Eabnvu

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by CodFlabAndMuck »

Jim Rayner wrote: Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:49 pm
TMF wrote: Mon Aug 06, 2018 7:36 pm Well - there were some questions about a refund of fees - here is what I would suggest. Return to pupils or their parents the average fees paid for their time at the school (this takes care of the variable nature of fees). The school can then say they have done something concrete. This would not cost the school too much - they would be paying the original amounts not inflation adjusted amounts. Pupils who have no concerns or more concerns can simply not accept the payment. The school might have to sell the ancient silver. The various people who have had their lives turned upside down by the weak people the school allowed to prey on children would have some small token compensation. The number of cases currently known is probably only 5% of what actually happened. The school can either block its way to oblivion - or get ahead of the situation.

Hence, in my view, it should issue a no fault payment to pupils (as above), analyze the extent of the problem properly (e.g. drawing up a list of the career trajectory and residence time of all teachers).
Several people have thanked TMF for this post. So maybe responding to it in the way I am about to is asking for trouble? But anyway, here goes.

It seems to me the biggest financial responsibility the school has as a result of this continuing disaster is towards the victims who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of CH staff. Leaving aside the question of civil claims for damages, CH surely has a moral responsibility to provide funds to enable these victims to have access to the very best professional help for as long as they need it.

Providing an automatic refund of fees to everyone who attended the school during a period of say 30 years doesn't help meet that responsibility at all. It's just a very expensive and administratively impractical way of achieving nothing of importance:
1. The amount a victim would receive from having fees refunded would be wholly inadequate to provide the professional and practical help they need and deserve.
2. Because refunds would go to such a large group the cost could be huge. Let's say we're looking at a 30 year period and that any one time there would have been 800 pupils at Horsham. That means 24,000 pupil years. I've no idea what the average annual fees were over that period, but let's take a conservative estimate of £500. That gives a cost to this exercise of £12M. OK some will have died and some will refuse a refund but the potential cost is still huge.
3. And let's assume that on average pupils stayed in the school for 6 years. That means we need to look at 35 years worth of pupils (to account for those who started before the 30 year period started and remained there for a further one to five years). So the number of Old Blues who need to be traced is approximately 800/6 x 35, which give or take is around 4,500. This is completely impractical and the cost of doing it is out of all proportion to the supposed benefits.
4. I see it's proposed to keep the cost down by ignoring inflation. How is that fair? If it's thought that everyone who had the misfortune to be educated at CH between 1970 and 2000 deserves to be compensated, why should their compensation be different depending on whether they started in 1975 or 1995?
5. Finally, almost certainly it isn't legally possible for fees to be refunded. CH is a charity and can only use it's assets for charitable purposes. I really don't see how spending millions to refund fees to everyone who attended the school over a 30 year period can possibly be considered to be legitimate charitable expenditure. However, setting aside funds to provide real help to real victims would definitely be legitimate.

The real problem I have with this proposal is that it draws attention away from the real victims: those who were abused by staff and then let down by the school authorities, and have been living with the damage ever since. If others didn't enjoy their time at CH and found it wasn't a nice place, that's a shame, and I agree, it shouldn't have been like that. For a year or so I was bullied too, and it should not have been allowed to happen. But let's face it, the world is full of people who didn't enjoy their school days. I think we need to get a sense of proportion; it's kind of like there's been a train crash in which 20 people have received life changing injuries while others are complaining that because the train was overcrowded they couldn't get a seat and should therefore get the cost of their season tickets refunded.
Priority must be the victims and compensation on a case by case basis in line with the school's charter of looking after the most vulnerable

I dont expect them to subsidise me
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by TMF »

The charity commission has similar asset figures among its many pages:

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Sh ... ryNumber=0
(I hope that link works)

Possibly some of the ex-staff are worried about the security of their pensions - in addition to their legacies - they should have no concerns on pension grounds.
richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear

Re: Who Knew What?

Post by richardb »

I didn't look at the Foundation, just the first charity in the list.

Good to see there is money out there to educate for many years to come.
Post Reply