Oh dear..here we go again.
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Deputy Grecian
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:58 am
- Real Name: Christopher Bartlett
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
- jtaylor
- Forum Administrator
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:32 am
- Real Name: Julian Taylor
- Location: Wantage, OXON
- Contact:
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
Typical lazy journalism, and I doubt any correction to them would have made a jot of difference after publication.
Julian Taylor-Gadd
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992
Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992
Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
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.Kit Bartlett wrote: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.
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
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
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 3285
- Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:44 pm
- Real Name: Katharine Dobson
- Location: Gwynedd
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
I fear there is a lot of truth in that, David!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!
Katharine Dobson (Hills) 6.14, 1959 - 1965
- J.R.
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 15835
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
- Real Name: John Rutley
- Location: Dorking, Surrey
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
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.
Look at 'Operation Yew Tree' and the BBC.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
I agree! I'm afraid that for all the puff, CH leadership are intent on moving from the founding credo.Katharine wrote:I fear there is a lot of truth in that, David!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!
- J.R.
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 15835
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
- Real Name: John Rutley
- Location: Dorking, Surrey
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
A good question, Christopher. However, 'The School' do not tend to answer querstions on this site.Kit Bartlett wrote:Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 4093
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
- Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
- Location: Essex
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
I think that he was suggesting that the fifth estate be made aware - we already knowJ.R. wrote:A good question, Christopher. However, 'The School' do not tend to answer querstions on this site.Kit Bartlett wrote:Should not someone, preferably from the school, have corrected the mistaken impression given that fees are all £30,000 per annum ?
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
-
- Deputy Grecian
- Posts: 333
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:58 am
- Real Name: Christopher Bartlett
Re: Oh dear..here we go again.
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.
The campaign against FF was saying that the intake this September last was about 22%?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 ?