Roger Martin
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Roger Martin
ok - in that evidence of the totally separate management of the 2 organisations i can see why ex leaders (some of whom left the school under a cloud) could still end up on a scout camp during the holidays and outside the school grounds without any control or input from the school
Re: Roger Martin
I suggest that the Scout camp issue revolves around who was running the camp - presumably the C.H. Scout Master, who would also have been (I assume) a master at C.H.??
David
David
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
- Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
- Location: Essex
Re: Roger Martin
As foureyes states it is likely that the camp leader was a serving master at CH (as opposed to ex-teacher).wurzel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:04 pm ok - in that evidence of the totally separate management of the 2 organisations i can see why ex leaders (some of whom left the school under a cloud) could still end up on a scout camp during the holidays and outside the school grounds without any control or input from the school
It then comes down to whether he, the leader, knew or had cause to suspect that the ex-teacher left under a cloud. If he did know then he should have refused to allow the suspect to come close to the camp or any scout at any time. Under those circumstances the scoutmaster would be at serious fault if he did not fully protect the scouts.
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!!!
Re: Roger Martin
'wurzel' reports that:
Hence, all the masters (and including, of course, Webb) involved in the trip knew the 'situation'.
http://www.chforum.info/php/viewtopic.p ... 2&#p142402the Webb situation was public knowledge
Hence, all the masters (and including, of course, Webb) involved in the trip knew the 'situation'.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
- Real Name: J Eabnvu
Re: Roger Martin
My memories of that time as a pupil were that he wasnt viewed as a paedophile and a child predator. He was viewed as someone who had had a nervous breakdown and the incident in the dormitory was a one off and out of character.TMF wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:37 pm 'wurzel' reports that:
http://www.chforum.info/php/viewtopic.p ... 2&#p142402the Webb situation was public knowledge
Hence, all the masters (and including, of course, Webb) involved in the trip knew the 'situation'.
The invitation to the scout camp was seen as an act of kindness to someone who needed support.
Re: Roger Martin
I would like to think that too. But, Webb's nickname was Pedo/Paedo, and this was after the dining hall had shouted that name at him in near riot. So, there were indications (at the very least) that Webb was not optimal 'helper' material. It was also compassionate of those in charge to invite Burr - a compassionate coincidence perhaps?My memories of that time as a pupil were that he wasnt viewed as a paedophile and a child predator. He was viewed as someone who had had a nervous breakdown and the incident in the dormitory was a one off and out of character.
The invitation to the scout camp was seen as an act of kindness to someone who needed support.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
- Real Name: J Eabnvu
Re: Roger Martin
I completely agree.TMF wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:07 pmI would like to think that too. But, Webb's nickname was Pedo/Paedo, and this was after the dining hall had shouted that name at him in near riot. So, there were indications (at the very least) that Webb was not optimal 'helper' material. It was also compassionate of those in charge to invite Burr - a compassionate coincidence perhaps?My memories of that time as a pupi8l were that he wasnt viewed as a paedophile and a child predator. He was viewed as someone who had had a nervous breakdown and the incident in the dormitory was a one off and out of character.
The invitation to the scout camp was seen as an act of kindness to someone who needed support.
At the very least, is it suitable to take someone who has just admitted to molesting a boy on a scout trip?
- CHAZ
- Grecian
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:15 pm
- Real Name: Charles Ian Forster
- Location: FRANCE
Re: Roger Martin
I though the title of this topic was Roger Martin and yet the last 2-3 pages talk about Peter Webb. Digression folks!
Charles Forster
PeB 1978-1984
PeB 1978-1984
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 1612
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:53 pm
- Real Name: michael scuffil
- Location: germany
Re: Roger Martin
I must confess to being one of the 'water-under-the-bridge' brigade, though I have said it before and I know it is unpopular. I have nothing against alleged perpetrators being publicly named (and it is up to them to sue for libel if they are alive and feel genuinely aggrieved). But there is no other country in Europe, and not many in the world, where cases 40+ years old could be prosecuted. There are various reasons for this (1. unreliability of evidence; 2. 'identity' of person now and person 40 years ago; 3. purpose served by punishment ('public interest') -- clearly it would not be deterrence, as that world no longer exists.) This also applies to a certain degree to the (school) authorities. No head teacher of any school in the 1950s would have reported an abuser to the police, and in any case, the police would probably have said: 'You deal with it.' We cannot apply today's criteria.Foureyes wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:35 pm Richard,
You wrote: "It may help if the school actually say how many people are affected by this. They will have the figures but it is way beyond the 20+ who have made statements for the criminal proceedings. Once this figure is publicly known then people will begin to understand fully what has gone on."
I used to be proud to tell people that I am an Old Blue - now I keep very quiet about it. Also, it seems that at the time I was at C.H. (1948-55), either there was none of this master-pupil activity going on, or, if there was, it was kept very, very quiet. That said, I suggest that the present management of the school and the foundation are between a rock and a hard place and slanging them off, particularly Reid, will not really help matters.
First, how can they know how many were abused? Let us say that the period involved is 1950-2010 and the throughput was 100 per year. That gives a cohort of 50 times 100 equals 5,000 (less those that have died, of course). How could they (or the police) locate and question all of those? If it is left to effected Old Blues to come forward, will these all identify themselves simultaneously? Some may not wish to embarrass their families, some may regard it as simply 'water-under-the-bridge' (i.e., something which happened, but it was a long time ago); some may wish to keep quiet until they see which way the wind is blowing; in some cases the Old Blue may know that the perpetrator is dead. Finally, some may not have heard of the situation and not come forward initially and then decide to do so. In other words, the school/police will never know the full figure until the last one has died in about 2100.
It is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that a (hopefully) very small number of complainants may not be telling the truth - as (allegedly) was 'Nick' in his charges against Bramall, Heath, et al. In the interests of justice such people need to be identified, their stories refuted, and their allegations dismissed.
Thirdly, there is the matter of the staff members - not themselves abusers - who made public statements, which have subsequently been shown to have been at variance with the truth, if not downright lies, or who allowed the abusers to move on quietly to another school. You are much more knowledgeable about the law than I, but can the police or school actually do anything about that? As far as I can tell, they may have lied or acted unwisely, but did they actually break a law, and, if so, which one? Further, if they have moved on or retired does the school have any legal hold over them - could it compel them to return to Horsham and explain themselves to the current Head Master? I think not. Finally, if neither the police nor the school can take action against them, can Old Blues insist that they offer an explanation of their actions/inactions. We may demand that they do, but if they choose to stay quiet, then that is it as far as I can see.
I am not, for one moment, trying to excuse the perpetrators, and firmly believe that they should be identified and punished. But I do believe that the school and/or police need to be given a little space and that bad mouthing them will achieve little.
David
Again, at the risk of boring you, I would point out that the worst abusers were the caners. Macnutt's exploits in this regard have been documented in print, director of music Lang has been named in print in this connexion (by Bryan Magee), and I would (from general repute) name Littlefield. Obviously their actions would be totally illegal if performed now. But I wonder, if they were still alive, whether they could be prosecuted if the allegation was that their exercise of corporal punishment was not in the interest of good order, but of their own gratification.
I think we need to remember that the past is a foreign country. They did things differently there. We can reveal what was done, where this is not generally known, and we can express our disgust that things were like that. But this is not what the legal system is for.
Th.B. 27 1955-63
-
- Button Grecian
- Posts: 4097
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
- Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
- Location: Essex
Re: Roger Martin
Germany, current. WWII camp guardsmichael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:50 am . But there is no other country in Europe, and not many in the world, where cases 40+ years old could be prosecuted. There are various reasons for this (1. unreliability of evidence; 2. 'identity' of person now and person 40 years ago; 3. purpose served by punishment ('public interest') -- clearly it would not be deterrence, as that world no longer exists.)
I disagree with your concept.
1) The perpetrator must be aware that the crime could come back and bite him at any moment until he/she is six feet under. The terror factor applies.
2) The law must be certain; exactly (and to the number of days) would you decide that a crime should not be prosecuted? Remember that the number must get through Parliament and there will be major public comment whatever is decided.
3) Yes; it might be harder to prove guilt after many hyears but the prosecution must have the opportunity.
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!!!
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Roger Martin
In about 1994 the concept of corroboration which had previously existed in English law was abolished.
I cannot remember the precise mechanics but corroboration was: (i) independent evidence; which (ii) points to the involvement of the accused in the crime charges.
It means a person cannot be convicted solely on the word of another.
It imposes quite a high standard to get a conviction but something like this could prove to be an important safeguard.
I cannot remember the precise mechanics but corroboration was: (i) independent evidence; which (ii) points to the involvement of the accused in the crime charges.
It means a person cannot be convicted solely on the word of another.
It imposes quite a high standard to get a conviction but something like this could prove to be an important safeguard.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
- Real Name: J Eabnvu
Re: Roger Martin
So in the absence of any physical evidence, there has to be more than one person?richardb wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:47 pm In about 1994 the concept of corroboration which had previously existed in English law was abolished.
I cannot remember the precise mechanics but corroboration was: (i) independent evidence; which (ii) points to the involvement of the accused in the crime charges.
It means a person cannot be convicted solely on the word of another.
It imposes quite a high standard to get a conviction but something like this could prove to be an important safeguard.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 886
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
- Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
- Location: Tyne and Wear
Re: Roger Martin
Not necessarily more than one person.
It means other evidence. Forensic evidence (blood, DNA) etc would do.
With the filthy five, the other complaints would probably have been regarded as corroboration. In those days the other complaints might have been similar fact evidence too.
But the basic principle was that the word of one person alone was not enough. There had to be other evidence.
It means other evidence. Forensic evidence (blood, DNA) etc would do.
With the filthy five, the other complaints would probably have been regarded as corroboration. In those days the other complaints might have been similar fact evidence too.
But the basic principle was that the word of one person alone was not enough. There had to be other evidence.
-
- GE (Great Erasmus)
- Posts: 143
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:22 am
- Real Name: Manch
- Location: The westernmost lands
Re: Roger Martin
I just don't think things are as different now, especially compared to the 1980s-90s when many of the cases occurred, as people are saying.michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:50 amBut there is no other country in Europe, and not many in the world, where cases 40+ years old could be prosecuted. There are various reasons for this (1. unreliability of evidence; 2. 'identity' of person now and person 40 years ago; 3. purpose served by punishment ('public interest') -- clearly it would not be deterrence, as that world no longer exists.) This also applies to a certain degree to the (school) authorities. No head teacher of any school in the 1950s would have reported an abuser to the police, and in any case, the police would probably have said: 'You deal with it.' We cannot apply today's criteria.
The problem is that many victims don't obtain the self-confidence and perspective necessary to be willing to come forward in court until many years have past and they are often in their late 30s by that point.
Many paedophile priests got away unpunished in America (Maryland specifically) because the statue of limitations had expired. See the Netflix documentary "The Keepers" (about a catholic girls' school in Baltimore with a clerical child abuse ring--very disturbing but well worth watching--many similarities to what happened at CH). Fortunately several states are changing the statutes so they don't expire, like murder.
If (for example) some ancient Nazi was discovered today, I hope they would be prosecuted!
- J.R.
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 15835
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
- Real Name: John Rutley
- Location: Dorking, Surrey
Re: Roger Martin
I don't think this post is drifting off line. I don't believe there should ever be a time limit on prosecutions.
Yes - The Germans will actively try to prosecute their own nationals war crimes. All part of their atonement.
We, (Britain) recently laid charges against an Eastern European male from Banstead, (Lithuanian I believe) for war crimes, concentration camp related. The initial hearings were heard at the old Dorking Magistrate's Court being used for 'special' cases. I went down. The accused was in his late 80's. A mere shell of a man who I doubt even understood what was going on or where he was.
Justice going through the motions ? I had my doubts seeing this poor wretch. The case was ditched anyway.
Yes - The Germans will actively try to prosecute their own nationals war crimes. All part of their atonement.
We, (Britain) recently laid charges against an Eastern European male from Banstead, (Lithuanian I believe) for war crimes, concentration camp related. The initial hearings were heard at the old Dorking Magistrate's Court being used for 'special' cases. I went down. The accused was in his late 80's. A mere shell of a man who I doubt even understood what was going on or where he was.
Justice going through the motions ? I had my doubts seeing this poor wretch. The case was ditched anyway.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.