Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else, but that's still CH related.

Moderator: Moderators

Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell

Re: Re:

Post by Avon »

rockfreak wrote: Sat May 11, 2019 9:15 pm
Cleopatra wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:21 pm To this very day, I am consumed by a passionate indifference.
Looking at your viewing profile Cleopatra I think we may have much in common (I too had a cat which I loved dearly).
Had you read, as opposed to ‘looked at’ Cleopatra’s profile, you’d have noticed that she last visited the site twelve years ago.

She probably has a different cat.
rockfreak
Grecian
Posts: 972
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:31 pm
Real Name: David Redshaw
Location: Saltdean, East Sussex

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by rockfreak »

Yes, at my age time telescopes. Cats too.
Last edited by rockfreak on Sun May 19, 2019 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Avon
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:39 pm
Real Name: Ed Bell

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by Avon »

rockfreak wrote: Sat May 11, 2019 9:39 pm Yes, at my age time telescopes.
:D
bakunin
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:22 am
Real Name: Manch
Location: The westernmost lands

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by bakunin »

MrEd wrote: Sat May 11, 2019 7:53 pm

...received wisdom and non sequiturs...

I think I can stop there. There's nothing useful to be achieved by taking this any further.
Kruschev was just a manager of a different form of capitalism. The economic calculation argument is fundamentally flawed because it's very easy to demonstrate that in a toy model economy you can rationally plan a simple system, then incrementally increase the complexity and size of the economy without the rational planning suddenly becoming impossible. Believing in markets being the only way to allocate goods is equivalent to believing in magic.

Economics without mathematics sounds ridiculous considering that you cannot possibly avoid numbers when you are studying how quantities of things move around. Economists have applied mathematics in an incompetent and idealistic fashion - their models are fully mathematically rigorous yet completely detached from reality, in contrast to physicists' models which are often not at all rigorous yet work very well when compared to empirical data. This is because economics is modern theology, its function isn't to understand but to justify. Hence "marginal utility" etc.

I don't really think socialism has ever existed except for a few short lived examples, because I don't think workers had direct control over their jobs and production in any of those states, which is I believe a fundamental requirement (whereas state control is largely irrelevant and fully compatible with capitalism, which is fundamentally based on waged labour, according to which the Soviet Union was just government based capitalism).

In any case it's very clear that free market policies only benefit investors, they certainly don't benefit "consumers" of privatized healthcare and education (partly because it's absurd to view knowledge and health as products to be consumed).

All the free market garbage is part of the neoliberal consensus, a bunch of ideology to justify the state of the world in circa 1989, and it is completely crumbling at this point in history. The climate catastrophe will be the final mail in the coffin.

Anyway, sorry this is totally off topic.

Personally, I hated being at CH, except for my Grecians. And even the more positive memories now have a sinister veneer, because Dobbie, Husband, and all their enablers were so prominent while I was there.
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by Pe.A »

J.R. wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 1:49 pm
J.R. wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 1:48 pm
bakunin wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 12:56 am

Kruschev was just a manager of a different form of capitalism. The economic calculation argument is fundamentally flawed because it's very easy to demonstrate that in a toy model economy you can rationally plan a simple system, then incrementally increase the complexity and size of the economy without the rational planning suddenly becoming impossible. Believing in markets being the only way to allocate goods is equivalent to believing in magic.

Economics without mathematics sounds ridiculous considering that you cannot possibly avoid numbers when you are studying how quantities of things move around. Economists have applied mathematics in an incompetent and idealistic fashion - their models are fully mathematically rigorous yet completely detached from reality, in contrast to physicists' models which are often not at all rigorous yet work very well when compared to empirical data. This is because economics is modern theology, its function isn't to understand but to justify. Hence "marginal utility" etc.

I don't really think socialism has ever existed except for a few short lived examples, because I don't think workers had direct control over their jobs and production in any of those states, which is I believe a fundamental requirement (whereas state control is largely irrelevant and fully compatible with capitalism, which is fundamentally based on waged labour, according to which the Soviet Union was just government based capitalism).

In any case it's very clear that free market policies only benefit investors, they certainly don't benefit "consumers" of privatized healthcare and education (partly because it's absurd to view knowledge and health as products to be consumed).

All the free market garbage is part of the neoliberal consensus, a bunch of ideology to justify the state of the world in circa 1989, and it is completely crumbling at this point in history. The climate catastrophe will be the final mail in the coffin.

Anyway, sorry this is totally off topic.

Personally, I hated being at CH, except for my Grecians. And even the more positive memories now have a sinister veneer, because Dobbie, Husband, and all their enablers were so prominent while I was there.

I'd like to know if it was so patently obvious what was happening during your time at Horsham.
Good question...
scrub
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 236
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:11 pm
Real Name: Tim

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by scrub »

J.R. wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 1:49 pmI'd like to know if it was so patently obvious what was happening during your time at Horsham.
I think this was covered in one of the other threads and the answer was "overall, it depended on how clued-in to the school gossip system/how popular you were".
Speaking for myself, while Husband's affairs were common knowledge, the abuse was not. My thoughts on Dobbie are in another thread (as are many girls attitudes towards Karim), and according to someone else in that thread, his proclivities/preferences were known in certain cliques, although the depth of his abuses were not. I found that if he didn't take an interest in you he would basically ignore you while you were there. Carrying on with the top notch pastoral care theme, Poulton's personal hierarchy of care was the reputation of the school and that was it. Sillett was someone you saw only if you were getting suspended or asked to leave, and the fact that I only found out 20 years later that we even had a designated child protection officer, let alone that it was Cairncross, should tell you all you need to know about the senior management of the place from this former students perspective.
Any consensual (at least I assume/hope) relationships between staff and students were more or less open secrets, and there were, apparently, more of them going on at the time than I knew about.

To sum it up, from a former student during that time period, many students knew some small thing or two, some knew more, and as we're finding out from the court cases, much more had been covered up.

Edited to add: This thread in the other forum subsection might help you out
ThB 89-91, PeA 93-96
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by J.R. »

scrub wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 4:26 pm
J.R. wrote: Sun May 12, 2019 1:49 pmI'd like to know if it was so patently obvious what was happening during your time at Horsham.
I think this was covered in one of the other threads and the answer was "overall, it depended on how clued-in to the school gossip system/how popular you were".
Speaking for myself, while Husband's affairs were common knowledge, the abuse was not. My thoughts on Dobbie are in another thread (as are many girls attitudes towards Karim), and according to someone else in that thread, his proclivities/preferences were known in certain cliques, although the depth of his abuses were not. I found that if he didn't take an interest in you he would basically ignore you while you were there. Carrying on with the top notch pastoral care theme, Poulton's personal hierarchy of care was the reputation of the school and that was it. Sillett was someone you saw only if you were getting suspended or asked to leave, and the fact that I only found out 20 years later that we even had a designated child protection officer, let alone that it was Cairncross, should tell you all you need to know about the senior management of the place from this former students perspective.
Any consensual (at least I assume/hope) relationships between staff and students were more or less open secrets, and there were, apparently, more of them going on at the time than I knew about.

To sum it up, from a former student during that time period, many students knew some small thing or two, some knew more, and as we're finding out from the court cases, much more had been covered up.

Edited to add: This thread in the other forum subsection might help you out
Very many thanks Tim. Your reply speaks volumes !
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
MrEd
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:29 pm
Real Name: Ed McFarlane

Re: Anyone else who hated being at CH ?

Post by MrEd »

Any consensual (at least I assume/hope) relationships between staff and students were more or less open secrets, and there were, apparently, more of them going on at the time than I knew about.
Remarkable really, that the School's management were, at best, so utterly inept in this matter. I left the year before CH went co-ed, and I recall one chap in my class saying to our teacher during a lesson (a teacher who was obviously one of the many honourable and decent men teaching) that he wanted to stay on the following year just so that that teacher could catch him shagging, even if it meant him being expelled. Whilst this created much laughter, it did show that even before the merger the message going out to the pupils was that relationships between boys and girls that got too physical would not be tolerated.

It is impossible to reconcile that (correct) approach to the evident indifference to pupil/teacher relationships, which were not unlawful in terms of the criminal law, but might be regarded as a breach of a duty of care in civil law.
Post Reply