Page 2 of 4

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:06 pm
by Golfer
I was the first person to mention the Millfield abuse - to which you refer - on this site.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:36 pm
by Golfer
J.R. wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 7:01 pm
Think your keyboard '?' is stuck Tim, or maybe you've just nodded off.

Hey Ho. Matters not.
An unworthy response from an official moderator.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:12 pm
by CodFlabAndMuck
I had no personal dealings, but she exuded energy, enthusiasm and sincerity

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:22 pm
by Golfer
Pretty much sums her up.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:42 pm
by Golfer
J.R. wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:29 pm
Fun is good. Abuse is a crime. Not that I am suggesting for one minute that any named person is guilty of such.
Would the site moderator care to explain his comments further?

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:24 pm
by CodFlabAndMuck
His only misdemeanour was that he left to become Head of History at The Enemy.

You were mentioned in dispatches if you managed to hit a Rolls Royce parked on the boundary during an away game of cricket.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:18 pm
by J.R.
Golfer wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:42 pm
J.R. wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:29 pm
Fun is good. Abuse is a crime. Not that I am suggesting for one minute that any named person is guilty of such.
Would the site moderator care to explain his comments further?
NO - Or in a response well embedded in my brain. NO COMMENT.

Sorry Tim but Fun is mutual enjoyment without criminal offence being committed

Abuse is a criminal offence which has to be
investigated and prosecuted.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:23 pm
by Golfer
I am not clear - given the NO COMMENT - why you commented in the first place.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:34 pm
by J.R.
No comment is far more polite than dumb silence.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 4:31 pm
by Golfer
**** off JR

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:14 pm
by jtaylor
I think I’ll leave the previous comment to stand to speak for itself, given the swear-filter blocked it out - but just to be clear this is unbecoming and not normally acceptable on this forum thank you.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:42 pm
by rockfreak
If this sainted woman wanted to do something useful, why didn't she take her much-touted academic talents into the state system like Michael Marland (an Old Blue) did in the 1960s?

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:56 pm
by Golfer
Fair point.
Those who teach in the private sector can justifiably be labelled as frauds.

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:23 pm
by loringa
by Golfer » Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:56 pm

Fair point.
Those who teach in the private sector can justifiably be labelled as frauds.

I am assuming you don't mean this. If you did, this would probably qualify as one of the silliest comments to have seen light on this forum. I am very grateful to the teachers who are educating my daughter in the private sector and there is nothing fraudulent about them or their activities.

In my case, these 'fraudulent' teachers are required because the state sector was simply not delivering what was required. A left-hander, in Year 4 of Primary she was still transposing her numerals. Her handwriting was poor and not joined-up and she was stuck firmly in the middle of a mixed ability class. The school simply didn't care; she was on track to do okay in her SATs in Year 6. Looking ahead I was told that there was nothing to worry about as she would do 'fine' in secondary school. When I asked what was meant by fine I was informed that fine meant at least five 'good' GCSEs; when I asked what she meant by good, I was told Grade C or above. Where is the aspiration in that? Five GCSEs at Grade C (now Grade 4!) is not good enough; it's not 'fine'. It is a bare minimum with which to move on to some form of sixth form studies.

So, thank you Ms C**, Mr and Mrs G********, Mme V***, Mrs S*****, Miss N***** and all of you; you are doing an excellent job in helping my daughter to achieve her potential. Most of you have done your time in the state sector and I am happy you have made the transition even though I have to live abroad to afford the fees charged to ensure your services.

Of course ... you probably didn't mean it anyway!

Re: Vikki Askew

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:54 pm
by sejintenej
loringa wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:23 pm


In my case, these 'fraudulent' teachers are required because the state sector was simply not delivering what was required. A left-hander, in Year 4 of Primary she was still transposing her numerals. Her handwriting was poor and not joined-up and she was stuck firmly in the middle of a mixed ability class. The school simply didn't care; she was on track to do okay in her SATs in Year 6. Looking ahead I was told that there was nothing to worry about as she would do 'fine' in secondary school. When I asked what was meant by fine I was informed that fine meant at least five 'good' GCSEs; when I asked what she meant by good, I was told Grade C or above. Where is the aspiration in that? Five GCSEs at Grade C (now Grade 4!) is not good enough; it's not 'fine'. It is a bare minimum with which to move on to some form of sixth form studies.

So, thank you Ms C**, Mr and Mrs G********, Mme V***, Mrs S*****, Miss N***** and all of you; you are doing an excellent job in helping my daughter to achieve her potential.
Andrew, be thankful that the teachers you refer to are doing so much - in my day at CH dyslexia was totally ignored - not do well and you got the slipper.

In a state pri.mary school the parents were told "he will never do anything so we are not going to waste resources on him". This was translated as that he had to sit at the back of the class and any home or other work he did would not be looked at. In secondary school he was taken out of class to help backwards children and got no help whatsoever even though the council examiner confirmed that he was dyslexic. It was only when he got to Uni that the council did the minimum required to help him and that was after we had him independently tested and from which we discovered that he had inherited it from me. We were forced to pay for extra teaching for 11 years both term and holiday time.

That was the same council education board who decided that I could not be checked to be an exam invigilator purely because and for no other reason than that I had been adopted