Address to the Governing Council help please

[DazedandConfused]

'It sickens me that Poulton’s portrait still hangs in the school... I refuse to accept that it was a different time and therefore their actions were understandable.'


On the first of these points, re-writing history is always bad, whatever the motive. Probably he shouldn't have been, but he was headmaster, period.

On the second, their actions would not have been 'understandable' at any time, as some of us have tried to point out. From 1955 to 1977, I don't think anything was covered up. Okay, the procedure for dealing with it was different, and the cases weren't shouted from the rooftops; the police were not involved, and probably wouldn't have wanted to be involved. To that extent things were different. But abusers were removed, without glowing references.

I see your point regarding re-writing history, how do you feel about Poulton proudly wearing the CH tie?

[TMF]

...saying that the police

and probably wouldn't have wanted to be involved.

...is wrong if you ask me. Raping/molesting/'whatever you want to call it' children was not something the school should have been abetting and hiding. I am sure that the police would prefer to be told about such things - any time in the last few hundred years at least.

[sejintenej]

...saying that the police

and probably wouldn't have wanted to be involved.

...is wrong if you ask me. Raping/molesting/'whatever you want to call it' children was not something the school should have been abetting and hiding. I am sure that the police would prefer to be told about such things - any time in the last few hundred years at least.

Very wrong - definitely. However at any time in history there were things that the police were hot on and those which they tried to keep out of. For example there was a time when internal family squabbles were almost always ignored or handled lightly and outside the courts. Now the police have apparently said that they will not bother with burglaries; even in 2000 they refused accept a report of pickpocketing and fraudulent use of stolen cards.

I can therefore understand that they might not have wanted to be involved in those days - even rape of females was not always fully investigated and prosecuted

[michael scuffil]

...saying that the police

and probably wouldn't have wanted to be involved.

...is wrong if you ask me. Raping/molesting/'whatever you want to call it' children was not something the school should have been abetting and hiding. I am sure that the police would prefer to be told about such things - any time in the last few hundred years at least.

I don't think the school was ever 'abetting' abuse. Abetting involves active assistance, not just negligence.

At the time I was talking about (1950s, 60s) of course the police would have taken action against child abuse by strangers or neighbours or whatever. But I think they would have been seriously disinclined to involve themselves in the internal affairs of institutions (let alone families). I also think few parents would have exposed their child to police interrogation or a court appearance.
The problem in those days was for the school authorities to find out about any abuse in the first place, and on the minute number of occasions when it did come to light, the parents did not approach the police.
If we have a situation where XYZ says NOW that PQR abused him 40 years ago, we can hardly blame the headmaster of the day, let alone the police, for doing nothing at the time. This is not to criticize XYZ for saying nothing; it just reflects on the times.

[michael scuffil]

I see your point regarding re-writing history, how do you feel about Poulton proudly wearing the CH tie?

That is a matter for Poulton and his conscience. My feelings one way or the other are neither here nor there. It is a past event and cannot be undone.
His picture in the Dining Hall, by contrast, is a matter for CH and hence is something about which I can reasonably make my thoughts known, as the matter could conceivably come up for discussion.

[TMF]

I don't think the school was ever 'abetting' abuse. Abetting involves active assistance, not just negligence.

Here is a review of child sexual abuse in England and Wales. This article discusses various cultural changes - e.g. laws concerning homosexuality and state school guidelines. You will see that there were many convictions (i.e. involvements of the police) throughout the 20th century: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 16.1177122

On abetting: Webb was allowed to leave, mid-term, in February 1984 and his 'behavior' was noted by the headmaster in a letter at that time that was public. Webb's departure was also discussed in a newspaper article - and the circumstances of his departure (like his nickname) were widely known. Yet, Webb was a guest helper in July 1984 on a summer holiday for pupils in the company of other teachers. These were summer holidays where masters went drinking with pupils in the evenings. One might say 'Oh - the scouts are a totally separate organization' - but these were all CH teachers, whose activities would have been well known to the headmaster, and vice versa. Arriving at the same place and time requires communication, coordination, and planning. And who else was a helper on these party-like occasions? Burr. A remarkable coincidence - or another example of abetting - your choice.

[ZeroDeConduite]

You will see that there were many convictions (i.e. involvements of the police) throughout the 20th century: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 16.1177122

And many cases of non-reporting:
'...in the years 1954–1956. When it came to independent schools, however, the advice to report to the police had been ignored in ‘two dozen’ cases over the same period.' (TNA, ED104/19, March 7, 1957, note made by Roger Carter, Ministry of Education.)

'It was not until 1961–1962 that the Ministry of Education was able to secure an agreement with the Association of Preparatory Schools and then the Independent Schools Association that letters should be sent to all their members recommending that all cases should be reported either to the police (if ‘well substantiated’) or to the Ministry of Education (where less so), bringing them into line with the state sector.'

So that's the 'official line'.

[TMF]

And many cases of non-reporting:
'...in the years 1954–1956. When it came to independent schools, however, the advice to report to the police had been ignored in ‘two dozen’ cases over the same period.' (TNA, ED104/19, March 7, 1957, note made by Roger Carter, Ministry of Education.)

'It was not until 1961–1962 that the Ministry of Education was able to secure an agreement with the Association of Preparatory Schools and then the Independent Schools Association that letters should be sent to all their members recommending that all cases should be reported either to the police (if ‘well substantiated’) or to the Ministry of Education (where less so), bringing them into line with the state sector.'

So that's the 'official line'.

Yes, in 1954-1956 and similarly in 1961-1962 the advice was to report to the police. That this advice was ignored on occasion does not make ignoring advice the official line.

And strangely, there was no advice about aiding and abetting in summer holidays for suddenly departed teachers with pupils, pub crawls, and barges - however 'therapeutic' this might have been.

[Scazza]

What about Bakers lying letter to parents? If he'd told the truth about why Webb left, parents could have quietly checked on the wellbeing of their kids. Other victims may have come forward at the time, instead of when they were trying to deal with the aftermath as adults, thirty years later.

Or allowing Karim to continue working with complainants and eventually letting him go with a glowing reference?

Ignoring complaints, not informing authorities and having zero concept of governance are bad but I'd also also argue that abetting was going on.

[richardb]

Rob,

I am not going to wish you luck because you don't need it. What you say will come very much from the heart and will be said with not just passion, but raw emotion.

Can I suggest three things? You invite the following from the Council:

1. The Council write to each and every person who has made disclosure to the police by 31 August 2018 apologising for the failings of the school in the employment, supervision and conduct of staff which allowed sexual abuse to continue for a period of many years. Those letters should be sent out within 14 days;
2. The letters of apology should include an irrevocable undertaking by the Council to pay for any counselling, psychiatric or psychological assessment or treatment that a victim requires, so that counselling/treatment can start immediately; and
3. The Council unconditionally agree that all such persons shall be financially compensated using the same principles applied by the Courts, without the need for protracted litigation and without any assertion of any sort of fault in the part of the victims.

Lest anyone think that the school is doing all it possibly can, at least one of the Husband/Dobbie victims has still not received the promised letters from the school which was to be forwarded via the police.

[michael scuffil]

Perhaps I was wrong about 'abetting'.

Baker seems to have a lot to answer for.

I don't think there was any abetting under Seaman or Newsome. My impression of Flecker (from hearsay, reading, and general knowledge of the world) is that in his last years at CH he was getting lazy and complacent. He was there for 25 years (not quite the record, but too long, IMO).

[michael scuffil]

From TMF:

Here is a review of child sexual abuse in England and Wales. This article discusses various cultural changes - e.g. laws concerning homosexuality and state school guidelines. You will see that there were many convictions (i.e. involvements of the police) throughout the 20th century:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 16.1177122

I would advise everyone to read this, not least because it clearly documents changing attitudes and the perceived nature of 'sexual abuse'. Not least the changing boundaries between what was illegal and what was perceived to be immoral, and how that affected appointment practice.

Seen historically, all five of the convictions we have been talking about fall into a kind of intermediate period both at CH and in society.

The case against Roger Martin is rather different (and I suspect will be more difficult) for reasons which have to do with facts which are undisputed and can therefore be mentioned here. The alleged abuse is stated by the accuser to have taken place 42 years ago; at that time Newsome was headmaster (and I think RM was already appointed by Seaman). That takes us back beyond the intermediate period mentioned above and into the historical period ('a foreign country') to which my contributions have largely been confined.

[thatfrankie]

Hi Robert, can I just say how absolutely in awe I am of your courage. Thank you for what you are doing, I know you will be giving strength to others.

I think the main point I would like raised is that it is not enough, anywhere near enough, to focus their response on the perpetrators. They also need to forensically examine the CH response at the time, specifically those who have already been mentioned in the court case but I am sure there were others.

There will always be predatory adults. That is a fact we cannot get away from. But we rely on the rest of the adults to keep our kids safe. And either on behalf of the higher echelons, or possibly with their knowledge and consent, 'the rest of the adults' failed - probably in order to protect the good name of CH - and this needs to be brought out into the open and apologised for at the very least.

I have sent you a longer PM but it seems to be stuck in my outbox! Sorry. Good luck with this.

[J.R.]

Hi Robert, can I just say how absolutely in awe I am of your courage. Thank you for what you are doing, I know you will be giving strength to others.

I think the main point I would like raised is that it is not enough, anywhere near enough, to focus their response on the perpetrators. They also need to forensically examine the CH response at the time, specifically those who have already been mentioned in the court case but I am sure there were others.

There will always be predatory adults. That is a fact we cannot get away from. But we rely on the rest of the adults to keep our kids safe. And either on behalf of the higher echelons, or possibly with their knowledge and consent, 'the rest of the adults' failed - probably in order to protect the good name of CH - and this needs to be brought out into the open and apologised for at the very least.

I have sent you a longer PM but it seems to be stuck in my outbox! Sorry. Good luck with this.

It will still show in your outbox until the recipient opens it.

J.