Roger Martin - trial

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 3806
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by sejintenej »

rockfreak wrote: Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:19 pm . And why do only ST Coleridge and Barnes Wallis ever get mentioned as old boys? Poets and bombs. What about Lamb, Leigh Hunt, Lambert, Colin Davis, Bernard Levin, Mark Thomas, or, wait for it....Steve Hilton!
I put it down to laziness and/or lack of time in preparing the script. Those two names have been mentioned so often that they stick in the memory so why in tarnation spend 30 seconds looking up other famous Old Blues?
Incidentally I know the names S T Coleridge (*knowing his descendents). Bernard Levin (gogglebox) and Barnes Wallis (from events when I was at school and the fillum) but the other names mean nothing to me. Are the hoi polloi any better educated?
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 3806
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by sejintenej »

Chrissie Boy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:32 am In my book, the perforated eardum incident was unfortunate, but most definitely not heinous, and I'm very pleased for Vilified that his career eventually went from strength to strength.
CB: whilst I have thanked you for a sensible post and your praise for masters who were able to enforce discipline I am far more concerned with your support for the eardrum incident. Bursting an eardrum can result in deafness for life. A punch or other blow can result in pneumothorax which automatically rules out scuba use FOR LIFE! The use of a cane or slipper on the buttocks has only a temporary medical effect - the long term mental effect is very arguable

I accept that it was a claim (unproven apparently) but actions which do OR MIGHT require medical action are, IMHO unacceptable. In that respect schoolteachers are on a hiding to nothing if a pupil and family decide to cut up with false claims
These users thanked the author sejintenej for the post (total 4):
richardb (Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:18 pm) • Elvie (Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:46 pm) • Leeautemps (Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:06 pm) • TMF (Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:15 pm)
Rating: 23.53%
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference
Otter
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 91 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Otter »

I think the use of any violence against a child for any reason is appalling, and the law agrees. Doesn't matter where on the body.

That said, corporal punishment was common when Vilified made his grave misjudgment, so that has to be borne in mind, as unacceptable as I believe it is. But it's surprising that he was forced to leave at that time, given the normality of such punishment, while Dobbie/Husband were ignored (at best) decades later for more serious offences when times were supposed to have changed for the better by then.

I can't reconcile the condoning of child abuse on e.g. the buttocks with the condemning of child abuse on the ear. It's abuse, end of. It doesn't give one the moral high ground - in fact it makes one look no better than him.
These users thanked the author Otter for the post (total 5):
richardb (Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:16 pm) • AMP (Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:50 pm) • LHA (Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:53 pm) • TMF (Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:15 pm) • J.R. (Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:03 am)
Rating: 29.41%
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

sejintenej wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:56 pm
Chrissie Boy wrote: Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:32 am In my book, the perforated eardum incident was unfortunate, but most definitely not heinous, and I'm very pleased for Vilified that his career eventually went from strength to strength.
CB: whilst I have thanked you for a sensible post and your praise for masters who were able to enforce discipline I am far more concerned with your support for the eardrum incident.
Neither Chrissie Boy, nor I (!), nor anyone else is 'supporting' (!!!) the eardrum incident. It was a very sad thing, and unacceptable.
All he and others who have succeeded in placing the incident in context have done is to acknowledge that the injury was not caused through any malice, and given that there was no deliberate ill intent it was not 'heinous'. And that is the case.
I deeply regret that it happened. Setting aside Newsome's double standards, he was right to take strong action.
The understanding which Chrissie Boy and others have shown towards me does not amount to condoning, still less 'supporting' such acts per se.
These users thanked the author Vilified for the post:
Otter (Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:24 am)
Rating: 5.88%
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
These users thanked the author TMF for the post:
richardb (Wed Jul 10, 2019 1:02 pm)
Rating: 5.88%
harryh
UF (Upper Fourth)
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:27 pm
Real Name: Howard Holdsworth
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by harryh »

TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
Hello....the search for clarity is commendable, but so is a realisation of the time to withdraw.
These users thanked the author harryh for the post (total 2):
Vilified (Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:26 pm) • Otter (Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:45 pm)
Rating: 11.76%
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

harryh wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:05 pm
TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
Hello....the search for clarity is commendable, but so is a realisation of the time to withdraw.
Right, you have not been around much recently.

But let's work on the logic construction:

Examples:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on intent.

Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils is bad or laudable depending on context.

Tolerance can be good or bad depending on context and whether that person is saying what one likes (or not) oneself.

The basic form is:

An [action or behavior] is [good or bad] because of [context or feelings]

Ready for the next lesson - please proceed (tolerantly).
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:01 pm
harryh wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:05 pm
TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
Hello....the search for clarity is commendable, but so is a realisation of the time to withdraw.
Right, you have not been around much recently.

But let's work on the logic construction:

Examples:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on intent.

Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils is bad or laudable depending on context.

Tolerance can be good or bad depending on context and whether that person is saying what one likes (or not) oneself.

The basic form is:

An [action or behavior] is [good or bad] because of [context or feelings]

Ready for the next lesson - please proceed (tolerantly).
Even though I'm not qualified in teaching special needs, let me try to explain to you one last time!
You must not over-simplify so grossly and you must refrain from twisting arguments to fit a twisted agenda.
The way it works in assessing harm done to another is this:
Case 1 - A person deliberately maliciously and with full intention sets out to inflict a harm (eg a specific physical injury) on another and succeeds. That (in normal English usage) can be described as 'heinous'.
Case 2 - A person intentionally sets out to inflict a minor harm (eg a non-injurious blow) upon another but the unintended consequence, by accident or miscalculation, is far worse than was originally intended (indeed the intention may have had a positive aim, eg to impose a necessary moderate discipline). Because there is a resultant harm but the harm was not intended, that act could be called 'reckless', the perpetrator may even call it accidental, but it cannot (in normal English usage) be described as 'heinous'.
Case 3 - A person inadvertently inflicts harm upon another, intending no such thing. This act we call 'accidental'.
It may be debatable in the case under examination whether it comes under 2 or 3; but it is blatantly obvious that it does not come under 1, and is not therefore 'heinous'. As to the term 'valid', which you have dragged in from somewhere, it does not fit in anywhere.
The law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter, and accidental death, etc. It does so for a reason and the consequences for person causing the death differ according to the intention. So intention and context are indeed 'all'.
If that still isn't clear, then there is no hope that you will ever understand.
Last edited by Vilified on Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
These users thanked the author Vilified for the post:
Pe.A (Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:12 pm)
Rating: 5.88%
User avatar
postwarblue
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:12 pm
Real Name: Robert Griffiths
Location: Havant
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by postwarblue »

If Newsome invited Vilified to resign, did he give a reference to a future employer that did not mention this?
'Oh blest retirement, friend to life's decline'
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15804
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey
Has thanked: 413 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by J.R. »

I await Richard's legal viewpoint with interest.
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

postwarblue wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:59 pm If Newsome invited Vilified to resign, did he give a reference to a future employer that did not mention this?
Vilified wrote:
The boys’ parents had begged for me to be spared dismissal, but Newsome was adamant. I must resign, and yes, I’d be given a good reference.
here: viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=150#p146007

When asked whether Vilified mentioned the 'true reason' to his new employer Vilified said:
Of course not!
here: viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=165#p146032
Last edited by TMF on Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

Vilified wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:53 pm
So so tedious, so so dense! How on earth did you get into the big boys' class?
Even though I'm not qualified in teaching special needs, let me try one last time!
You must not over-simplify so grossly and you must refrain from twisting arguments to fit a twisted agenda.
The way it works in assessing harm done to another is this:
Case 1 - A person deliberately maliciously and with full intention sets out to inflict a harm (eg a specific physical injury) on another and succeeds. That (in normal English usage) can be described as 'heinous'.
Case 2 - A person intentionally sets out to inflict a minor harm (eg a non-injurious blow) upon another but the unintended consequence, by accident or miscalculation, is far worse than was originally intended (indeed the intention may have had a positive aim, eg to impose a necessary moderate discipline). Because there is a resultant harm but the harm was not intended, that act could be called 'reckless', the perpetrator may even call it accidental, but it cannot (in normal English usage) be described as 'heinous'.
Case 3 - A person inadvertently inflicts harm upon another, intending no such thing. This act we call 'accidental'.
It may be debatable in the case under examination whether it comes under 2 or 3; but it is blatantly obvious that it does not come under 1, and is not therefore 'heinous'. As to the term 'valid', which you have dragged in from somewhere, it does not fit in anywhere.
The law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter, and accidental death, etc. It does so for a reason and the consequences for person causing the death differ according to the intention. So intention and context are indeed 'all'.
If that still isn't clear, you need to drop down a class or two, because you're plainly out of your depth.
Selfless dedication to the educational cause. I am not sure though that drawing attention to a pupil's needs can be classified as tolerant.

If we accept that physical abuse/GBH is an area shrouded in abstruse subtlety, how would you parse:

Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils.

Would that be laudable or deplorable? Can you walk us through the cases for that situation?
Leeautemps
2nd Former
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:30 am
Real Name: Jane Smith
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Leeautemps »

Vilified, I don't like your name-calling or your attempts at legal landscape gardening.
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

Leeautemps wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:39 pm Vilified, I don't like your name-calling or your attempts at legal landscape gardening.
However, you're presumably entirely happy with the sustained campaign of provocation which called forth the name-calling (which I had already thought I'd be better look at again and consider editing out, rather than risk censorship). Have you actually been following this?
As for describing what I have set out as 'legal landscape gardening' when it is a clear statement of what is common sense, reflected in the law, and should be extremely obvious... I can only express disbelief that there are others on this forum only willing to see what it suits them to see!
These users thanked the author Vilified for the post:
Pe.A (Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:14 pm)
Rating: 5.88%
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15804
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey
Has thanked: 413 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by J.R. »

GBH and ABH has been referred to in this thread.

In the good old days, pre PACE, it was a matter for the police to decide on a charge of the seriousness of the injury. Stabbing, broken bones etc was obviously GBH.

In modern times, it now falls to the CPS. I'm afraid they often seem to have 'grey' areas in their decisions, depending on a likelihood of a conviction. Sorry if I've muddied the waters.
These users thanked the author J.R. for the post (total 2):
TMF (Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:07 pm) • Pe.A (Thu Jul 11, 2019 2:15 pm)
Rating: 11.76%
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
Locked