Vilified wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:12 am
Sadly, much against my hopes, it appears that I must log in and post once more, because yet again Vilified has been vilified.
It is hard to see why richardb seems to think it is myopic for the question to be raised of J.R.’s credentials for acting as a hanging judge in the matter of which I have admitted guilt. Is this not a case of the ‘let he who is without sin…’ scenario, to which one generous-minded poster previously alluded? It seems entirely fair for the question to be asked, in view of the inquisition to which I have been subjected.
It is surely offensive for richardb find fault with the decent Otter for being ‘unable to see through Vilified’. It is one thing for the forum’s pet barrister to correct me in terms of my understanding of the law, but another for him to suggest that my full and detailed account requires any ‘seeing through’. I could not have been more frank, as several have acknowledged. I think that what richardb sees is his own unflattering mental image of me which he projects onto me; and that is not the same as ‘seeing through’ me.
I have a further problem with richardb’s rebuke that I ‘should have known better’. I didn’t. Why not? Because I had been brought up to expect to be cuffed at school and to see my classmates cuffed on a daily basis, even violently, so that their heads bounced off the blackboard. As I said, I was not trained as a teacher; and my first advice, from an experienced colleague, before I even entered my first classroom, was to establish my authority in that first lesson by cuffing someone. (Again, you have only to watch the film ‘Kes’, set in a secondary modern though it was, to appreciate something of the ethos of the times.) The school did not inform me as to what was or was not acceptable. You might as well say that CH should have known that it should have made clear to staff what was or wasn’t acceptable discipline. It didn’t And I didn’t ‘know better’. And that includes not being aware of the possibility of causing actual injury.
With regard to AMP’s bewilderment as to why I openly came on the forum. I should have said that my initial interest was to try to ascertain what exactly it was that RM was accused o
f, since I was staggered by his impending case; and then to follow the progress of the case, expecting and hoping that he would be acquitted. And then, when the worst happened, I still felt duty bound to say what I knew of him, which was by way of a character witness, I suppose, hoping that there had been some terrible miscarriage of justice. That is not the same as 'eulogising over child abusers'. And what I wrote I wrote in bewilderment, and before richardb finally revealed the actual detail of the conviction and the convincing details which led to it, which had all been very vague before.
Further, as to AMP’s bewilderment. I posted a ‘full confession’ because I did not think that anything less would quash the more sinister speculations of the witch hunters as to why I ‘left suddenly’ and apparently with no explanation. It seemed to me (I think most would agree) that my reputation, poor though it may be, is better served by a true explanation of the reason for my departure than by noxious speculations.