Roger Martin - trial

[Pe.A]

Vilified, despite the assault, you do have a way with words.

Perhaps you could have considered using your words to persuade the wayward boy to do what you wanted(?)

I also find myself thinking about the victim.

Did he go on to play in the rugby match that day? (Although his ear was probably painful and his head was spinning). Do you remember his name, by any chance?

*GROAN*

[Pe.A]

Thanks for mentioning the Guidelines. As you will have seen, your assault on the pupil merits custody, so can we stop trivialising it.

You may not have intended the level of injury you caused, but you sure as hell intended to assault the lad.

I am not trivialising it. I can see that a half-decent court would rate it as category 3, with a community order the likely outcome. I am simply continuing to assert that there was no malicious intent, and to resist the interpretation that particularly hostile posters are striving to put upon it.

I have stated that I deeply regret and have always regretted what happened; and it was obviously reckless of me to do as I did. But it was in no degree malicious.

Some perspective (and this case was way after the 1970s when pupils were routinely struck in a great many schools). There is no mention of any legal action having been taken:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teac ... 35359.html

"... he was sacked for gross misconduct in 2006 after he hit a schoolboy on the head while already on a final warning for a series of alleged pupil assaults... Despite the seriousness of his actions the panel said his behaviour was not "fundamentally incompatible" with being a registered teacher."

The Guidelines is where I am afraid we part company.

You would not be category 3 but category 2. Gratuitous use of violelence by a teacher on a pupil is one of the grossest breaches of trust imaginable.

It would be a prison sentence and deservedly so. You were in loco parents and should have known better.

In the 70s...?? Really?

[Pe.A]

Agreed. Your use of the term ‘special needs’ as an insult is pretty bl**dy offensive.

Yes, that was unacceptable.

So why did you do it? Can't you control yourself?
[/quote]

Cheap shot. Unnecessary. How old are you...?

[Pe.A]

Maybe I am on my own here but I don't like the tag team baiting Vilified has been subject to at all.

He has answered some rigorous questions fully and expressed contrition. It should stop there.

People rightly want transparency regarding the awful abuse that has blighted CH and to know why it was allowed to happen.

They won't get that if a tag team of online bullies sets to work on new members.

It's unbecoming behaviour if we wish to be part of an inclusive forum.

I'll go back to sleep now.

Some of it has been narky, spiteful and a bit childish...

[Pe.A]

As I leave the scene, which I gladly do now, a final reminder as to why I involved myself in this highly unpleasant 'exchange of views' in the first place:
1. To quash vicious scurrilous speculation as to my reasons for leaving CH, which were contemptible and deeply offensive;
2. To put on record my own estimation of Roger Martin, who did wrong, I now know, which is horribly sad; but did a vast amount of good to so many also.
I thank those few who have stood up in this forum to acknowledge my honesty and to defend me against the sustained attacks of the self-righteous. It was good to find a just bit of decency and understanding hanging on in there.

I am bewildered that you openly came on a hostile forum to salvage your reputation and express your estimation for a former colleague just convicted of child abuse.

There is no statute of limitations for assault so why post a full confession?

I don't believe for one moment you give a fig what this forum thinks of you.

Has the pupil in question put in a complaint to the police? No? Then everyone on here should refrain from being dicks...

[Pe.A]

All I can say in reply, vilified, that maybe teaching was not a career for you. Possibly the armed forces ? Even they are taught restraint these days.

This is an unworthy comment, in my opinion.

Why ?

Sarcastic and unnecessary...

[Pe.A]

What has the conduct of others got to do with JR?

Nothing, per se. But the narkiness is just unnecessary...

[Pe.A]

What has the conduct of others got to do with JR?

Because it's myopic (perfect word, Howard) for someone with the following views about policing and discipline ...

Bring back the good old days when they/we could clip 'em round the ear-'ole and take 'em home to Mum & Dad for another good walloping !

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2391

.. and who has expressed nostalgia for the use of the cane, to lay into someone else who also sanctioned violence as a means of discipline, including a clip around the ear.

I like J.R.'s presence on here. Perceptive, interesting and very funny at the right times. But in this context I don't feel there's much moral authority in the criticism of Villified.

Nail on head.

[Pe.A]

Maybe I am on my own here but I don't like the tag team baiting Vilified has been subject to at all.

He has answered some rigorous questions fully and expressed contrition. It should stop there.

People rightly want transparency regarding the awful abuse that has blighted CH and to know why it was allowed to happen.

They won't get that if a tag team of online bullies sets to work on new members.

It's unbecoming behaviour if we wish to be part of an inclusive forum.

I'll go back to sleep now.

As usual, Andy, spot on.

Not quite.

This isn't the appropriate forum to eulogise about child abusers

How was anyone eulogising about child abusers...?

[Pe.A]

Now you're getting angry again, calm down.

I have every right to ask you polite probing questions.

I don't know you, have never met you, and a lot of what you have posted is unverifiable, so forgive me if I don't just roll over.

And in response to another poster, anything I put on here I would quite happily say to their face, man to man.

Disingenuous. Its the angles your coming in from...

[Pe.A]

Observations...

Vilified gets angry.

Vilified lies. Vilified said that he lied by omission to get his next teaching job after leaving Christ's Hospital. (You cannot be honest and say that you lied when you told the truth to get your next job, of course).

Vilified's erudition, half truths, and confession are convincing to many people.

So, on the physical assault...

Vilified said that the boy played in the game following a blow to the head. However, the victim would have been crying. The victim would have been dizzy and in pain, and probably would not have been able to play rugby.

There would have been about 30 witnesses to this event (two teams, etc.). But, so far there has been no other report that resembles Vilified's account.

The earlier post on this site (about a year ago) had the blow to the victim's stomach.

But we know that Vilified departed suddenly - so there was an incident of some sort - and probably an assault victim. I was also surprised to see that Vilified changed a post removing a phrase about 'big boys' class' that (I think) was directed to me. Revisionism is another aspect of Vilified's character. (Though oddly Vilified retained the wording about 'special needs').

I wonder if the victim or another participant in the rugby match will comment? That would be extremely helpful. And if there are no such comments, that would interesting too.

He's getting angry because people are acting like dicks.

[Pe.A]

Regarding the lying by omission: who in the world would voluntarily bring up something in a job interview that you knew would see your application fail?

I would hedge that most or all job candidates lie by omission in this way. Not about hitting children, but about some personal or professional flaw or mistake that you’d be an idiot to bring up when trying to impress a prospective employer.

Get in there, Otter. Another great insight...!!

[J.R.]

I suggest we all cool down.

As far as Vilified's indiscretion is concerned, that was probably the norm at the time. Housemaster Coleridge B, N.T. Fryer could be very vindictive on the rugby field in the 1960's.

Times have changed. Today, things I witnessed on the field of play at school would now be considered a serious assault.

I'm leaving it there. Q.E.D.

[AMP]

As I leave the scene, which I gladly do now, a final reminder as to why I involved myself in this highly unpleasant 'exchange of views' in the first place:
1. To quash vicious scurrilous speculation as to my reasons for leaving CH, which were contemptible and deeply offensive;
2. To put on record my own estimation of Roger Martin, who did wrong, I now know, which is horribly sad; but did a vast amount of good to so many also.
I thank those few who have stood up in this forum to acknowledge my honesty and to defend me against the sustained attacks of the self-righteous. It was good to find a just bit of decency and understanding hanging on in there.

I am bewildered that you openly came on a hostile forum to salvage your reputation and express your estimation for a former colleague just convicted of child abuse.

There is no statute of limitations for assault so why post a full confession?

I don't believe for one moment you give a fig what this forum thinks of you.

Has the pupil in question put in a complaint to the police? No? Then everyone on here should refrain from being dicks...

What pupil?

[TMF]

You are yet again being thoroughly offensive, this time in openly calling me a liar.

I must be confused, please help me out again Vilified.

You said that you informed the common room as to the circumstances of your departure:

6. I did, by the way, inform the Common Room at dinner one evening as to the circumstances of my departure.

You were asked:

Did you inform your next school as to the circumstances of your departure from Christ's Hospital?

You replied:

Of course not!

You were asked:

What did you say was your reason for leaving Christ's Hospital?

You replied:

I think I mentioned the stress of living in a boarding house in close 24/7 proximity to the boys, the desire for
more privacy, the wish to teach at a higher level, and of course the appeal of the outdoors, the proximity of the
Welsh mountains... all of which was true; and would have been supported by Newsome. And all of which came to
pass, as I rebuilt my life.

So you lied by omission in your own words - unless you are lying in your messages here.

You freely and publicly write that you lied by omission in your posts. What am I missing?

Links for people interested in context, tolerance, sympathy, etc.:

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=165#p146031

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=165#p146033

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=165#p146034