Roger Martin - trial

[loringa]

That link is indeed an estimated 5,000 abused pupils. David was giving an estimate to understand how many pupils could have been abused. Thank you for providing the text.

'Abused' and 'could have been abused' is not the same thing at all. There are 66 million people in the UK. All of them 'could have been abused' but most of them won't have been. David estimates that there would have been an estimated 5000 pupils at Christ's Hospital who 'could have been abused'; are you saying that they all were?

[Chrissie Boy]

Those were the days spoken of with nostalgia by many now when a policeman would give an errant youngster 'a clip around the ear'. Such discipline was sanctioned in usage if not in law. It was not regarded then as disproportionate. I entered teaching direct from university, as you could then, with no training. Before ever stepping into my first classroom I was advised by a senior colleague to establish my authority in class by making some excuse to punish some pupil with a smack around the head. That was my training to teach! You established discipline and learnt the trade through trial and error, but with the invaluable guidance and oversight of your department head, etc. The smack around the head was not therefore, as TMW implies, a matter of me 'losing it', it was in very widespread use and here employed as a chosen method of correction which seemed to fit the need. Having said that, it was perhaps a state school thing and I cannot recall seeing it used by other staff at CH. The problem was that in this case the blow caught the unfortunate boy awkwardly and in an unintended way and so resulted in an actual injury, which could not be ignored.

This puts me in mind of two former CH masters.

When I was sixteen, a new history teacher arrived at the school and I was in one of his classes. He devoted a significant part of his first-ever lesson with us to outlining all those offences for which he would unhesitatingly punish us and what the punishments would consist of (for first offence, second offence etc.). He then set us homework, telling us how we would be punished if we didn't hand it in on time. We came away from that lesson convinced that the guy was second cousin to Josef Stalin and the year ahead looked very grim indeed; we had the distinct feeling that even coughing in class would earn us double detentions. He was evidently a person with whom one would be unwise to take any liberties at all. In the event, he turned out to be a very pleasant teacher and a good one too, in addition to which he never punished any of us as I recall. But he obviously fully intended to introduce an air of menace during his first lesson and to put the fear of god into us and it worked a treat, in perpetuity. As pleasant as he subsequently seemed, we would never have dreamed of testing the limits of his tolerance, for fear that the sky would fall on our heads. First impressions really do count and at the other extreme there was a teacher at the school who was so easy-going that he became an object of ridicule at whom boys would flick peas etc. during meals in Dining Hall with complete impunity. And then of course there was P G Matthews, whom no master would've wished to become. Personally I wouldn't (at that time) have blamed any master for cuffing a boy around the head, as long as there were reasonable grounds for it, though at the same time I was extremely glad that school monitors were no longer allowed to inflict corporal punishment as they had been in former days, because immaturity and the right to inflict violence just don't go together. Barnes Wallis long remembered with bitterness the fotches and owls inflicted on him by school monitors F W Stewart and Newton Flew.

Around the same time, CH took on a master who had previously got himself into trouble for hitting a boy whilst teaching at a state school, which suggests that Newsome was to an extent prepared to understand that these things do happen (if not quite so prepared to accept their happening at his own school). After the new master had been teaching at the school for a year or two, a serially-disruptive pupil proved so exasperating to him that (according to the pupil's classmates) he took the pupil outside into the corridor, put him up against the wall, said "You think you're really funny, don't you?" and delivered him a hard punch. The pupil never again transgressed in class and none of the other boys thought to report the matter to the school authorities, because the boy had a history of being troublesome. In other words, it worked. Today, it'd probably result in a teacher being banned for life from teaching/working with children, but back then it appears to have seemed entirely reasonable to the master's own pupils, who if they'd chosen to could easily have got their master sacked on the spot, because presumably he'd have been on a warning never to hit any pupils at the school that had been kind enough to take him on after his earlier offence.

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.

[Foureyes]

I strongly suggest that this virtual-trial of Villified should end right now. He responded to the generalised assertion that all masters who left suddenly must, ipso facto, have been guilty of sexual abuse. He set out to prove that, while this may have been true in some cases, it was not always so, and had the moral and intellectual courage to describe openly what had happened to him. This has now turned into a witch-hunt against him, with demands for explanations of the hit, the reporting, the head master's reaction, the use of testimonials, etc, etc. This begins to look like a rerun of the Salem Witch trials with one accuser after another leaping onto the bandwagon.
I wonder whether those who are so self-righteously pursuing Villified would like some of their past deeds to be picked over in this way?
I am aware that Biblical quotations may not be to the taste of some these days but suggest that a quick revision of St Matthew, Chapter Seven verses 1 to 5, might give pause for thought.
David

[AMP]

Let Villified enjoy this forum in peace if he so chooses.

He has earnt his spurs.

[Vilified]

I strongly suggest that this virtual-trial of Villified should end right now. He responded to the generalised assertion that all masters who left suddenly must, ipso facto, have been guilty of sexual abuse. He set out to prove that, while this may have been true in some cases, it was not always so, and had the moral and intellectual courage to describe openly what had happened to him. This has now turned into a witch-hunt against him, with demands for explanations of the hit, the reporting, the head master's reaction, the use of testimonials, etc, etc. This begins to look like a rerun of the Salem Witch trials with one accuser after another leaping onto the bandwagon.
I wonder whether those who are so self-righteously pursuing Villified would like some of their past deeds to be picked over in this way?
I am aware that Biblical quotations may not be to the taste of some these days but suggest that a quick revision of St Matthew, Chapter Seven verses 1 to 5, might give pause for thought.
David

Many thanks to you Foureyes for your sympathetic and considerate post.

[TMF]

Here are a pair of ear perforation contextual examples, from India:

https://youtu.be/1D58WolILLk

https://youtu.be/ROZY8xJhjNY

But, in years gone by, I agree, examples of masters impulsively lashing out at boys were not uncommon - there is a thread on the topic here. E.g. someone had a tooth knocked out by Dickie Dawe - (Vilified's house rugby match nemesis).

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4140&p=126525#p126480

I commend everyone on the forum for their tolerant attitudes. Nobody means to be too curious - just as nobody really means to hurt a child in a moment of stress.

Vilified has provided a great deal of information concerning the way in which teachers 'transitioned' following an incident. In this case a physical (not sexual) assault. (And as Vilified says - the 'true reason' (the assault) may have been a pretext used by Newsome).

No doubt teaching is a terribly difficult and stressful profession - and all pupils deeply appreciate those teachers that strongly influenced them (as referenced on another thread here).

In the interest of sharing contextual information:

I was a pupil in state schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the UK - and did not see teachers striking children in outbursts. I did see corporal punishment - a ruler on the hand. So, in my experience Christ's Hospital was more violent than a state school.

I should also note that the question concerning lack of control at other career junctures has not been answered directly - it did, however, spawn many additional tolerant posters - which is interesting.

[Pe.A]

That link is indeed an estimated 5,000 abused pupils. David was giving an estimate to understand how many pupils could have been abused. Thank you for providing the text.

'Abused' and 'could have been abused' is not the same thing at all. There are 66 million people in the UK. All of them 'could have been abused' but most of them won't have been. David estimates that there would have been an estimated 5000 pupils at Christ's Hospital who 'could have been abused'; are you saying that they all were?

It reminds me of the excellent satirical program Brass Eye's - Nonce Sense.

The 'could have been abused' could be extrapolated to include Scout camps, trips to the seaside, playing on the swings in a park etc

[TMF]

Further information on physical abuse of pupils in some cultures:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 892128.cms

Though I am sure that there will be a tolerant sentiment of sympathy toward a stressed teacher whose control slipped.

On estimates - feel free to provide your own estimates - I have no doubt that many will be quite small. (But I assume that we would agree that abusing children is not a small thing.)

[wurzel]

Presumably the boy needed treatment for his perforated ear drum and so reported to the sicker.

Yes, but he chose to name the teacher. Probably because the incident described didn't involved the power dynamic of some of the incidents which peel were convicted of in quite the same way. I suspect to get to the Doctor he would have had to speak to other staff first. I wonder how many other staff (teaching and non teaching) were told things of a similar nature over the years, but didn't act.

Why would he need to see another member of staff (other than a nurse) first ? I remember breaking a wrist one Sunday on my 3rd form and just going straight to the sicker and seeing the nurse on duty (who misdiagnosed a sprain gave me a tubigrip and told me to come back and see Hoskyns on Monday morning), again in the deps after a shandy I crashed a bicycle on the newly gravelled back ash behind Peele and cycled back to the sicker to get the gravel removed and dressing applied (the nurse suggested i was already anaesthetised) - I was more scared of annoying Matron Haigh than anything a nurse at the sicker might have said about wasting their time, they seemed more approachable

[Vilified]

I commend everyone on the forum for their tolerant attitudes. Nobody means to be too curious - just as nobody really means to hurt a child in a moment of stress.

No doubt teaching is a terribly difficult and stressful profession - and all pupils deeply appreciate those teachers that strongly influenced them (as referenced on another thread here).

In the interest of sharing contextual information:

I was a pupil in state schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the UK - and did not see teachers striking children in outbursts.

I should also note that the question concerning lack of control at other career junctures has not been answered directly - it did, however, spawn many additional tolerant posters - which is interesting.

I am disappointed, TMF. that you persist in worrying away at this thing, and what you choose to interpret as a 'lack of control' and a violent 'outburst', even though I have said that the incident in question was neither. I say again, it was not a matter of me 'losing control' and striking this boy in a blind fury... not at all.

I was stressed by the occasion, yes; and I was annoyed by the boy, but not intensely. I needed a quick result, to call him to order there and then (not easily achievable by threat of some later sanction), so that in ten minutes time or so, when the LHA team turned up for the game, I'd have a full team to field, warmed up and ready. So the blow was, you could say, instinctive, most likely to get that result. The effect was infinitely worse than I had foreseen, and the fact that the boy's eardrum was perforated as a result was more a matter air pressure created when the flat of the hand inadvertently shut off the opening of his ear than an indication of particular force.

So... I repeat, this was not a matter of losing control!

The reason I did not answer your question about 'other career junctures' is that I didn't choose to, that I was beginning to resent your inquisition into areas that were not directly relevant to the case in hand, and because I do not choose to lay out my whole life and every detail of my career for public scrutiny. As several 'tolerant' and sympathetic posters have recognised, enough is enough.

But I will answer. There have been occasions in my later career when I have been provoked beyond endurance by difficult classes or particularly antagonistic pupils, and become very angry, to the extent of blitzing them with harsh punishments, and 'lost control' to the extent of grabbing a pupil forcefully by the lapels and giving vent verbally to my feelings about them. That's about it. But this occasion didn't begin to approach that level of anger. I hope that satisfies you, because that's it, as far as I'm concerned.

[J.R.]

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.

[TMF]

I am disappointed, TMF.

Thank you for your post, Vilified. Sorry that you are disappointed.

The eardrum perforation incident occurred then through non-intense annoyance, more accidental, or unfortunate than not. (Though there have been outbursts on other occasions). Context is everything, accepted.

But what then was the 'true reason' for your departure that you refer to here?

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=150#p146007

Forgive the curiosity - but it would be helpful to understand how you came to move on from Christ's Hospital. Was the 'true reason' simply that Christ's Hospital was overwhelming and/or the environment too difficult?

[Vilified]

I am disappointed, TMF.

Thank you for your post, Vilified. Sorry that you are disappointed.

The eardrum perforation incident occurred then through non-intense annoyance, more accidental, or unfortunate than not. (Though there have been outbursts on other occasions). Context is everything, accepted.

But what then was the 'true reason' for your departure that you refer to here?

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=5274&start=150#p146007

Forgive the curiosity - but it would be helpful to understand how you came to move on from Christ's Hospital. Was the 'true reason' simply that Christ's Hospital was overwhelming and/or the environment too difficult?

I have been remarkably tolerant of your probing impertinence for too long, I think. I am surprised that you persist in this course.

Of course I have been angered at times. For many pupils a main aim in life is to provoke teachers to anger, and it is hardly surprising that they sometimes succeed!

It is offensive that you choose to represent what I have stated, in complete honesty, as the reason I moved from CH as being some sort of falsehood. I have been plain enough. The trigger and true reason was the incident I have mentioned, which led to Newsome requiring me to resign. The fact that I was not coping no doubt encouraged him to seize that opportunity to give me a push.

Now kindly do not bother me further with what you call 'curiosity'. I have humoured you more than enough.

[Vilified]

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.

Your comment is unpleasant, completely unnecessary, and out of order.

I did not and do not solicit your approval. Whereas it is true that I may have been happier in another profession, there are a great many hundreds of my former students who would strongly disagree that teaching was not a career for me. Their approbation and their judgement of my worth is of infinitely greater value than yours could ever be.

[TMF]

https://www.jambonews.co.ke/a-secondary ... a-student/

This is an interesting thread - lots to be learned about the triggers and mechanics of departures - tolerance and minimization.