Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

I was at Ch 1990-95. It was common knowledge that husband and dobbie did what they did. Does anybody know if these three have been investigated? I vividly recall being told not to tell anybody outside the school that husband had left with pupil.

Pupil199095 wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 12:58 am I was at Ch 1990-95. It was common knowledge that husband and dobbie did what they did. Does anybody know if these three have been investigated? I vividly recall being told not to tell anybody outside the school that husband had left with pupil.

They really should be looked into, clearly breached duty of care to protect the "good name of Christ's Hospital", their hypocrisy was terrible; pupils were expelled with no second chances for being caught in a sexual position with their partners, all the time they were hiding the criminal sexual proclivities of teachers, (and some that weren't illegal at the time) and offering resignations for those that couldn't be hushed up, which would allow them to keep teaching elsewhere.
Poulton seemed obsessed with the CH name and Cairncross appeared to be incredibly cold, I always thought that pupils happiness came a long way after appearance and academic and sporting results, but I suppose that's most schools remit.
I don't think Husband left with a pupil, there was another teacher (music or something to do with the band) who left with a pupil, (yes another one), but she was 16 and wanted to be with him so no charges were laid.

There should be an independent enquiry. The current HM has chosen to distance the current CH brand from the old one. But according to the Charge I’m carrying the ‘good name of Christ’s Hospital’. For my era there isn’t one.

This whole scandal has to be unpicked; the failures in governance and supervision acknowledged. Then we can move on.

The trouble is that no enquiry could force people to attend or witnesses to testify. There would be no incentive for those involved to be truthful and it’s hard to see how effective it could be.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I get angry every time I think of Poulton’s smug face at the trials last year, still wearing a CH tie.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 8:12 am The trouble is that no enquiry could force people to attend or witnesses to testify. There would be no incentive for those involved to be truthful and it’s hard to see how effective it could be.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I get angry every time I think of Poulton’s smug face at the trials last year, still wearing a CH tie.

if there's a properly constituted Inquiry and former staff refuse to engage, then there's nothing to stop CH making that, and condemnation of it, public. It would be repetitional damage if nothing else. More can be done in respect of people refusing to participate who are still teaching.

LHA wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 8:37 am

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 8:12 am The trouble is that no enquiry could force people to attend or witnesses to testify. There would be no incentive for those involved to be truthful and it’s hard to see how effective it could be.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I get angry every time I think of Poulton’s smug face at the trials last year, still wearing a CH tie.

if there's a property constituted Inquiry and former staff refuse to engage, then there's nothing to stop CH making that, and condemnation of it, public. It would be repetitional damage if nothing else. More can be done in respect of people doing so who are still teaching.

Yes, that’s true. I wonder how many, if any, are still teaching?

Not sure. Cairncross retired last year. So did Neil Flemming. Odd that. Not sure where other chaplains fit in all this i.e. the one who gave evidence in one of last year's trials. Bob Sillett does 'good works' for charities etc which might be hampered if his name was publicised for not co-operating with an inquiry into his own conduct in relation to child abuse allegations being raised with him. Poulton used to be involved with setting up schools in Thailand etc, not sure if he still is.

The other chaplain is back in Australia and I believe still at a school there. I was wondering whether she gave evidence this time around as there was a comment about a video link witness making logistics complicated.

Edited with a correction- I believe the Chaplain May have retired after ill health.

I believe Sillett also has an MBE, which now seems totally inappropriate and untenable given what we have learned

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 9:09 am Edited with a correction- I believe the Chaplain May have retired after ill health.

Sheila Banyard, who used to compete with Elizabeth Cairncross in the warmth-and-empathy-in-pastoral-care stakes, is still ‘something’ in the Church Of England franchise.

Avon wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 11:57 am

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 9:09 am Edited with a correction- I believe the Chaplain May have retired after ill health.

Sheila Banyard, who used to compete with Elizabeth Cairncross in the warmth-and-empathy-in-pastoral-care stakes, is still ‘something’ in the Church Of England franchise.

Looks like she may have retired last September


http://www.stmaryselmbridge.org/news--e ... la-banyard

AMP wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 12:12 pm

Avon wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 11:57 am

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 9:09 am Edited with a correction- I believe the Chaplain May have retired after ill health.

Sheila Banyard, who used to compete with Elizabeth Cairncross in the warmth-and-empathy-in-pastoral-care stakes, is still ‘something’ in the Church Of England franchise.

Looks like she may have retired last September


http://www.stmaryselmbridge.org/news--e ... la-banyard

Kate Powell, the one who did nothing at all when told by a victim they were being abused, is back in Australia, she recently retired from a private school in Toowoomba. I remember she had the demeanor of a corrupt prison officer from tv show Prisoner Cell Block H, and now we know just as much empathy too.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 8:12 am The trouble is that no enquiry could force people to attend or witnesses to testify. There would be no incentive for those involved to be truthful and it’s hard to see how effective it could be.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I get angry every time I think of Poulton’s smug face at the trials last year, still wearing a CH tie.

Oh yes it can. A statutory inquiry can require the attendance of witnesses and obtain witness summonses to compel them to attend.

Unfortunately, there is no criminal offence that they can be charged with.

richardb wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 1:44 pm

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 8:12 am The trouble is that no enquiry could force people to attend or witnesses to testify. There would be no incentive for those involved to be truthful and it’s hard to see how effective it could be.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I get angry every time I think of Poulton’s smug face at the trials last year, still wearing a CH tie.

Oh yes it can. A statutory inquiry can require the attendance of witnesses and obtain witness summonses to compel them to attend.

Unfortunately, there is no criminal offence that they can be charged with.

That’s interesting. What defines a statutory enquiry and who gives them their mandate and legal powers?

It's a government directed inquiry. The recent inquiry into Ball is one such inquiry.