Over on Facebook

[LHA]

The guy who ran the 1990 Old Blues facebook site has closed it down, as he 'wanted happy memories'. In doing this, he, to me, is actually complicit in preventing people who may have been complicit in abuse coming forward to the police.

That's maybe a bit strong but we certainly all need to have a sensible adult conversation and people closing doors to that are at best being naive, as is the 'talk to the hand' from the school.

This doesn't get resolved through more secrecy, denial, or ignorance. Any of those things still exist and abuse will find fertile ground again irrespective of the recent expensive safeguarding audits.

I dont do Facebook so grateful for the updates. Thanks to Julian for walking a very conscientious path here. Can't beat independence - people talked of mobilising CHOBA but CH killed the old forums just before Karims conviction. I imagine the new iteration is even more carefully owned and moderated by the school now.

HI - you are right - I should say "unwittingly" complicit.

What were the old forums? Never heard of them!

[Scazza]

I didn't use the CHOBA forums much but there was tons of info on thete going back years. They got mysteriously closed just before the Karim verdict. There is now a new version, starting from scratch.

I assume the school thought it was embarrassing, or maybe they were actively complicit in stifling debate and burying the past?

[Robinson]

I see a conversation that was discussing a former member of staff as recently as yesterday on this forum has since been removed. Unless I missed a reply I think it was an innoculous thread. Are there guidelines about what’s ok and what’s not ok to discuss on here? Or criteria for post removal? (Have seen the defamatory comments disclaimer in the “read first” thread). Don’t want to add to moderators’ workload by discussing off-limit topics.

[marty]

I see a conversation that was discussing a former member of staff as recently as yesterday on this forum has since been removed. Unless I missed a reply I think it was an innoculous thread. Are there guidelines about what’s ok and what’s not ok to discuss on here? Or criteria for post removal? (Have seen the defamatory comments disclaimer in the “read first” thread). Don’t want to add to moderators’ workload by discussing off-limit topics.

The problem is that a lot of us can recall various teachers that simply disappeared overnight with no explanation (Husband being one of them). Because the school's policy was to be silent as to the reasons (inocuous or otherwise) there is now speculation (understandably in my opinion considering recent revelations). This can obviously lead to dangerous territory. We simply don't know why some teachers departed. It may have been because they were ill, a relative had died, they didn't like their job anymore, they found a better job, they won the lottery blah blah blah. Or yes they COULD have been up to no good. But we don't know.

[richardb]

When Husband "disappeared" what happened to his wife and kids ?

I assume he was still with his wife.

[Andyjf]

I see a conversation that was discussing a former member of staff as recently as yesterday on this forum has since been removed. Unless I missed a reply I think it was an innoculous thread. Are there guidelines about what’s ok and what’s not ok to discuss on here? Or criteria for post removal? (Have seen the defamatory comments disclaimer in the “read first” thread). Don’t want to add to moderators’ workload by discussing off-limit topics.

Yes I noticed this as well.

[jtaylor]

I removed the post in question with prior agreement of the original poster - I asked if he was OK for it to be removed, explained why, and he agreed right to remove it, and thus I did.

The thing I'm keen to avoid is any perception (or actuality) of a witch-hunt - as mentioned above by others, there are multitude reasons for staff to leave at short notice, some of which could be traumatic and/or very personal - so I felt that it was only fair to the member of staff to remove the request for information, given the indirect and/or inadvertent implications that they could have left for similar reasons to the convicted/accused. I don't feel it would be fair to directly or indirectly imply the reasons for departure, as this could be seriously unfair and insensitive if the implication is unfounded, and this taints the name of innocent staff.

So I'm trying to tread a very careful line, with RichardB's and J.R.'s help as fellow moderators, in what we leave on here and what we don't.
To this end, there's VERY little we've removed - and we always communicate with the user who's posted to explain why.

We need to keep fair and reasonable, and remember the "innocent until proven guilty", without speculation. I want an environment where people can gain support from each other, feel supported by the forum membership as a whole, and are encouraged to report anything they feel should be reported to the police if they feel able to. Anything which looks like teachers are being listed and/or targeted will feel like there's a vendetta, rather than an atmosphere of positive support for the victims and the truth being revealed.

Personally, I still feel patience is needed - however frustrating that may be. I gather civil proceedings are underway, and we know the police are making further investigations - we need to let that all happen without undue speculation or influence.

Hope that's OK with everyone - we're doing our best!

J

[richardb]

I completely agree with J and his reasoning is spot on.

This forum is a source of comfort to some of the victims who appreciate the support that we collectively give.

It is often a fine line that we have to deal with and Julian does it brilliantly.

Over on Facebook it is acknowledged that this is the place to come for informed debate about what has gone on. Believe me, there is a long way to go with all this and we wouldn't want it to flounder on the rocks.

[Robinson]

Understood. Thank you.

[DazedandConfused]

When Husband "disappeared" what happened to his wife and kids ?

I assume he was still with his wife.

I don’t know about his wife but his children stayed on at the school.

[J.R.]

Nice to see Julian has updated his profile picture. We are ALL getting older these days !

Incidently, I have changed little since mine was taken several years ago. Just that the body is now a lot weaker.

[jtaylor]

I've aged 10 years in the last two months I think!

[J.R.]

Not being a Facebook member and probably going slightly off topic, (and I will start a new topic if requested), I have just spent an hour in my local reading the papers and talking to friends.

Three idiots decided it was good fun to use chemicals to attack a three year old in a shopping mall with an acidic chemical.

Another case of child abuse ? Of course it is. My idea of sentence for those when charged and convicted was too barbaric in the pubs view.

Judges tariff is probably a year or so at best.

Mine ? - I think Richard knows my view well after our recent trip to Hove.

Juidicial hanging would be far too good for them and far too quick.

[richardb]

Minimum starting point is 6 years JR.

[wagenman]

No, she stayed on until her Grecians, she was in my boarding house. Unless there was more than one!

I knew of one in 87'ish. Same one?