It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 442 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by richardb » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:01 pm

If a victim is so severely damaged by the abuse that they cannot work, why shouldn't they be compensated for loss of earnings?

The damage very often scars for life.

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wurzel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:06 pm

richardb wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:54 pm
I would like the school: (i) to accept responsibility for what occurred such as moving people on, giving glowing references, etc; and (ii) to compensate victims properly and in accordance with settled principles of law.
Giving references is a very very gray area that is why nowadays most corporations will solely provide dates of employment and job title, you will not even get a reason for leaving form most companies. Also bare in mind that the issue of innuendo stopping teachers finding work has not always been seen in the same modern way in legal circles - even the 2011 Education Act s13 placed restrictions on media reporting of sexual offences in schools because of worries about false accusations tainting teachers

to quote that act which was written over a decade AFTER these offences

Restrictions on reporting alleged offences by teachers
(1)This section applies where a person who is employed or engaged as a teacher at a school is the subject of an allegation falling within subsection (2).
(2)An allegation falls within this subsection if—
(a)it is an allegation that the person is or may be guilty of a relevant criminal offence, and
(b)it is made by or on behalf of a registered pupil at the school.
(3)No matter relating to the person is to be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify the person as the teacher who is the subject of the allegation.

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wurzel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:07 pm

richardb wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:01 pm
If a victim is so severely damaged by the abuse that they cannot work, why shouldn't they be compensated for loss of earnings?

The damage very often scars for life.
i didnt say they shouldnt i specifically wrote i agreed with you re loss of earnings

see

"as for loss of earning yes agree"

CodFlabAndMuck
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Real Name: J Eabnvu
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by CodFlabAndMuck » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:14 pm

marty wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:11 pm
CodFlabAndMuck wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:51 pm
Paedophiles are very manipulative.
Baker didnt need to mention it, everyone in the school knew and so did the general public.
I agree that paedophiles are manipulative but if that's the case, how come "everyone" knew? And if everyone knew why the need for a letter? Doesn't make sense to me.
I agree that a lot of it doesnt make sense paricularly in the light of what we now know.
However he was caught out by a very brave boy who decided to complain and the matter became public knowledge, although not the identity of the victim.
I suspect that Baker and the authorities swallowed his story and if it was backed up by the opinion of a medical professional, can you blame them?
I would expect a Headmaster to formally write to parents in such circumstances, particularly given it was being widely discussed informally.
Did Poulton write to parents after the sudden resignation of other teachers?

CodFlabAndMuck
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2018 12:55 pm
Real Name: J Eabnvu
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 55 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by CodFlabAndMuck » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:26 pm

richardb wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:01 pm
If a victim is so severely damaged by the abuse that they cannot work, why shouldn't they be compensated for loss of earnings?

The damage very often scars for life.
I think everyone on here would hope that victims will be adequately compensated in all areas
On going medical treatment, loss of earnings, home, pets, family, children, to name just a few areas of consideration
This has to be the priority over and above the longevity of the school
If as a result children are deprived of the education and opportunities that we had then so be it.
That will be the fault of poor stewardship, not anybody else

wagenman
3rd Former
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:46 pm
Location: here and now
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wagenman » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:45 pm

wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:07 pm
richardb wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:01 pm
If a victim is so severely damaged by the abuse that they cannot work, why shouldn't they be compensated for loss of earnings?

The damage very often scars for life.
i didnt say they shouldnt i specifically wrote i agreed with you re loss of earnings

see

"as for loss of earning yes agree"
You are much more patient in responding to this repeated 'Straw-Man' line of questioning than I would be.

I get the argument about references, if Webb resigned before being fired the school would almost certainly give a generic reference for fear of litigation, same goes for Karim and possibly Husband (assuming he wasn't fired for rape). Who knows what excuses and denials they came out with (although Baker's letter above provides some insight). Even if the intention was to fire them immediately for gross misconduct they would have been notified of a disciplinary hearing and thereby given a chance to jump before they were pushed. It's HR guidance / best practice, rather than negligence, that presents an opportunity to resign first and protect your reference.

Conversely, if the school leadership knew that criminality had either taken place, or likely took place, they should have informed the police. If it can be proved that they either did or should have known and done so, then I suspect they will get taken to the cleaners.

User avatar
marty
Grecian
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:29 pm
Real Name: Marty E
Location: Buckinghamshire
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by marty » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:47 pm

CodFlabAndMuck wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:14 pm
marty wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:11 pm
CodFlabAndMuck wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:51 pm
Paedophiles are very manipulative.
Baker didnt need to mention it, everyone in the school knew and so did the general public.
I agree that paedophiles are manipulative but if that's the case, how come "everyone" knew? And if everyone knew why the need for a letter? Doesn't make sense to me.
I would expect a Headmaster to formally write to parents in such circumstances, particularly given it was being widely discussed informally.
Did Poulton write to parents after the sudden resignation of other teachers?
So would I but, to answer your question, Poulton did no such thing when Husband left just a matter of weeks before my history GSCE exam. So, we have evidence of one headmaster writing a letter containing erroneous information (I think we’ll have to agree to disagree as to whether Baker was lying or had been manipulated) & one headmaster who simply said nothing at all. In each instance the truth has not been forthcoming, hence the myriad of questions & a lack of confidence in those that once were in charge of the school.
These users thanked the author marty for the post (total 3):
CodFlabAndMuck (Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:03 pm) • Scazza (Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:21 pm) • yossarian (Tue Sep 04, 2018 7:37 am)
Rating: 17.65%
My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We’ll see about that.

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wurzel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:58 pm

And as Baker is dead there is zero chance of getting the whole truth as to the difference between the circumstances

I am also waiting for some kind of comment form our legal poster as to why he had not noticed that the law on anonymity changed in 1992 in a way particularly pertinent to this case - as i said i do not know the timeline properly so do not know which side and how close to that date the comment about "name ending up in the papers" was made and also how the offences were categorised at the time and how that might have bearing on that comment (he did comment on another thread that certain charges were due to the definitions at the time whilst they would be categorised more seriously now), and also how that later 2011 Education Act xs13 gives an idea as to how accusations against teachers were considered "different" to other people for the reasons of ending a career.

Whilst I agree abhorrent crimes were committed I don't feel the school any more culpable than many many many other uk institutions of the same era, the BBC fund has i believe paid out to support charities, I can see as i said an argument that actually the entire of the independent schools sector should do something similar as i believe CH not materially better or worse than others of the era

User avatar
graham
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:07 pm
Real Name: Graham Slater
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by graham » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:14 pm

wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:58 pm

Whilst I agree abhorrent crimes were committed I don't feel the school any more culpable than many many many other uk institutions of the same era,
I can see where you're coming from, Wurzel, but I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that CH is more culpable that other schools. From my perspective, the issue is CH-centric and is that Poulton, as head, and perhaps members of his senior management team, allowed known known abusers of children to remain in post and in day to day contact with pupils. Regardless of where the law stood at the time, I think we can all agree that this is morally reprehensible. And while I recognize that the legal landscape prevents any of the three from even so much as suggesting that they may, with hindsight, have done things differently, I think its perfectly valid for us to now question their actions.
These users thanked the author graham for the post:
Scazza (Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:21 pm)
Rating: 5.88%
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wurzel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:20 pm

graham wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:14 pm
wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:58 pm

Whilst I agree abhorrent crimes were committed I don't feel the school any more culpable than many many many other uk institutions of the same era,
I can see where you're coming from, Wurzel, but I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that CH is more culpable that other schools. From my perspective, the issue is CH-centric and is that Poulton, as head, and perhaps members of his senior management team, allowed known known abusers of children to remain in post and in day to day contact with pupils. Regardless of where the law stood at the time, I think we can all agree that this is morally reprehensible. And while I recognize that the legal landscape prevents any of the three from even so much as suggesting that they may, with hindsight, have done things differently, I think its perfectly valid for us to now question their actions.
Why though if by your own admittance they could never say they would do anything different - why have an entire thread demanding people comment on something you dont believe they can comment on ?

As I said i think a better solution would be to campaign that the headmasters conference schools jointly set up a fund to provide ongoing support to victims including those yet to come forward from all UK public schools - to be administered by an independent body (something like childline) who could be seen to be very separate from the institutions funding it. several hundred identical legal fights at the different schools will benefit one body far more than the victims - lawyers
These users thanked the author wurzel for the post:
Pe.A (Tue May 21, 2019 7:04 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 442 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by richardb » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:32 pm

wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:58 pm
And as Baker is dead there is zero chance of getting the whole truth as to the difference between the circumstances

I am also waiting for some kind of comment form our legal poster as to why he had not noticed that the law on anonymity changed in 1992 in a way particularly pertinent to this case - as i said i do not know the timeline properly so do not know which side and how close to that date the comment about "name ending up in the papers" was made and also how the offences were categorised at the time and how that might have bearing on that comment (he did comment on another thread that certain charges were due to the definitions at the time whilst they would be categorised more seriously now), and also how that later 2011 Education Act xs13 gives an idea as to how accusations against teachers were considered "different" to other people for the reasons of ending a career.

Whilst I agree abhorrent crimes were committed I don't feel the school any more culpable than many many many other uk institutions of the same era, the BBC fund has i believe paid out to support charities, I can see as i said an argument that actually the entire of the independent schools sector should do something similar as i believe CH not materially better or worse than others of the era
Wurzel, my apologies for not having the time to chase through all the amendments to the 1976 Act. It is of marginal significance as I said (and you haven't taken issue with).

User avatar
graham
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:07 pm
Real Name: Graham Slater
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by graham » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:36 pm

wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:20 pm
graham wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:14 pm
wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:58 pm

Whilst I agree abhorrent crimes were committed I don't feel the school any more culpable than many many many other uk institutions of the same era,
I can see where you're coming from, Wurzel, but I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that CH is more culpable that other schools. From my perspective, the issue is CH-centric and is that Poulton, as head, and perhaps members of his senior management team, allowed known known abusers of children to remain in post and in day to day contact with pupils. Regardless of where the law stood at the time, I think we can all agree that this is morally reprehensible. And while I recognize that the legal landscape prevents any of the three from even so much as suggesting that they may, with hindsight, have done things differently, I think its perfectly valid for us to now question their actions.
Why though if by your own admittance they could never say they would do anything different - why have an entire thread demanding people comment on something you dont believe they can comment on ?
I didn't set up the thread, so I can't comment on the motives of the person who did. But I think the topic has provided folks with a place to vent their anger and frustrations with those who held direct legal responsibility for our care and protection at the time this was all happening. Whether those people can comment or not is largely immaterial to me (others may disagree). Personally, I find the fact that we can discuss our disappointment, anger, frustrations etc at them to be good enough for now (though I would hope the school takes a position after the police investigation is complete).

I know in an earlier post you said that you would not recommend any of the three comment on this site because it would be hostile to them. I agree with your view, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We need a place to collectively work through this. Anger is a natural response to these events.
As I said i think a better solution would be to campaign that the headmasters conference schools jointly set up a fund to provide ongoing support to victims including those yet to come forward from all UK public schools - to be administered by an independent body (something like childline) who could be seen to be very separate from the institutions funding it. several hundred identical legal fights at the different schools will benefit one body far more than the victims - lawyers
I agree this is one outcome that should happen. But I don't think it absolves those who facilitated the events of the past of their responsibilities, even if they are more moral than legal. The law may have different prior to the early 1990's but history tends not to judge individuals by the standards of their time.
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997

wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by wurzel » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:38 pm

REPLYING TO RichardB

it is not of marginal significance if the whole thrust of the 92 amendment was to provide anonymity for sexual abuse sufferers where the abuse did not go as far as what was classed as rape then - especially if the advice cairncross is said to have given was made before that amendment came into effect (or before she would likely have been aware of it) as it totally changes the likelihood as to whether the advice might have done to protect the school or as a genuine fear for the effect of press reporting on the victim

You are very good at picking up what you believe are nuances in others posts but very slow to recognise where you may have missed the implications of some historical difference from today in your own assumptions
These users thanked the author wurzel for the post:
Pe.A (Tue May 21, 2019 7:09 pm)
Rating: 5.88%

richardb
Forum Moderator
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:23 pm
Real Name: Richard Bloomfield
Location: Tyne and Wear
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 442 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by richardb » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:43 pm

wurzel wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:38 pm
REPLYING TO RichardB

it is not of marginal significance if the whole thrust of the 92 amendment was to provide anonymity for sexual abuse sufferers where the abuse did not go as far as what was classed as rape then - especially if the advice cairncross is said to have given was made before that amendment came into effect (or before she would likely have been aware of it) as it totally changes the likelihood as to whether the advice might have done to protect the school or as a genuine fear for the effect of press reporting on the victim

You are very good at picking up what you believe are nuances in others posts but very slow to recognise where you may have missed the implications of some historical difference from today in your own assumptions
All the victims would have had anonymity as children.

The 1976 Act is irrelevant.

User avatar
graham
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:07 pm
Real Name: Graham Slater
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: It's time for Sillett, Cairncross and Poulton to comment.

Post by graham » Fri Aug 17, 2018 4:47 pm

I don't think Wurzel is doing what you claim here, JR. If the incidents did take place pre-1992 then it is entirely possible that the topic of a lack of anonymity came up in discussions with the victims. Context really is important - the statements that Sillet made to a victim about being in the papers sound terrible in isolation but it's not too difficult to imagine them being said in a more compassionate way during a discussion about what would happen if the case was taken forward.

I don't believe this excuses the broader actions of allowing "kiddy fiddling teachers" to stay on at the school after the incidents were first reported to the SMT, but I think Wurzel has a point that some of the statements made to pupils may have been made out of concern rather than as a cover up.

Post Reply