All this is incredibly sad

[Avon]

Points very well made, Avon.

and above that you place a governance structure of doughties from the Corporation of London massively ignorant of their responsibilities, what do you expect?

Yeah, throwing in a bizarre cobweb-encrusted senile feudal relic of an organisation on top of everything really doesn't help, does it?

Are we back on Freemasonry now?

[ZeroDeConduite]

Freemasonry? Perhaps, but much more as well. This is a link to a potted history of the way The City of London regards itself as 'above the law' (of rest of the land):
https://youtu.be/np_ylvc8Zj8?t=579
Specifically the section 9.40-13.12. The rest concerns wider matters...

[CodFlabAndMuck]

Like rockfreak, I too am amazed by the fact that bullying, which was declining in his time, and declining still faster in mine (we overlapped but he was four years my senior) seems to have got worse in the 1970s and 1980s.

For heaven's sake.

Bullying isn't like smallpox. It doesn't decline as medical science and progressivity increases. Bullying is a function of leadership; poor leadership lets bullying in. Bullying isn't being outmoded as practices change, it just changes itself.

• Sillett: intellectually a factotum but with a violent and aggressive (borderline sadistic with his 'tangents') style of leadership.
  Poulton: bookish but weak as a Nun's pi**. In awe of the Foundation such that he made some dire and inhumane decisions not to report abuse to the authorities.
  Crud. A peasant of the highest (or lowest) order. Morally weak, an appalling choice of housemaster and unable to treat all his charges as equal.
  Cairncross. Largely token as deputy head as far as I observed - but in a position of authority that she failed to meet.

I could go on...

CH in the 80s (that I experienced) was a petri dish - if you create a deliberately spartan environment (by the standards of the time) and fill it with children of such mixed backgrounds overseen by such a broad spectrum of adults, from those happy to rape their charges to those who acutely cared for them, if you add a veneer of leadership that's so myopic and uncaring that the evil can flourish, and above that you place a governance structure of doughties from the Corporation of London massively ignorant of their responsibilities, what do you expect?

If the moral leadership and discipline is absent then of course you could have the same sort of bullying in houses today

CH is a community not a school, and if developing youngsters are not given clear guidance on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then you will have a Lord of the Flies environment within a boarding house

In the 80s housemasters had too much autonomy

There was no oversight of how they ran houses

In my 7 years, the Headmaster only visited once, and that was Baker.

I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place

[michael scuffil]

Bullying isn't like smallpox. It doesn't decline as medical science and progressivity increases.

Ever since Emile Durkheim pointed out in 1897 that the incidence of something as profoundly personal as suicide varied from country to country (often without any apparent reason), the reasons for trends in social phenomena have been investigated but the investigators still often come up with a blank. No one really knows why Hungary had (and has) a higher suicide rate nearly twice that of its neighbour Slovakia, for example, and vastly higher than Greece.

The microcosms of CH society (the houses) interested me sociologically while I was there, and still continue to intrigue me. Obviously the attitude and actions of the housemaster had something to do with it, but that doesn't explain everything. Why was homoeroticism so very prominent in Lamb B, for example?

[wurzel]

Up until the block system came into being I would say that as the population of the senior houses were at least partly self selected you would end up with people with similar interests banding together and creating a "house culture" which would take a major event (like the block system) to disrupt. I know from my son's experiences elsewhere that it is not exclusive to CH, the sporty lads all congregated in the same house, the cool dossers in another etc etc. Even at my Uni I was told "Hall X is the best one if you want to have fun, Hall Y is for squares" it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy

[sejintenej]

For heaven's sake.

Bullying isn't like smallpox. It doesn't decline as medical science and progressivity increases. Bullying is a function of leadership; poor leadership lets bullying in. Bullying isn't being outmoded as practices change, it just changes itself.

CH in the 80s (that I experienced) was a petri dish - if you create a deliberately spartan environment (by the standards of the time) and fill it with children of such mixed backgrounds overseen by such a broad spectrum of adults, from those happy to rape their charges to those who acutely cared for them, if you add a veneer of leadership that's so myopic and uncaring that the evil can flourish, and above that you place a governance structure of doughties from the Corporation of London massively ignorant of their responsibilities, what do you expect?

If the moral leadership and discipline is absent then of course you could have the same sort of bullying in houses today
CH is a community not a school, and if developing youngsters are not given clear guidance on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then you will have a Lord of the Flies environment within a boarding house
In the 80s housemasters had too much autonomy
There was no oversight of how they ran houses
In my 7 years, the Headmaster only visited once, and that was Baker.
I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place

Somehow I have mixed up the authorships.
The corporation of the City of London; can they really be responsible for day to day running of the school? For historical reasons they attempt to help supply the school with funds, teachers etc. but no more. Moral guidance per se is not their function but certainly they (with a small minority vote) could attempt to influencce matters.

As for your input, you are correct but I suggest that this was during a time of change from when senior pupils ran the houses and housemasters were in the background. Things have changed but enough?

As for your comment (which I think is correct) I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place if you are going to write something like this I would have expected you to make some specific suggestions (or admit that you cannot see how this would be avheived). Criticism is seldom useful unless accompanied by suggestions for improvement. (Sorry -that is a pet hate).
From a practical point of view I cannot see how you would create effective checks and balances - question every pupil once a week? - I doubt they will/can tell the complete truth. As an adult, eight times every day of physiotherapy I am asked how I feel on a scale from one to ten. It is extremely difficult even though it is slanted at one element of my body. Ask a kid about their satisfaction level or degree of happiness ........!

[CodFlabAndMuck]

For heaven's sake.

Bullying isn't like smallpox. It doesn't decline as medical science and progressivity increases. Bullying is a function of leadership; poor leadership lets bullying in. Bullying isn't being outmoded as practices change, it just changes itself.

CH in the 80s (that I experienced) was a petri dish - if you create a deliberately spartan environment (by the standards of the time) and fill it with children of such mixed backgrounds overseen by such a broad spectrum of adults, from those happy to rape their charges to those who acutely cared for them, if you add a veneer of leadership that's so myopic and uncaring that the evil can flourish, and above that you place a governance structure of doughties from the Corporation of London massively ignorant of their responsibilities, what do you expect?

If the moral leadership and discipline is absent then of course you could have the same sort of bullying in houses today
CH is a community not a school, and if developing youngsters are not given clear guidance on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then you will have a Lord of the Flies environment within a boarding house
In the 80s housemasters had too much autonomy
There was no oversight of how they ran houses
In my 7 years, the Headmaster only visited once, and that was Baker.
I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place

Somehow I have mixed up the authorships.
The corporation of the City of London; can they really be responsible for day to day running of the school? For historical reasons they attempt to help supply the school with funds, teachers etc. but no more. Moral guidance per se is not their function but certainly they (with a small minority vote) could attempt to influencce matters.

As for your input, you are correct but I suggest that this was during a time of change from when senior pupils ran the houses and housemasters were in the background. Things have changed but enough?

As for your comment (which I think is correct) I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place if you are going to write something like this I would have expected you to make some specific suggestions (or admit that you cannot see how this would be avheived). Criticism is seldom useful unless accompanied by suggestions for improvement. (Sorry -that is a pet hate).
From a practical point of view I cannot see how you would create effective checks and balances - question every pupil once a week? - I doubt they will/can tell the complete truth. As an adult, eight times every day of physiotherapy I am asked how I feel on a scale from one to ten. It is extremely difficult even though it is slanted at one element of my body. Ask a kid about their satisfaction level or degree of happiness ........!

As I alluded to, I would suggest the Headmaster spends more time in the houses. Only then can he begin to know what is going on.

Take prep, do dorm duty etc

I would have the SMT or another senior group of teachers, randomly visit houses, and see for themselves what the house is like.

Over time I think pupils would get used to this and be less self aware during such visits

I would facilitate an anonomous online feedback mechanism for pupils to report any concerns and issues, such as bullying and other anti social behaviour

I would have annual appraisals of housemasters conducted by the SMT

None of this is particularly imaginative or groundbreaking, and is common practice in many institutions

In response to your point about anti social behaviour was prevalent because the Monitors ran the houses and the housemasters took a back seat: Fine, but that's not an excuse. The housemaster is ultimately responsible for how a house is run. If he choses to take a back seat then that is an abdication of responsibility. Just like turning a blind eye when pupils make openly snide comments to another pupil or even once, I witnessed a house tutor on the receiving end!

[Leeautemps]

But the Queen's club isn't - I think Rockfreak is making a good point about the level of vulnerability of the student body at CH compared with other schools or institutions. It makes you wonder about Dobbie at Shrewsbury, which I understand to be an expensive private school. Would he have been as successful in his predations at a place like that? I suspect we will find out in the near future ...

Queen's Club is not a school. You have to be over 18 to be a member. So in either case neither are particularly comparable: Karim's victims were female minors - not a victim group to be found at either Eton or Queen's Club.

Argh, you're correct of course. I misremembered one of the news reports, in which the director said he would entrust his daughters to Karim, as saying that he had actually been teaching kids there.

But I think Rockfreak's point is still a good one, albeit not specific to Karim's case.

Karim had been teaching children there. At the sentencing hearing, a couple of the character witnesses described Karim teaching children within context of Queens and/or Hurlingham.

[scrub]

As I alluded to, I would suggest the Headmaster spends more time in the houses.

Sorry, I was just thinking about what Dickie P's reaction to that suggestion would have been.
I don't think he would have gone for it, and on the remote chance he did, someone would have given the house in question a fair warning of any 'surprise' visit and the consequences for the head walking away with a less than spotless impression of the place.

Only then can he begin to know what is going on.

I had a bunch of snarky comments to make about this, but I don't think it'd be defamatory of me to say that he would have needed a fair bit more than that to get even a surface feel for the actual culture of the place.

I agree with you 100% by the way. In every workplace I've been in that was "good/enjoyable/healthy" the SMT (or whatever they were called) actually knew most, if not all, the workers and would have the occasional drink (and stood their rounds) at the end of the week/month. They weren't your bestest buds but they could at least pick you out of a line up and knew enough to hold a conversation that didn't start with "and what do you do again?".
It never ceases to amaze me that some people in senior positions still have no understanding that culture comes from the top.

[harryh]

For heaven's sake.

Bullying isn't like smallpox. It doesn't decline as medical science and progressivity increases. Bullying is a function of leadership; poor leadership lets bullying in. Bullying isn't being outmoded as practices change, it just changes itself.

CH in the 80s (that I experienced) was a petri dish - if you create a deliberately spartan environment (by the standards of the time) and fill it with children of such mixed backgrounds overseen by such a broad spectrum of adults, from those happy to rape their charges to those who acutely cared for them, if you add a veneer of leadership that's so myopic and uncaring that the evil can flourish, and above that you place a governance structure of doughties from the Corporation of London massively ignorant of their responsibilities, what do you expect?

If the moral leadership and discipline is absent then of course you could have the same sort of bullying in houses today
CH is a community not a school, and if developing youngsters are not given clear guidance on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, then you will have a Lord of the Flies environment within a boarding house
In the 80s housemasters had too much autonomy
There was no oversight of how they ran houses
In my 7 years, the Headmaster only visited once, and that was Baker.
I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place

Somehow I have mixed up the authorships.
The corporation of the City of London; can they really be responsible for day to day running of the school? For historical reasons they attempt to help supply the school with funds, teachers etc. but no more. Moral guidance per se is not their function but certainly they (with a small minority vote) could attempt to influencce matters.

As for your input, you are correct but I suggest that this was during a time of change from when senior pupils ran the houses and housemasters were in the background. Things have changed but enough?

As for your comment (which I think is correct) I do believe there need to be more checks and balances in place if you are going to write something like this I would have expected you to make some specific suggestions (or admit that you cannot see how this would be avheived). Criticism is seldom useful unless accompanied by suggestions for improvement. (Sorry -that is a pet hate).
From a practical point of view I cannot see how you would create effective checks and balances - question every pupil once a week? - I doubt they will/can tell the complete truth. As an adult, eight times every day of physiotherapy I am asked how I feel on a scale from one to ten. It is extremely difficult even though it is slanted at one element of my body. Ask a kid about their satisfaction level or degree of happiness ........!

As I alluded to, I would suggest the Headmaster spends more time in the houses. Only then can he begin to know what is going on.

Take prep, do dorm duty etc

I would have the SMT or another senior group of teachers, randomly visit houses, and see for themselves what the house is like.

Over time I think pupils would get used to this and be less self aware during such visits

I would facilitate an anonomous online feedback mechanism for pupils to report any concerns and issues, such as bullying and other anti social behaviour

I would have annual appraisals of housemasters conducted by the SMT

None of this is particularly imaginative or groundbreaking, and is common practice in many institutions

In response to your point about anti social behaviour was prevalent because the Monitors ran the houses and the housemasters took a back seat: Fine, but that's not an excuse. The housemaster is ultimately responsible for how a house is run. If he choses to take a back seat then that is an abdication of responsibility. Just like turning a blind eye when pupils make openly snide comments to another pupil or even once, I witnessed a house tutor on the receiving end!

The houses are visited on a random basis by an SLT member on virtually every night of the week.
Houseparents undergo appraisal on am annual basis.
Grandmother ...eggs?

[graham]

The houses are visited on a random basis by an SLT member on virtually every night of the week.

It's reassuring to know that this happens now, but it certainly was not happening as recently as the early-mid 1990's. Poulton visited Maine B once while I was there, the only time I ever spoke to him, and that was a thoroughly pre-planned visit. Cairncross visited ThA once, but that was in the middle of the night due to a riot.

It may be that the school needs to do a better job of articulating to former pupils the measures that are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the events that are now emerging. Based on what you describe, it seems that they may be taking steps in the right direction but how are we to know?

[LHA]

The houses are visited on a random basis by an SLT member on virtually every night of the week.

It's reassuring to know that this happens now, but it certainly was not happening as recently as the early-mid 1990's. Poulton visited Maine B once while I was there, the only time I ever spoke to him, and that was a thoroughly pre-planned visit. Cairncross visited ThA once, but that was in the middle of the night due to a riot.

It may be that the school needs to do a better job of articulating to former pupils the measures that are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the events that are now emerging. Based on what you describe, it seems that they may be taking steps in the right direction but how are we to know?

I never recall either of those people visiting, even for a pre-planned visit.

What was the riot? Must have been bad to get her down in the middle of the night, or for anyone to call her, given their hands off attitude.

[marty]

I feel an O’Boyle story is imminent...

[marty]

The houses are visited on a random basis by an SLT member on virtually every night of the week.

It's reassuring to know that this happens now, but it certainly was not happening as recently as the early-mid 1990's. Poulton visited Maine B once while I was there, the only time I ever spoke to him, and that was a thoroughly pre-planned visit. Cairncross visited ThA once, but that was in the middle of the night due to a riot.

I have the same recollection. One visit in 7 years. It felt like a member of a royal family was coming - there was a lot of cleaning, preening & general sprucing up of the house. I think they even turned the heating on.

[Elvie]

The Thorne A Riot, legendary stuff. Presume Cairncross only visited because she lived across the road and it disturbed her?

Thorne A went on to great things after that, the Thorne A Heritage anyone?