Roger Martin - trial

[TMF]

i'd think it was standard practice then and I'd have thought even up until the present time, and not just in the teaching profession, for an employer who was happy to see someone go to gloss over a person's defects and seek out positive reasons for recommending them. Equally, I personally had two different headmasters who gave rather unflattering references for me when I applied for posts, and in those cases it was because they wanted to keep me!

So, logically, as a headmaster, you would hire teachers with poor references. (This might account for a great deal).

Did the question of lack of control crop up at any other times in your career beyond the rugby match incident?

[bonio]

For all reading this thread, please bear in mind that the details of the trial are being relayed to you by someone who was not present, but has had information relayed to him by a person who was.

I also have had information relayed to me by someone present at the trial, and it does not correlate with everything posted here. I would warn against taking anything you read as factual.

[richardb]

This is intended to refer to me.

There was someone present throughout the whole trial. No one else was.

Fortunately I can say that all that I have reported is both legally and factually accurate.

[jakew]

Did the question of lack of control crop up at any other times in your career beyond the rugby match incident?

"Vilified" isn't on trial here you know, I think this barrack-room lawyering has the potential to drive away a source of interesting historical perspective who voluntarily signed up for the forum to tell his story rather than, for instance, seeking an injunction which would almost certainly have prompted the mods to take drastic action.

I suspect there are many of us here who have done things in the past that we wish we hadn't, but very few prepared to discuss them in public.

I might even go so far to say that this particular group had an increased propensity for regrettable action - I seem to have spent half my working life being reminded by those grammar school educated oiks that boarding school graduates are a bunch of sociopaths.

[richardb]

The injunction application would have made interesting reading. Had it ever materialised.

[stage crew]

Did the question of lack of control crop up at any other times in your career beyond the rugby match incident?

"Vilified" isn't on trial here you know, I think this barrack-room lawyering has the potential to drive away a source of interesting historical perspective who voluntarily signed up for the forum to tell his story rather than, for instance, seeking an injunction which would almost certainly have prompted the mods to take drastic action.

I suspect there are many of us here who have done things in the past that we wish we hadn't, but very few prepared to discuss them in public.

This is a point well made.

[J.R.]

May I just point out to recent posters especially bonio, a new poster on this thread that fellow moderator, Richardb, is by profession a barrister.

I find it hard to swallow that anyone would imply that he, as a barrister, would risk his reputation as a lawyer by printing inaccuracies.

For the record, as far as the Martin trial is concerned, both of us were in constant touch with the court proceedings.

I think nearly everyone on here has offered their sympathy to the family, me included.

[Elvie]

For all reading this thread, please bear in mind that the details of the trial are being relayed to you by someone who was not present, but has had information relayed to him by a person who was.

I also have had information relayed to me by someone present at the trial, and it does not correlate with everything posted here. I would warn against taking anything you read as factual.

[AMP]

For all reading this thread, please bear in mind that the details of the trial are being relayed to you by someone who was not present, but has had information relayed to him by a person who was.

I also have had information relayed to me by someone present at the trial, and it does not correlate with everything posted here. I would warn against taking anything you read as factual.

What has been posted on here is a faithful reproduction of what was relayed from court from someone who was there from start to finish and is a person of integrity.

Noone else observed the whole trial.

Much has not been posted here which the Judge ruled prejudicial and therefore inadmissable even though it was not denied by Martin because it was on record.

My only correction would be that the complainant confided to one friend whilst at University, but I will be honest and say I am not going to go back through everything to check that.

I assume your source is a relative of Martin and I can understand your post but it is not correct to say that nothing should be read as factual.

[LHA]

6. I did, by the way, inform the Common Room at dinner one evening as to the circumstances of my departure. They were naturally very sympathetic; but also very appreciative of being told the true story, because, as they said, they were so rarely told. Newsome made up some spin about how I was leaving for North Wales because I was ‘passionate about the mountains.’ It was true that I loved the mountains, and became much more so, but it was not the true reason, of course.

Thanks for your post 'Vilified'. Very interesting and I imagine not easy to write.

When you say you informed the Common Room one evening as to the circumstances of your departure, do you mind sharing how long following your departure this was? Were you still able to attend Common Room dinners etc? There has been a theme of ex-teachers returning to CH.

Interested that the School Doctor was clear he needed to inform the Head (Hoksins?) Today, he would have had to do so, but no inform you first, but it sounds like you were made aware first in this instance. This does make clear that some people at CH in the 1970s (I think this is when you left?) were willing to take action when they became aware of information of concern. So many did not, as the recent trials have shown.....possible that was due to his medical registration but I suspect more about personality / values. Interesting that the boy concerned told a Doctor not a teacher?

Any reflection or detail you can offer on this would be so interesting. Thanks again.

[richardb]

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

[J.R.]

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

That was my thought Richard.

[LHA]

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.

[TMF]

Did the question of lack of control crop up at any other times in your career beyond the rugby match incident?

I might even go so far to say that this particular group had an increased propensity for regrettable action - I seem to have spent half my working life being reminded by those grammar school educated oiks that boarding school graduates are a bunch of sociopaths.

Vilified was grammar school educated.

1. I came to CH from teaching in a grammar school and as a grammar school boy myself.

(though I am sure that no offence was intended).

...and I am sure that Vilified can answer the question for himself.

[Vilified]

A few points here have been raised, which I am happy to try to answer.

1. I much appreciate jakew's timely reminder, supported by stage crew, that I am here as a voluntary contributor. I was beginning to wonder!

2. As to TMF's queries:
(a) References: Any sensible headmaster would not rely too heavily on a single reference. Usually at least two were requested, and served only to guide the construction of a short-list of candidates. Great stress was attached to the face-to-face interview. So, heads had the opportunity to ask exact and pertinent questions and to assess the candidates from their responses. Some heads would follow the initial reference with a phone call, finding the direct personal contact useful. Coincidentally, the head who employed me from CH knew Newsome well from university and (from what he said to me) did not have a very high opinion of his integrity, if I understood correctly; so he would not have been bowled over by the reference, however glowing. As in all cases, there was a tick list of desirable contributions to the school, in my case, mountain leadership and qualifications for running a rifle range, for example.
(b) 'Control'. In response to what TMW has said, implying an uncontrolled lashing out, and also richardb's information about the starting point for prison sentences in the modern day for such assaults as I committed then, both which cast a particularly unfavourable light on this sad incident, I say this: Context is Everything. 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 widely sanctioned in usage if not in law. It was not generally 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 any excuse to punish some pupil with a smack around the head. That was my training to teach! You established discipline first and then 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.

3. As to LHA's queries:
(a) I informed the Common Room soon (days, probably, rather than weeks) after I had agreed to resign, and long before I actually left. I never returned to CH after leaving, not because of any sanction against me but because I felt embarrassed at the circumstances of my departure and preferred to look forward rather than back. I was, in any case, now residing a long physical distance from the school. I was never again in touch with anyone from CH until joining this forum very recently.
(b) The name Hoskins does ring a bell, and I think that was the name of the school doctor at the time. I believe that he did speak to me before telling Newsome, out of courtesy, putting it that, unfortunate though it was, he had no alternative but to inform the headmaster, given the possible adverse influence this injury could have for the boy, in his choice of a future career etc, should it not heal... It was very gentlemanly and professional.
(c) I think that the boy was not in any way whining or complaining or trying to make trouble for me. He just accepted it as one of those things, and bore no grudge at all, or treated me in any way differently. He remained a delightful friendly young lad showing no resentment, which of course increased my sense of regret. He went to the doctor because it was a medical problem, not to complain. If he disclosed my name on request, I am sure that it would have been in all innocence in response to a direct question, not thinking of any possible repercussions for me. And his parents, once they had been informed (by the school?) were supportive of me rather than the reverse, making the excuse that their son was a bit of a handful, and no doubt it was well-deserved!