Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

In Prep A we had 'Bonfasts' which meant that everybody in the House was entitled to slap you on the back the same number of times as your house number,so if your house number was 15 everybody could slap you on the back 15 times.

I have known people who stopped running on the Itchingfield loop being beaten by Grecians on bikes,the Grecians were armed with bicycle pumps.

MHJ & BSG were beaters, BSG gave me a good one because I stood in for a sweeper who was absent, I should have gone upstairs to the dormitory and left the other cleaner to do it on his own. Strange in fact,but true in law!!

Pongo was a beater,I got a good one for sitting on the wire fence by the running track.

We had the D {Dirty} at Inspection, 3 D's and you got a 'Crack' with a house shoe. Van Alphen was good at finding nothing, and recording it in her red book from the science school. MHJ or BSG would do the dirty work. I do not remember RM getting involved though.

If they did anything like that these days they would prosecuted for assault.

Westondonkey wrote:If they did anything like that these days they would prosecuted for assault.

Or worse. Much worse.

HowardH wrote:Would seem from your punishments from two of the most admired of all schoolmasters in the history of our fine school that they were not the a**hole!

In my time (70s) Bob Sillett was famous for being nasty, his tangents were a great talking point, meaning people were wary of him. He was said to have a vicious streak and was not popular then. Maybe he mellowed with age.

It is easy to forget that the social mores of "acceptable punishment" for children were very different 30 plus years ago to those of today.

I therefore hesitate to condemn too strongly masters who were merely acting in accordance with the standards of the time.

To put it another way I'd wager that very few on here would drink and drive. That said how many of those old enough can state, honestly, that they never drunk and drove in the seventies?

Mid A 15 wrote:It is easy to forget that the social mores of "acceptable punishment" for children were very different 30 plus years ago to those of today.

I therefore hesitate to condemn too strongly masters who were merely acting in accordance with the standards of the time.

To put it another way I'd wager that very few on here would drink and drive. That said how many of those old enough can state, honestly, that they never drunk and drove in the seventies?

That's a fair point Andy. I'm a teacher and would never dream of hitting a pupil. However even in the 70s, some teachers would use a slipper while others would use a belt. Then there were those who for some reason chose to use a one metre ruler, dishing out ´tangents` on bare bottoms. Draw your own conclusions.

dsmg wrote:

Mid A 15 wrote:It is easy to forget that the social mores of "acceptable punishment" for children were very different 30 plus years ago to those of today.

I therefore hesitate to condemn too strongly masters who were merely acting in accordance with the standards of the time.

To put it another way I'd wager that very few on here would drink and drive. That said how many of those old enough can state, honestly, that they never drunk and drove in the seventies?

That's a fair point Andy. I'm a teacher and would never dream of hitting a pupil. However even in the 70s, some teachers would use a slipper while others would use a belt. Then there were those who for some reason chose to use a one metre ruler, dishing out ´tangents` on bare bottoms. Draw your own conclusions.

I would agree that "bare bottoms" are a no, no in any era.

That said I did not experience them either personally or anecdotally during my time.

Mid A 15 wrote:
I would agree that "bare bottoms" are a no, no in any era.

That said I did not experience them either personally or anecdotally during my time.

I agree. From (plenty of ) experience it was always pyjama bottoms. You couldn't hide any padding under those though I did hear of those who tried that stunt.

Another punishment which springs to mind was 'Matrons List'

Van Alphen used to go through the underpants every time they were changed, and if she found any scorch marks she would put the names of the miscreants on a list which was hung up on a big clipboard. This became known as 'Matrons boggy bag list' the miscreants had to report to her office and wash their skiddies by hand, and did they get it from people!

Westondonkey wrote:Another punishment which springs to mind was 'Matrons List'

Van Alphen used to go through the underpants every time they were changed, and if she found any scorch marks she would put the names of the miscreants on a list which was hung up on a big clipboard. This became known as 'Matrons boggy bag list' the miscreants had to report to her office and wash their skiddies by hand, and did they get it from people!

Never heard of that one.

I have to say it strikes me of a somewhat 'kinky' trait in a matron !!!!

Although beating (i.e. caning on the bottom) was generally accepted in the decades after the second world war, I agree that it probably reflected something else on the part of the beater, as indicated by Michael, who wrote;

michael scuffil wrote:

pierre wrote: I remember Pongo Littlefield in Barnes A as being a beater with the cane for very little reason.

He doubtless had his little reason, and so did hundreds of sadistically inclined teachers up and down the country. It was a form of sexual abuse that was spoken about even less openly than the other sort (and often, I can only imagine, not recognized as such), but behind the scenes it was one of the chief motivations for the campaign to abolish corporal punishment.

But one thing I learned from a friend in Barnes A was that after a beating, Pongo would always formally shake the hand of the victim (he was a very formal sort of fellow) and say something like, “I hope you understand this was necessary.” Did others who beat (and most masters did at that time) do something similar?

alterblau wrote:But one thing I learned from a friend in Barnes A was that after a beating, Pongo would always formally shake the hand of the victim (he was a very formal sort of fellow) and say something like, “I hope you understand this was necessary.” Did others who beat (and most masters did at that time) do something similar?

I heard that too. I find it both adds insult to injury, and compounds the perversion.

Certainly not N.T. (Bogey) Fryer, though R. Hewitt, (Coleridge B), was a much lighter beater and I got the impression he didn't really enjoy doing it.,

Thanks to JR I've just re-read this thread and see others write my own thoughts.

Kit Aitken would use the cane or house shoe - despite multiple hidings of my face in his sofa I never worked out how he decided on the instrument of torture. Certainly the posterior was covered and I could never suggest that Kit was "that way" inclined. I think it was Jones in Prep A who might have enjoyed it.
However, in his cups Kit did have occasion to beat his record (I think it was 36 strokes in fours on that occasion) and crowed to the monitors about it; even so he didn't disclose the victims or crimes though we already knew.
Following the experience it was a matter of "get out" put perhaps more politely but with burning kidneys, posterior and thighs I didn't really notice. Certainly no shaking of the hand - I didn't get that from Kit or the Semen even when I left though Kit did thank and congratulate me for services rendered. (No, I didn't misspell - just another moniker from his early days)

MidA 15 wrote:

It is easy to forget that the social mores of "acceptable punishment" for children were very different 30 plus years ago to those of today.
I therefore hesitate to condemn too strongly masters who were merely acting in accordance with the standards of the time.

I fully agree; a good hiding would halve the number of those who cause problems in our streets today. Bring back flogging.

As a victim of it in a previous school I would condemn outright the destruction of knuckles with a ruler. In chartwork one used a rolling ruler (like a thin pastry roller) - the use on the back of the hand was equally dangerous.

sejintenej wrote:Thanks to JR I've just re-read this thread and see others write my own thoughts.

Kit Aitken would use the cane or house shoe - despite multiple hidings of my face in his sofa I never worked out how he decided on the instrument of torture. Certainly the posterior was covered and I could never suggest that Kit was "that way" inclined. I think it was Jones in Prep A who might have enjoyed it.
However, in his cups Kit did have occasion to beat his record (I think it was 36 strokes in fours on that occasion) and crowed to the monitors about it; even so he didn't disclose the victims or crimes though we already knew.
Following the experience it was a matter of "get out" put perhaps more politely but with burning kidneys, posterior and thighs I didn't really notice. Certainly no shaking of the hand - I didn't get that from Kit or the Semen even when I left though Kit did thank and congratulate me for services rendered. (No, I didn't misspell - just another moniker from his early days)

MidA 15 wrote:

It is easy to forget that the social mores of "acceptable punishment" for children were very different 30 plus years ago to those of today.
I therefore hesitate to condemn too strongly masters who were merely acting in accordance with the standards of the time.

I fully agree; a good hiding would halve the number of those who cause problems in our streets today. Bring back flogging.

As a victim of it in a previous school I would condemn outright the destruction of knuckles with a ruler. In chartwork one used a rolling ruler (like a thin pastry roller) - the use on the back of the hand was equally dangerous.

Not sure about the bring back flogging bit.
I seem to have spent hours waiting outside various headmasters/housemasters studies in the sixties/seventies waitng for the cane or slipper. Did no use at all. I think that sometimes I got into trouble just to irritate them. One of the few teachers I had respect for was Bob Hailey. Used his brain instead of his brawn.
I remember getting canned by Newsome and thinking "I am bigger and stronger than you and you know it you can do me no harm and definetly no good" After that canning I thanked him and said that I will probably be back in here again soon. Not surprisingly he got in touch with my parents and suggested I should leave at the end of the term. Now that was good news.

time please wrote: Not sure about the bring back flogging bit.
I seem to have spent hours waiting outside various headmasters/housemasters studies in the sixties/seventies waitng for the cane or slipper. Did no use at all. I think that sometimes I got into trouble just to irritate them. One of the few teachers I had respect for was Bob Hailey. Used his brain instead of his brawn.
I remember getting canned by Newsome and thinking "I am bigger and stronger than you and you know it you can do me no harm and definetly no good" After that canning I thanked him and said that I will probably be back in here again soon. Not surprisingly he got in touch with my parents and suggested I should leave at the end of the term. Now that was good news.

If it were not for naming Newsome (who wasn't around at the time) I could name the miscreant in Peele who could write almost the same.

The important thing is whether, in later life, you were naughty enough to become a guest of HM. (don't answer that). If you were not such then perhaps the assaults on your posterior had some beneficial effect.

Edit; I see you were canned rather than caned; if you had stayed just a little bit longer .....................