I find some of these posts way, way over the top.
First, lack of care. I was in Lamb B 1949-55. In about 1951-2 (I forget the exact year) my parents underwent a 'judicial separation'. It was extremely acrimonious. The original news of the split was passed on to me by my senior housemaster - TE Archbold - who not only described the situation between my parents but also explained the meaning of 'judicial separation', a term then totally unknown to me. He told me - and I recall his exact words - that at any time I wanted he would be available to act as an 'emotional waste paperbasket'. As the eldest child I was dragged into various aspects of the quarrel which as a 15/16-year old I found both bewildering and distressing. So, I took advantage of his offer on several occasions, where simply being able to talk things over was an immense help. Eventually, early one summer term, I went to see him and told him that in view of some particularly unhappy events in the recent holidays I found the prospect of seven weeks at home in the summer too daunting. He told me to leave it to him. Several weeks later, he informed me that he thought that I ought to spend two weeks with my mother (for her sake rather than mine) and that I was going to CCF camp, anyway. But, for the remainder, he had arranged for me to spend one week with a camp in the Fens run by a group called the Crusaders[*], which consisted mainly of sailing on the Broads and was a lot of fun. I then spent several weeks with an Old Blue family in Croydon, with a final week with my mother. This was all arranged by Archie, and it has just occurred to me that I have no idea who paid for it all, but someone must have. So, lack of care by C.H. - not in my case!
Secondly, trained as killers. Sejintenej repeatedly suggests that we were not only trained as killers but did so to refight WW1 battles. Yes, there was a CCF and membership was compulsory, but that was no different from virtually every other boarding school and many day schools in the country. Further, there had been a recent war (i.e., 1939-45) and in the late 40s and throughout the 50s the UK was involved in many current campaigns (Korea, Malaya, Aden, etc) and the country had National Service. Finally, there was a very real prospect of a sudden attack in Europe by the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact in which the UK would have been directly involved through membership of NATO. And there is very strong evidence that the Soviet Army would not have hesitated to cross the Channel. Thus, a degree of military preparation by the younger generation in such a troubled world was no bad thing.
Although a matter of detail, as to preparing specifically for WW1, I refute that, as well. I cannot recall any training in the CCF for trench warfare or other purely WW1 tactics. The .303 Lee-Enfield was still in use in the 1950s and the tactics taught in the CCF appertained to WW2 and later campaigns rather than WW1.
All that said, I would not dispute the lack of career counselling or advice on what to do after leaving the school. However, once again, in chatting to others of my generation who went to other schools this was by no means unique to C.H.
At virtually all times throughout its long history C.H. has been open to one form of criticism or another, but that is the case in every institution I can think of. The abuse of pupils now being addressed is certainly among the worst and should be resolutely examined and those responsible dealt with, but the vast amount of good that it has done should not be swept aside.
David
[*] In case anyone wants to ask, I have no idea who or what the 'Crusaders' were, or what was their link with C.H. I think, but am by no means certain, that they were some form of boys' club from East London. I should also add that there was never the slightest suggestion of inappropriate behaviour by any of the staff.,