Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

There's a definite advantage to batting second. D1 has no right to give evidence if D2 shafts him in the witness box.

But D1 will know if D2 us going to do that as D2 has to "put his case" and make it clear what evidence he accepts and what he disputes.

Sorry to disrupt the legal discussion thread with this response--if it would make more sense to move this discussion to a separate thread I am willing to do so. This argument between me and sejintenej is only somewhat relevant in so far as the general lax (or worse, possibly collusionary) attitude of the school administration in the 1990s clearly had something to do with abusers being able to get away with it. I hope my own experiences are of interest to and comparable with others though.

Needless to say, my experiences, while psychologically formational for myself, were not particularly bad compared to what is being revealed to have been going on at the time thanks to this trial. And as others have said, the exact same experiences might not have seemed so bad to another child--but for my 2nd/3rd form, when I was 11 and 12, I was more vulnerable than the average, being younger than average and very physically small until about 15, having just arrived from a divorce and another country with a funny accent, being an introverted "spod" with glasses and a bad haircut and oblivious to social cues and specifically English customs. Certainly much less deprived than others. But CH could have easily done better for me and many others with little effort.

sejintenej wrote: Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:33 pm Yog. You go too far though that might be a product of your parents and the area where you lived.- would you deny others the chance you had.

Yes, I certainly would NOT send my daughter to CH. Also I'm not exactly sure what chances I got there--in any case I didn't take advantage of most of them. In terms of academic achievement, I was already very advanced in some areas thanks to my own interests in science. I believe my own motivation would have allowed me to succeed in maths and science subjects even if I went to a bad comprehensive. Some good teachers who I still respect did help me improve my skills in subjects I wasn't good at, such as English, but I could have easily passed a GCSE in chemistry in my 3rd form or LE as I had already taught myself most of the content. However, not enough individual attention was ever paid to academically gifted students (or really any at all in my experience).

sejintenej wrote:
I don't know your background and I suspect that we have never met. Did you live in a nice three bedroomed house with a garden full of flowers and a school where everyone was nice to each other? I know a lot of OB s who did live in those conditions but there were also those from mining or port cities where the streets were narrow tracks between leaky two up and tw downs with no electricity and schools where life was often short or otherwise painful
You could have gone to the local grammar school because your dad knew someone and, at 18 .become a director in the family company or you could have come out of school with a reputation for violence and no qualifications except to comllect rubbish behind the council lorry. Both those options applied to boys at CH.

I was at CH from 1989-96. I get the sense from your language that you were there at least 20 years earler. While poverty and deprivation certainly still exist in England, I don't think life was quite so unbearable and Victorian for the average working class family in the 1990s that CH was a big improvement in living conditions. Therefore CH was not a huge improvement in living conditions for anyone but the very most underprivileged. Certainly CH beats a broken home. But that's not particularly relevant--with only a little less complacency and stuffy traditionalism on the part of the staff the experience at CH could have been greatly improved for all students there, just by getting rid of "fagging" (as it isn't called) and various other stupid customs.

Personally, I came from a culturally middle class but economically working class family. My parents had just broken up and we had just moved from France to my grandmother's bungalow (3 bedrooms, yes, and she was a good gardener) in leafy Surrey because my mother could no longer afford to support us on her own. My father certainly didn't "know someone", he was an unemployed HIV positive alcoholic at the time (I only learned this later). To his credit, I suppose, he objected to my and my sister going to CH, but he was far away and not really in my life at the time. I would have easily passed any entrance exams to a grammar school-no need for an old boys network for me. A day grammar school would have certainly been a better experience. A rough comprehensive might have been worse, but only for 8 hours a day, so not worse overall.

I would also note, crucially to the topic of this thread, that the entire "you should be grateful" line of reasoning was extensively abused by both paedophiles and the administration to suppress claims of abuse as you'll see from quotes from the earlier trials (I might add them here later when I find them).

sejintenej wrote:
You hated being at CH (join me in that) but you must remember that CH was the direct result of a sermon preached by a Christian minister aimed to help thos children with no roof over their heads, no food apart from what they could scrounge from other people waste and absolutely no future. At least you got an education and a dry bed. At least you got the chance if you went into the 5th Form with the chance of getting the 5 O levels demanded for any worthwhile job at that time. You might even have got A levels or better and been able to go to University. When I left CH about 50% of school leavers didn't have a single O level. And all that stemmed from a Christian speaker!

CH was the direct result of the English state needing more skilled navigators and military and technical experts than could be recruited from the aristocracy at the time in its constant wars of aggression and expansion. An act of self-serving benevolence at best. We aren't living in 1553 anymore though--every child in Britain can get an education for free. Every child has the chance to become a drone pilot or Porton Down nerve gas designer now. Maybe not as good an education as at CH, but this benefited me less than it would others as I was already very motivated to pursue certain subjects in my own time. If anything, CH diminished my enthusiasm for science. But this is partly a problem with the education system in general. On the other hand CH destroyed my self-confidence and (inadvertently) encouraged escapism.

sejintenej wrote:
You moan about being a swab and write:And of all the traditions, the most mindless and brutish was "fagging" (not that it was called that at CH as far as I know). Allowing older boys (mainly) to order and push around younger ones in some bizarre travesty of the medieval knight-and-page relation, with the hints of romanticised Greek pederasty, is horrifically barbaric and inegalitarian for a modern society to allow. What a total load of cobblers. Instead of getting up early to set tables or cleaning the house or serving food you got a relatively easy life. You had an extra pair of shoes to clean, perhaps remove dirt from a coat, clear up a few cups and saucers and got paid for that!!!

I don't know what a "swab" is, that term wasn't used when I was at CH. I have no objection whatsoever to an organised chores system ("scavenging" it was called in my time)... we did in fact clean the house ourselves. I don't remember anyone getting paid for anything, would you clarify what you mean? Actual child labour has been illegal for quite some time.

I am talking about the tradition of older boys being able to kick you out of the comfy chair, tell you to go and get them stuff from the tuck shop, clean up their messes and so forth. I don't see what useful purpose this practice has ever served, even in medieval times. Are we talking about the same thing at all? In any case my objection to it is principally that it served as an avenue or entryway for further, meaner bullying, as well as encouraging and normalizing very unhealthy attitudes of servitude and petty tyranny. One housemaster (McDonald in Mid B) made a half-hearted attempt to stop it, but we on our LE were already so fooled by the system that we objected to it on the irrational basis that we had done our time so it should be our turn to rule.

IF you got bullied then you deserved it - classic bullies were quickly spotted and dealt with.

I sincerely hope this is a typo and not what you meant to say. If it is what you meant to say I think "**** off and die" is about the most restrained and polite response I can manage to you saying "you deserved it". I mean, really, what kind of bestial and fascistic mentality do you need to have to think that anyone "deserved" to be bullied, you cowardly idiot? If you didn't mean that, I apologise in advance.

Bullies were not "quickly spotted and dealt with" at the time I was there. Perhaps if the housemaster was unusually competent, but this was not my experience. And "IF", indeed... why on earth would you question this? It's hardly a farfetched fantasy to claim that I was bullied. The worst effects of the bullying were the social ostracisation, group mockery and "outcasting" that followed--and the dramatic drop in self-confidence that resulted. I distinctly remember being a lot less shy and a lot more sure of myself and my own abilites, social, physical and mental, when I was 9 in CM1 at the école St. Jacques, compared to being a "squit" at CH.

In a day school there would be an escape and in the majority of cases some kind of parental comfort and support. CH was a cold and distant place that offered no comfort and especially no physical affection to a lonely 11 year old. And I have to emphasize that my experience wasn't the worst. I do believe that many people are severely impaired by rose-tinted spectacles and have chosen to remember their time at CH more optimistically.

Having read some of the Bullying threads in the forum, it seems that a lot of people are able to shed the rose tinted perspective and look at things more critically. The way the institutionalised bullying system worked at CH meant that only a few boys in each year-house group of about 15 would have the worst time--a scapegoating system of some sort. I'm sure an anthropologist would have a field day. (I'm interested to know how it worked in girls' houses.)

I mentioned the work of a Christian preacher and its effect on you. Whether it be Islam, bhuddism, Hinduism, Christianity (in most of its sects) they teach a code of behaviour which generally boils down to "treat others as you would wish them to treat you". Is this what you object to? Do you want the right to go down the street using a machete on the men and raping the girls? If so be gone.

That's a very primitive notion, to assume that only religion can stop people from behaving like brutes. Religion certainly doesn't stop people from thinking like brutes, as you have demonstrated. Dostoevsky was severely misguided and blinkered in his statement that "If God does not exist, everything is permitted," since all things are permitted by a God who gives free will, and the amount of barbarism committed by unbelievers doesn't seem particularly different from the amount committed by the faithful. If God exists, good deeds are impossible, because they are always committed under the coercion of eternal punishment or reward, not for their own intrinsic worth. But that is a philosophical digression. In my view religion ends up becoming a tool of social control and exploitation whatever its original intent, and I don't think the current trials are going to change my mind about that, somehow. If you actually think atheists are intent on rape and mass murder you are rather stupider than many backwards Christian conservatives I have met in America, and you didn't benefit very much from an education at CH.

I am not commenting on the trials; I had no experience of such behaviour by a teacher (one older boy tried once in the nine years and was repulsed verbally) but I did have a GP try it on me under difficult circumstances. It occurred at CH. he was not connected with the school but he was from my home community. Perhaps I was lucky - those were my sole experiences

After my rather unavoidably hostile response I am still interested in your experience at CH. You even agreed you hated your time there, so I don't understand why you need to dismiss my experiences there so much. I have heard other mentions of GPs at CH acting like this in the 90s too, that I am sure other readers can support. Was it during a supposedly necessary rugby-related "inspection"?

Edited to add: One of my memories from my second form was not eating enough. The food was disgusting and I was very picky, and older boys would take the lion's share of anything good. This resulted in some very strange evenings in the dormitories before lights out where I thought I was in a dream: everything was soft-edged and unreal-feeling and I felt like I was floating around. This happened for at least a few months before I learned (on my own) to take care of myself better. Another symptom of my stressful time there was "trichotillomania" - hair pulling. I would pull out my eyelashes and hairs from the top of my head until there was a noticeable bald patch, when our well-meaning but ineffectual child psychologist housemaster finally took (useless) action. Trichotillomania is a common disorder in 10-13 year olds experiencing stress, anxiety and depression.

I foresee that many people will say that other schools were worse and other people had a worse time. This is completely irrelevant as everyone could have easily had a better time at CH if the culture there was not so inert, stuffy, inept and uncaring to the point of actual malevolence at times.

Bakunin, I've learnt to ignore the argumentative and illogical ravings of Sejintenej (whom I remember from my time at CH in the 1950s). He uses any excuse to indulge in screeds of obscure and unevidenced rambling and sometimes abuse. It's a nuisance when you find trolling on a private site like this. I think the answer is to keep your points succinct and ignore his replies.

I signed up because of this thread. I found my way here after trying to find out more about an article about Karim's trial that had been sent to me by a friend who had recognised the name of my old school. Where google leads, I follow.

Bakunin, we were in the same year apparently. My memory of my time at CH is hazy (I emigrated a few months after leaving school, rarely looked back, and have passed a lot of water since then), but some of your experiences resonate with me. While not as bad, I really didn't enjoy my time there either for broadly similar reasons.

Likewise, I find myself quite angry about the recent court cases, legitimately so I feel after reading the statements from the former leadership troika during Karim's trial (mostly Dickie P, though Liz made a bold play for the 'most callous' award there too). Although I remember hearing about the reason for Husband's leaving, the rest was news to me. Dobbie's accusations caught me by surprise a little, I always had him down as more a Father Ted kind of priest, a boozer attracted to an easy life rather than anything more sinister, but maybe that's wishful thinking and/or rose tinted memories.

I have followed this whole sorry sequence for much the same reasons as you. I can't pretend that my time at the school was happy all the time, but it gave me a start that I wouldn't have got otherwise.

I remember four of the five accused and could easily gave been a victim of Webb. I was one of the first pupils that Husband taught. I was at school at the same time as Karim but never spoke to him.

There is a great deal to be said which the ongoing proceedings prevent. Much of what has emerged has shocked me and the school's complicity in covering up has been dreadful.

Even the realisation that Husband has been a Town Clerk for years has gobsmacked me.

Newsome covered up for Burr but Poulton carries the greatest burden.

Some OB readers don’t have easy access to UK newspapers and other such media. So, for those not at CH in the days of those on trial, significant statements such as,

scrub wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:34 am ... after reading the statements from the former leadership troika during Karim's trial (mostly Dickie P, though Liz made a bold play for the 'most callous' award there too). Although I remember hearing about the reason for Husband's leaving, the rest was news to me. Dobbie's accusations caught me by surprise a little, I always had him down as more a Father Ted kind of priest, a boozer attracted to an easy life rather than anything more sinister, but maybe that's wishful thinking and/or rose tinted memories.

are not fully understood. It would be most useful to have website addresses added to such items. Thanks.

Although the spat between bakunin and sejintenej is OT, I would just say this: I was a contemporary (more or less) of sejintenej, and think he may exaggerate somewhat about home conditions (though I had running hot water and central heating at CH, for example, but not at home). However, life in the 1950s was materially and psychologically immeasurably harder. In my time, at least a quarter of the boys were war orphans. Half the staff and many fathers had seen active service (e.g. seen their comrades get their heads blown off). There were abusers then too, of course. They mostly got their kicks from corporal punishment, but that was probably true of every boys' school in the country, it was perfectly legal, and was seen by few for what it was.

The present criminal trial involves quite different temptations. Personally, I cannot even begin to imagine the atmosphere at a co-educational boarding school, and therefore won't comment on them.

If Husband and Dobbie are found guilty, shouldn't Poulton and Cairncross be charged with covering up/failing to report crimes?

It is debatable whether they have perverted the course of Justice but there is no offence of covering up or failing to report.

I wondered about that (I'm a teacher and a line manager myself, now.) This advice is from a law firm's website - it deals specifically with fraud, as it happens, but seems to apply to other criminal offences too:

Turning a blind eye

If the government is able to prove that, as a superior in your company, you knew that fraud was being committed and did nothing, then you may be criminally culpable for the the actions of the employee who actually committed the crime. When you turn a blind eye toward potential fraud or other criminal activity occurring within your company, this is known as willful blindness, and it can absolutely subject managers and executives to criminal liability.

Meanwhile witness number 22 continues to give evidence, which is Dobbie.

DELETED on behalf of user

DELETED on behalf of user

Hi Janey and welcome to the Forum.

There are one or two things regarding the accused which have become somewhat obscured during the trial. You will have noticed by now there are about three of us 'posters' following the case very very closely.

Genereal concensus of opinins is, IF 'Guilty' verdicts are returned by the jury, and I say IF in the interests of fairness, then the press will have a field day digging out ALL the dirt.

Janey Jam-Jar wrote: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:12 pm Does anyone know why the press have not referred to Dobbie as the Chaplain, just as ‘teacher’ or ‘housemaster’? One of the complainants reported her abuse by JAH to ‘the Chaplain’ but it was never taken any further. Why haven’t they made the link?

Good to see you back CJ!

Hope all is well with you and your family. The children must be teenagers or nearly so by now.

The legal eagles on here advise not talking too much about specifics whilst the trials are in progress. That said I'll be surprised if the link isn't (or hasn't already been) made. It may simply be a journalistic oversight.

Karim's case seemed to attract rather more press attention during the actual trial than these two or Burr and Webb earlier.

No idea why.