Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

And so it goes on !!!!

Otter's post suggests that life at CH in the 90s was very much worse, in certain respects at least, than ca. 1960, which gives food for thought.

michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:15 am Otter's post suggests that life at CH in the 90s was very much worse, in certain respects at least, than ca. 1960, which gives food for thought.

Perhaps, Michael, it was. Yes, we had bullying but so far as I am aware we did not suffer from the unwelcome actions by adult staff against pupils. We also had stability - we knew the rules and in general they were enforced equaly across the board. OK so a few pupils tried to get close to junior female staff but that was the pupil's choice - not being forced on them by authority. Of course houses differed, sometimes markedly.

I remember only five occasions in nine years when I was one-on-one in a master's study (other than for the purpose of beatings!): in each case the meeting was kept as short as possible - under a minute in four cases so there could be no suggestion of impropriety. (The fifth was when I had to go home - despite rumours I was never expelled and I returned after about a week). I did have other one-on-one meetings with Kit but in each such case it was in a public venue

michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:15 am Otter's post suggests that life at CH in the 90s was very much worse, in certain respects at least, than ca. 1960, which gives food for thought.

It certainly does. I was there in the 1970s and, whilst it is now clear that a number of extremely unpleasant things were going on, on the whole I found it a reasonable sort of place to be and much of the teaching and extra-curricular activities available were first rate. To be honest, my biggest complaint from second form to Grecians was the absolutely appalling standard of the food! It's always a bit tragic when people say that 'schooldays are the best days of your life.' Clearly for most they are not, and if they are, how dull one's future life must be, but I don't recognise most masters standing by whilst boys were being bullied, either mentally or physically. I certainly can't think of any who would have admitted to believing it was 'character building'. Something clearly happened in the 80s and 90s; not sure what but I genuinely don't think it was that bad when I was there.

So I think we all have to agree that after the leadership of Clarence M.E. Seaman ended, the rot set in.

We all eagerly await the upcoming trial in March and hopefully strong sentencing if appropriate, and then a line can be drawn afterwards with a FULL statement from the school.

J.R. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:31 pm So I think we all have to agree that after the leadership of Clarence M.E. Seaman ended, the rot set in.

Phew, ‘What would Seaman have done?’ post. Back on form, JR.

loringa wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:42 pm

michael scuffil wrote: ↑Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:15 am Otter's post suggests that life at CH in the 90s was very much worse, in certain respects at least, than ca. 1960, which gives food for thought.

It certainly does. I was there in the 1970s and, whilst it is now clear that a number of extremely unpleasant things were going on, on the whole I found it a reasonable sort of place to be and much of the teaching and extra-curricular activities available were first rate. To be honest, my biggest complaint from second form to Grecians was the absolutely appalling standard of the food! It's always a bit tragic when people say that 'schooldays are the best days of your life.' Clearly for most they are not, and if they are, how dull one's future life must be, but I don't recognise most masters standing by whilst boys were being bullied, either mentally or physically. I certainly can't think of any who would have admitted to believing it was 'character building'. Something clearly happened in the 80s and 90s; not sure what but I genuinely don't think it was that bad when I was there.

I agree about the food but at least we had enough energy for those terrible cross country runs in the mud and rain.

Bullying: when I was put in the sicker with injuries Kit was there as soon as they had stabilised me. I don't know what, if anything happened to the agressors who were three years ahead of me. Certainly I was treated with kid gloves for a while

At lower levels I disagree about the standard of teaching. We were never given the whys and wherefors so when one has to learn about a lock being raped my immediate reaction was why! (It didn't help that I even then had a disability). At later levels the teaching was exemplary; where else are pupils not bothering with A level but regularly getting 100% passes at S level? I think Crosland and Potts' predecessor were getting 100% passes in physics and chemistry a levels respectively.
My big moan was AND IS about how languages are taught. For my work I had one-on-one lessons in :Portuguese and after about 45 hours I went into business meetings, going to the supermarket, chatting with locals in the bar in Brasil and held my own - I ended up working in several Sao Paulo lawyers' offices.
My granddaughter got an A in French and immediately afterwards a week of evenings with French kids - she reckoned she learned more French in that week than in the years up to GCSE. We are honourary uncle and aunt to a couple of French kids - at eight they speak fluent English from their lessons in school (we speak French to their parents so it is not us!). British schools seem to be behind

On the subject of food, George Orwell (dreadful Prep school and Eton) said that in his day the poorest working class family served better (if plain) but more edible food than the English public schools. Of course Orwell came from the South so it's possible his home fare was better than that of the depressed North that he visited in The Road To Wigan Pier.

Otter wrote,

The staff member supervising prep even found it funny, and said it wasn't serious, he was just "having a psych", as we used to always call it. Another time in roll call, people started chanting a taunt at him and the housemaster laughed and made no attempt to stop it.

This implies a most unenlightened attitude to mental illness in the late 90s, which surprises me greatly. I had already posted something on the Forum on 24 Sep, 2015 in the thread CH and Psychiatry, pointing out a very informed and practical attitude to a boy with similar problems in the early 50s. It's odd that such understanding deteriorated so much in the following 45 odd years. Such problems were exceedingly rare in the 50s and I suggested why.

Avon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:29 pm

J.R. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:31 pm So I think we all have to agree that after the leadership of Clarence M.E. Seaman ended, the rot set in.

Phew, ‘What would Seaman have done?’ post. Back on form, JR.

What he did do before retiring. Losing dead wood and decaying branches. I'm now so glad I went when I did before the onset of namby-pamby HM's who allowed chaos to rein with pervie staff employed.

J.R. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:36 am

Avon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:29 pm

J.R. wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:31 pm So I think we all have to agree that after the leadership of Clarence M.E. Seaman ended, the rot set in.

Phew, ‘What would Seaman have done?’ post. Back on form, JR.

What he did do before retiring. Losing dead wood and decaying branches. I'm now so glad I went when I did before the onset of namby-pamby HM's who allowed chaos to rein with pervie staff employed.

Both Webb & Burr were there when I started, so would have been appointed by Seaman (Newsom started at the same time I did).

AndrewH wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:43 pm

J.R. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:36 am

Avon wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:29 pm
Phew, ‘What would Seaman have done?’ post. Back on form, JR.

What he did do before retiring. Losing dead wood and decaying branches. I'm now so glad I went when I did before the onset of namby-pamby HM's who allowed chaos to rein with pervie staff employed.

Both Webb & Burr were there when I started, so would have been appointed by Seaman (Newsom started at the same time I did).

I may have said this before: Seaman was a very good headmaster, but he stayed too long. Okay, only 15 years (half the time of his predecessor), but all his good work was done by 1964, and I think he was beginning to decline in the late 60s.
Newsome's appointment was, by modern standards, eccentric. He had no schoolteaching experience, but as an academic he had written a very influential book on the Victorian public schools. And as he had previously been Senior Tutor of a Cambridge college, he must have looked like a good catch. I knew him quite well at Cambridge, but I have little idea what he was like as headmaster. Certainly he was not 'hands off' (like Flecker).

Bullying and self-harm were rife in the 90s, my boarding house was full of girls who carved words into their arms using a compass. Squit bashing was common, putting a dustbin over a second former’s head and hitting it with hockey sticks or making them sit under a running shower in their pyjamas was considered acceptable and the staff certainly knew what was going on. The 90s were not a good time for mental health care at CH.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:47 pm Bullying and self-harm were rife in the 90s, my boarding house was full of girls who carved words into their arms using a compass. Squit bashing was common, putting a dustbin over a second former’s head and hitting it with hockey sticks or making them sit under a running shower in their pyjamas was considered acceptable and the staff certainly knew what was going on. The 90s were not a good time for mental health care at CH.

J. A bit too late now perhaps but it seems to me that your house staff should have been banned from any involvement with youngsters (ie under 18) for their inaction. IMHO their failure to protect pupils was another form of abuse.
I don't know but there are those in the Forum who would know whether legal action could/should be taken even if only as a deterrent to others and to clearly define what is and what is NOT acceptable.

sejintenej wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:30 pmJ. A bit too late now perhaps but it seems to me that your house staff should have been banned from any involvement with youngsters (ie under 18) for their inaction. IMHO their failure to protect pupils was another form of abuse

I was there around the same time as J. The school wouldn't have even had a skeleton staff if they banned everyone for inaction over bullying. With a few notable exceptions who did say something, you were more likely to be told off for having your socks down than, for example, putting a younger kid in a headlock and steering them into a doorframe. As for self-harm, I can't remember anyone attempting to touch that and have no idea how they would have dealt with it.