TIME FOR A FULL S.E.S. INQUIRY

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.

Should the St James Inquiry be extended to the whole SES?

Yes
27
82%
No
6
18%
 
Total votes: 33

a watcher

Postby a watcher » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:29 pm

THE S.E.S certainly should be 'examined'

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: apologists

Postby mgormez » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:01 pm

grobchok wrote:The problem with a 'cult' mentality (wherever you find it) is that it makes a division between the 'outside' and the 'inside'. I notice that when people feel that they are 'inside' then they stop thinking. That is a real problem if the people in charge are manipulative. If they are wise, then they will do something to make the person realise they are still a part of the human race, first and foremost.


A cult wouldn't be a cult without manipulation. Whether they are of political or religous nature. It is all about feeling superiour compared to outsiders, but then so do many mainline relgions feed that line to their flock.

I think it is unwise to spent much time on debating whether SES is a cult or not, point is they are dishonest and manipulative and there's no denying of that.
Mike Gormez

erikdr

Re: Questions and Answers

Postby erikdr » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:07 pm

Witness wrote:
Erik,

We have a major point of agreement here. You say that SES has difficulty admitting it is a cult, and the Dutch national Inquiry concluded SES has/had cult-like dimensions:


"And just like this too it is not easily admitting that it is a cult!"

"It simply concluded that it has/had cult-like dimensions"

The official line in the SES in the UK is that firmly denies it is a cult. That is a gross denial which is damaging lives.

It is exactly my point in calling for a broader Inquiry, to mirror the Dutch one, and whch there never has been in the UK, to establish these facts.

I would consider it a major, positive breakthrough if the views you hold were voiced by an Inquiry. So what is the danger of an Inquiry? Why would you oppose it if it is likely to conclude what you yourself feel?

Interested in your view, -Witness


Hi Witness :->

There is the big danger of singling out the SES for this behaviour. Which is unfair, because these same 'lies' are being given by the usual suspects I gave: Opus Dei, JW, evangeli-terrorists from Redneck Bible Belt County and so on. Just like Mike commented: the line of 'us good and others bad' and 'no no, we leave you total freedom of thought and are NOT in any way group-sheep let alone cultish' is seen in many many religions.

And as Hounam/Hogg attacked the SES not only on correct points like their PR but also on totally misguided points like 'most meditation is kind of brainwashing', I'd prefer to wait for a more fair evaluation of all smaller cult-like religious groups. In UK or elsewhere. And anyhow your whole way of reasoning has some undertone of agression and 'wanting to set things straight by finding THE truth', and that leaves out two important lessons around spirituality (not only inside Buddhism):
1) Wrong can never cease by hatred - only by love
2) an absolute truth can only be realised by our own spiritual development and is hence out of reach for most mortals as they are now (including me)...

With folded palms,

<Erik> - Amsterdam

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

who are??

Postby grobchok » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:08 pm

Well, Mike, I am SES and I am most indignant that you lump us all together in this way, past, present and future!

matt

INQUIRY AT ST JAMES A FARCE

Postby matt » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:16 pm

The only way for this enquiry not to be a farce is to hand the matter of to the relevent authority ( the police? the child abuse agency? ) and let them choose who to conduct the independent inqiury) That St James get to choose the independent chairman is so obviously farcical.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: who are??

Postby mgormez » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:24 pm

grobchok wrote:Well, Mike, I am SES and I am most indignant that you lump us all together in this way, past, present and future!


Lets take this back a step then Grobchok.

What do you take offence with? That many groups project the outside as lesser beings or that SES is dishonest and manipulative?

Note that when I say SES I mean the organization and its behavior.

My first statement is correct and I don't think you took offence with that one. On SES' dishonesty one has only to look at the SES schools to see how much they hide from the parents.
Mike Gormez

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

pouring oil on troubled flames

Postby grobchok » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:06 am

Mike

I presume from our past exchanges that you don't have any recent first hand experience of what you are talking about, just a general aversion to what you hear. Forgive me if I am wrong on that.

If so, why don't you play the moderator properly and let the people who have the experience say what they have found - for either side? I can't see what you can add to it. Or need to.

Abel Holzing
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: pouring oil on troubled flames

Postby Abel Holzing » Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:31 am

grobchok wrote:Mike
I presume from our past exchanges that you don't have any recent first hand experience of what you are talking about, just a general aversion to what you hear. Forgive me if I am wrong on that.
If so, why don't you play the moderator properly and let the people who have the experience say what they have found - for either side? I can't see what you can add to it. Or need to.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that a moderator shouldn't post personal views at all (although in the interest of clarity and objectivity this is probably advisable), but he certainly must have the ability to separate his role as ruthlessly objective moderator from that of emotionally involved contributor. And Mike is currently not able (or willing?) to draw that line clearly.

I have seen forums that were once highly respected reduced to a shadow of their former selves, as a consequence of them not being moderated impartially any longer (usually because of the moderator's emotional involvement and personal vested interest).

And what I have seen happening in recent days could be the thin end of a wedge, leading to the same here.

AH

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:26 pm

but is Mike a moderator as you understand it? He supplies these forum boards and he cleans up threads where the word cunt appears to be the prime objective of posting. Surely he is host and housekeeper rather than moderator?

TB
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:51 pm

TB

Postby TB » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:06 pm

Hi Grobchok,
TB,

If, for the sake of argument, the serious actionable abuses had all happened within the context of St Vedast/St James, would it not be better to concentrate your efforts there? It seems to me that by far the most important issue is what was done to children rather than consenting adults.

Judging by your response to my posting my meaning has not been read as I had intended. I am personally against an inquiry that includes the SES for two reasons. The first is the thought that it might blunt the progress toward dealing with St James/Vedast. Secondly despite their philosophical links they cannot be lumped together and dealt with in the same way. What happens in an adult driven organisation becomes something quite different when applied to children. The issues at the school should stand on their own merits. I have no doubt that many people would like to take a shot at the SES. I do not think you will get very far, and I think it is an over reaction.

My post was directed at the use of relative morality by the Witness and how people use it as a way to get action.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: pouring oil on troubled flames

Postby mgormez » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:15 pm

grobchok wrote:Mike

I presume from our past exchanges that you don't have any recent first hand experience of what you are talking about, just a general aversion to what you hear. Forgive me if I am wrong on that.

If so, why don't you play the moderator properly and let the people who have the experience say what they have found - for either side? I can't see what you can add to it. Or need to.


Grobchok, don't be patronizing, please. I am a kind guy but not a fool.

I don't need to have taken up the habbit of harddrugs to know that they are bad, and I can as much discuss reports about the negative impact on society as anyone else. Likewise I can see what the SES schools tell on their websites and and I read what current parents are told or rather not told.

I wish you would respond to my points that you took offence with rather than my role here as contributor/housekeeper.


Ps. I wasn't aware there was a need involved before I could say something. Can you forward me the memo I must have missed?
Mike Gormez

grobchok
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:06 pm

Postby grobchok » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:20 pm

Mike

I think this will be my last post (mournful trumpet solo).

My hope in posting here was not to defend abuses or an imperfect system, but to try to preserve some sense of proportion. But immoderate remarks from the moderator, presented as fact, make this impossible.

Of course you don't have to take hard drugs to know they're wrong. But if this was a site about hard drugs I would be interested to hear from ex-drug users and from those that had some expertise in treating the effects, helping addicts, etc. I would not be at all interested to hear someone pontificating, "Drugs are evil - don't do it kids!" And I don't think the ex-addicts would respect that very much either.

I think the main benefit of the site is has been to allow those people who have had experiences to say what happened to them. Their testimony is powerful and moving. Why add an empty commentary?

I am sorry if it seems patronizing to you to assert that experience is fundamentally more valid and useful than hearsay, but that is my view. The problem with email and the web is that without face to face contact and direct speech, people say things they would not normally say. In my experience in business problems that grow to huge proportions on email can most often be solved by a telephone call. We have seen this on the site with the deeply moving account of the meeting between one of the perpetrators of abuse all those years ago and two of the victims. There are human beings involved here. Not just counters in some virtual game which, with the best will in the world, this inevitably becomes for those that have no direct knowledge. When people meet there is some chance for progress. If this debate stays online, there is no chance to really help people. Only by moving it on into the real world can a difference be made.

Daffy
Moderator
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 3:32 am

Re: TB

Postby Daffy » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:02 pm

TB wrote:I am personally against an inquiry that includes the SES for two reasons. The first is the thought that it might blunt the progress toward dealing with St James/Vedast. Secondly despite their philosophical links they cannot be lumped together and dealt with in the same way. What happens in an adult driven organisation becomes something quite different when applied to children.

This is a difficult question but I agree with TB (hey, for the second time this week :) ).

I think any inquiry into St James and St Vedast would be meaningless if it pretended that there was no connection between the children's schools and the SES. I know from personal experience that everything down to the smallest detail was either controlled or directly influenced by the SES, and in particular Leon McLaren.

All the teachers and many parents including my own wouldn't take any step that they thought was inconsistent with SES doctrine without consulting Debenham first, even if it was unrelated to the school syllabus. He in turn would never do anything without consulting McLaren. My parents wouldn't even let me give up private music lessons without asking for Debenham's permission first, they were so brainwashed.

However, as TB points out, a broadening of the inquiry will lose focus on the abuses at St James and St Vedast. They were attended by innocent children who had no choice whether to attend. That is the key difference between an adult who decides to attend after seeing one of the SES's misleading Tube ads, and a child who is forced to go to St James.

That said, I would not like to see an inquiry outcome that does not mention Leon McLaren or the SES and attribute blame in their direction. The abuses could never have taken place without the active collusion of many parents, including my own. They were so brainwashed by their membership of the SES that Debenham and McLaren had complete freedom to commit any abuses they wished.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:17 am

Grobchok
grobchok wrote:Of course you don't have to take hard drugs to know they're wrong. But if this was a site about hard drugs I would be interested to hear from ex-drug users and from those that had some expertise in treating the effects, helping addicts, etc. I would not be at all interested to hear someone pontificating, "Drugs are evil - don't do it kids!" And I don't think the ex-addicts would respect that very much either.


I understand you think my comemnts are just empty but let me tell you I think you have to take a step from your high horse and curl up those long toes.

Seemingly you think I am an infant not capable to hold rational discussions but even though I am not a drugs user I could talk with you about the highly debatable 'stepping stone' doctrine, the risen THC values in soft drugs and the problems it is causing, closing the gap to what is called hard drugs territory, and the psycho-social problems connected to substance abuse.

I could also debate how the SES schools misleading the public a click away and how I can safely deduct that this is not done to inform the public but to manipulate opinion. There's zero hearsay in that.


Bon Voyage
Mike Gormez

Witness
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:55 pm

Clara Salaman

Postby Witness » Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:24 pm

Like most readers readers on this board must be, I am struck by Clara Salaman's post yesterday on another thread.

I reiterate the point I first made: The St Vedast / St James schools were and are directly linked to The School of Economic Science. The power that teachers abused was given to them by the SES belief system.

I am prepared to withdraw the metaphor that some of you objected to- I used the metaphor of the Nuremberg trials to the current Inquiry into the The St Vedast / St James schools.

Another metaphor can be used instead, if you prefer. Mr Boddy has used the term "Truth and Reconcilation". Quite right - it is a term borrowed from the anti-apartheid movement that saw the whole of South African society examined rather than the crimes of a few racists.

For Clara Salaman and others like her truth can only be obtained from a broader Inquiry into SES, and reconciliation may follow.

I'm also prepared to agree that ideally metaphors need not to be used at all. They merely illustrate a point. SES is of course far removed from the Nazi Party or the South African apartheid regime.

Nevertheless, SES's effect on people's lives must be examined.

Please vote.

Witness.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests