NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
Katharine Watson
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:31 pm

NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Postby Katharine Watson » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:54 pm

Hello folks. David Boddy has asked me to post this message from him to everyone interested in the Inquiry:

Inquiry into St James and St Vedast Disciplinary Policy and Application

I wish to update interested parties on the latest developments with regards to the Governors? Inquiry into Discipline Policy and Application at St Vedast and St James Schools during the l970?s and l980?s.

The Governors remain committed to establishing the facts arising from the application of discipline at the schools, and to this end had requested those with grievances to formulate them and send them to the Clerk to the Inquiry by yesterday?s date, 16th March. The purpose of this request was to ascertain the volume and nature of the complaints, which is necessary before arrangements for an Inquiry can be made. So far specific complaints have been received from very few individuals, along with a few more general statements.

The Governors are genuine in their desire for any Inquiry to be impartial and independent and to provide a full picture of the Schools from 1975. Other initiatives have taken place whilst the Governors have awaited the 16th March deadline. These include meetings with various Local Authorities, the NSPCC, and other Child Protection Agencies.

Dialogue with some of the contributors to this website has meant that the Terms of Reference to the Inquiry and the appointment of a Chairman have not moved as fast as all would have wished. As a result of this, the Governors are willing to provide a further, but final, extension to the time period of submissions to be received by the Clerk to the Inquiry. Recognising the onset of Easter, the Governors wish to extend the time during which detailed and specified complaints can be received by the Clerk to the Inquiry, until Friday 29th April 2005.
[/b]

*Note: In case people reading this get confused: this post originally appeared under the username 'patienceismysecondname', which was what I first chose to use. Later it become clear that it would be simpler just to use my first and last names - Katharine and Watson. This is why some people responding refer to the username 'patience'.
Last edited by Katharine Watson on Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Katharine Watson
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:31 pm

New Message

Postby Katharine Watson » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:56 pm

Sorry, that should have been signed off 'David Boddy'

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 17, 2005 11:49 pm

why didn't he post that himself?

If this is official then why is it being posted under a nom de plume?

Matthew
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: London

Postby Matthew » Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:51 am

That post is a total joke. Anybody with an email address, access to the internet, and sitting anywhere on the planet could have posted it. Only the very naive would take this message seriously.

Katharine Watson
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:31 pm

David Boddy's Message

Postby Katharine Watson » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:41 pm

a different guest wrote:why didn't he post that himself?


1. He has a school to run and is more busy than he has ever been in his life right now.
2. He is in the middle of moving house.
3. I offered to do it for him.


If this is official then why is it being posted under a nom de plume?


Why not? As you all know, you have to log in before you can post, and since everybody else around here has jolly little monikers, why shouldn't I?

Katharine Watson
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:31 pm

Postby Katharine Watson » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:54 pm

Matthew wrote:That post is a total joke. Anybody with an email address, access to the internet, and sitting anywhere on the planet could have posted it. Only the very naive would take this message seriously.


Actually, Matthew, you aren't exactly right. It takes quite a while (several hours) to get registered and then 'activated', as I discovered yesterday. David Boddy has one hell of a lot on his plate, so, as explained above, I offered to do it for him, as I am marginally less busy than he is.

More seriously, NO, it is not a joke. It is entirely genuine. I don't know what the Governors have to do to convince everyone that they really do want this enquiry, and they want it to be open, fair, genuinely independent, and effective. Please don't be paranoid. This IS a good chance for everyone who has posted here to have their complaints aired and heard and responded to. But if people are just going to meet every move towards reconciliation with cynicism and disbelief - well, the bitterness and hate which has been so evident here in the last few months will presumably going on festering. And it can't be doing anybody much good.

You were one of the first people to post your story, and I respect you very much for it. Please don't just slam the door.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Postby Alban » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:45 pm

The way I see it, I am not going to take part in any enquiry for which the terms of reference are not set.

I believe there are a number of outstanding issues with the "draft" T.O.E. that need to be addressed by the govenors, so how about David Boddy and Co. set about addressing those points before issuing yet another meaningless deadline.

Simple really!

Oh, and why would Matthew "Slam the door" when he's spent so much time trying to push it open - don't be absurd!

lowpass
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 12:58 pm

Postby lowpass » Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:05 pm

It is extraordinary that a school is publicly conducting such a serious matter as an inquiry into abuse of children anonymously on an internet forum under "jolly little monikers".

patienceismysecondname writes "I don't know what the Governors have to do to convince everyone that they really do want this enquiry, and they want it to be open, fair, genuinely independent, and effective."

they can

1 Make the terms of reference public
2 Make the inquiry public not private.

Why should I trust a private inquiry I know nothing about, conducted by an institution that stands accused in the first place?

daska
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: UK

Postby daska » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:38 pm

Dear Ms ? Patience ?

The governors don't HAVE to do anything at all. They can carry on as they are and the posts will grow and word will spread and eventually the really angry ex-pupils will find more destructive ways of getting their feelings noticed.

But if they want the inquiry to be viewed as anything but a whitewash then they NEED to take a good long hard look at the way they continue to address those ex-pupils who, rightly or wrongly, feel that that school was negligent, abusive and/or violent towards them.

To understand what they NEED to do now to achieve their stated aim, they need to put themselves in the position of having been an pupil at the schools, particularly during the earlier years. They can do this by reading some of the posts found here. They need to pay attention when they are reading. They need to NOT focus on just the disciplinary procedure from a physical point of view. They need to take time to reflect on the way various of us were lied to, bullied, intimidated, denied the right to have emotions, groomed, told that black was white and white was black and lectured to about 'the truth' by liars. (And on top of that they have to remember that various of us were hit, kicked, caned, beaten, slippered, isolated, locked in rooms etc etc and all the rest of the nasty physical ways of forcing children into submission.)

And then they need to take time to reflect on whether they have effectively and adequately demonstrated that this has changed.

When they take the time to understand the effect of the words and actions in the past, then they will be able to look at their words and actions in the present and understand what they need to do next.

Until then this will continue to look remarkably like whitewash.

Personally I have seen for myself that the junior schools have changed. But if this communique is genuinely from Mr Boddy then it would appear that the fundamental attitudes haven't.

sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

Postby sugarloaf » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:56 pm

Well, the announcement from David Boddy?s helpful friend is obviously bogus, either that or he?s really starting to lose his marbles! (not the first time an SES member?s cracked up). Why would he switch from making announcements via his lawyers to getting a mate with subjective opinions bang up a post anonymously, because he?s too busy moving house at the moment!!!

But it does raise again the issue of the school?s failure to make any serious attempt to contact former pupils about the inquiry.

Why is Boddy communicating only via an open internet forum with a relatively limited readership, when he has access to a database that could be used to contact many more ex pupils?

To quote an earlier post:

?If St James School can get their act together to find my address on an island off the coast of Canada in order to send me their magazine, they can damn well get their shit together to notify me and ALL former pupils about this supposed open inquiry. I hope my point is clear.?

This whole proposed inquiry is in danger of becoming quite literally a farce unless Boddy (and it seems to be Boddy not the Governors who is running this) starts to take this a bit more seriously.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:25 pm

patienceismysecondname,

You should have posted your clever hoax announcement on the 'SES jokes and humor' thread.

Mind you, I'm beginning to think the real Mr Boddy and Mrs Betts should put theirs there too.

For what it's worth I will take part an inquiry only if it:
1) has Terms of Reference which are made available to everyone in advance
2) treats complaints from female ex-pupils on an equal basis to those from male ones
3) makes a reasonable attempt to contact former pupils
4) does not just accept emailed complaints
5) does not impose ridiculous and insulting deadlines
6) has a chairperson who does not attend political meetings with the chairman of the governors of St James

Tom

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Re: NEW MESSAGE FROM DAVID BODDY

Postby Goblinboy » Sat Mar 19, 2005 3:00 am

patienceismysecondname wrote:Hello folks. David Boddy has asked me to post this message from him to everyone interested in the Inquiry:


You can't be serious. This is not a credible approach to managing communications, particularly from an apparently experienced public affairs professional.

The postings by "Patience" imply a hoax or a fairly contemptous regard for the concerned ex-students, consciously or unconsciously.

Being "more busy than he has ever been in his life right now" implies that there are clearly far more important things to occupy the few minutes it takes to communicate with the forum.

Please try a more geniune approach to communicating in the future.

And "Patience", if you are Katherine Watson (as your language and references indicate is possible), nice to hear from you.

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

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:19 am

As you all know, you have to log in before you can post, and since everybody else around here has jolly little monikers, why shouldn't I?


You are either a troll or a total drongo.

sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

inquiry

Postby sugarloaf » Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:15 pm

C Betts,

In the light of the comments above, I'd suggest you clarify the st James school governors current position in relation to the inquiry.

It might also be an idea to ask them to respond in a formal way to the comments and conditions for participation that have been raised both here, and privately. Setting deadlines while refusing to respond to these unresolved issues is probably not the best way to build confidence in this inquiry.

Coralie
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:25 pm

Postby Coralie » Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:19 pm

"Patience is my second name" what is your first name ? :black:


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests