Towards a practical resolution for pupils past and present

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:40 am

But they have worked with children again - for years and years and years. If the posts we've received about Mr Lacey are correct he is a changed man and a good teacher. Is it impossible to accept that this might be the case? Otherwise your call for dismissal looks like revenge. It certainly seems to have no bearing on currrent practice.

User avatar
ET
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:49 am
Location: Gloucestershire
Contact:

Postby ET » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:01 am

I agree with all the points of the letter. It's difficult to say whether a teacher who appears to have reformed should be dismissed or not - how do we know that his/her criminal behaviour won't resurface in the future? Somewhere else on this site (I forget where) someone posted this point (and I paraphrase):

If someone rapes another person, then sincerely regrets it and promises never to rape another person, can we believe them? If someone rapes one person and never rapes again, should that person not be punished for that rape?

Rape is perhaps an extreme example, but serious physical assualt, particularly on a child, can ruin that child's life just as effectively as a rape.

xstJ
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:18 pm
Location: London

Postby xstJ » Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:03 am

Stanton wrote:But they have worked with children again - for years and years and years.


Oh well that's cool then.

Loving your logic Stanton!

Remind me, who are you?

Perhaps I should say that I've never been a pupil at St Vedast or St James, neither have I been a parent with children there, or a teacher at any of the schools.


So what is your connection then?

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:12 am

I have fully explained my connection to the School in earlier posts. To the best of my knowledge I have not met Mr Lacey and, judging from other posts, I am heartily glad not to have been a pupil of his in the early days of St James. But I do ask the question - if he has sincerely seen the light and reformed his ways - as posts recording his behaviour from 1989 state very clearly - then what is your purpose in wishing to dismiss him? If he was going to 'reoffend' he would have done so in the last seventeen years. If your only purpose in pursuing him is to exact vengeance then you should say so. Even the worst of offenders may be treated mercifully if they repent of their ways.

nilsabm
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:31 pm

Postby nilsabm » Tue Feb 28, 2006 9:52 pm

Thanks for the considered responses to this thread so far, whether from students, parents, SES members, or anyone else. I would like to hear some opinions on the propositions outlined in the opening post from current students, girls and boys, as well!

nilsabm
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:31 pm

Postby nilsabm » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:18 pm

Here is a quote I found from a recent St James pupil, submitted 23rd Feb 2006, on the 'Our campaign against urs...' thread.

james wrote: it would be good for the school and the SES if the links were shown, the secrecy droped, and those that were around (especialy the governors) at the time of the abuse were reprimanded. (be it a formal writen apology or resignation)

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:14 am

I had some reservations about the way two was worded as it didn't precisely reflect the way I would have worded it (cursed independence of mind huh) but on reflection it would be no bad thing if the school do want to put it all behind them.

Practically speaking if they are true to form they will ignore any open letter, just as they ignored countless past opportunities to reform these most ingrained of issues, and indeed the wellbeing of the current school in dragging out this process much longer than any responsible caring governor would do.

The fact that this lack of care is now portrayed as our direct intent to damage the schools is a most interesting case of transferance. If the old school teachers have become such an irrellevance to all but the most dewy eyed of junior school pupils then surely there wont be much problem with them apologising and resigning. After all if Mr Lacey can fess up to his class - it is surely a small step to apologise to those he has fessed up about. With outside help it might even be handled sensitively to minimise the impact on the pupils.

I dearly wish that they had the same care about the current pupils that I do, but sadly feel that they are too arrogant in their belief that no one else matters.

So on balance, the letter is a good thing.

StVSurvivor
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:04 pm

Postby StVSurvivor » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:43 am

After all if Mr Lacey can fess up to his class - it is surely a small step to apologise to those he has fessed up about. With outside help it might even be handled sensitively to minimise the impact on the pupils.

What about Southwell? He's still there too. I wonder if he has confessed any past crimes to his class.

Jerome
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: LONDON

Postby Jerome » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:56 pm

[quote="ses-surviver"][quote="Sam Hyde"]BoeingDriver, I'm sorry but you really lost me there,

WHY DON'T WE ALL GO FOR A BEER!

Sam xox[/quote]

Once again, when a serious post is made and the essence of the purpose behind a lot of the postings here is re-iterated, you act confused and suggest that perhaps Alcohol will help.

I really can't remember more than a couple of your posts where you stick to the subject matter at hand and don't try to deflect the conversation away in another direction. Its almost as if you have been schooled to be politicians. Maybe you've got a career ahead of you in Public Relations.[/quote]

In fact what Sam is suggesting is that in the highly sociable atmosphere of a pub, a place where many a serious point has occured, perhaps then either differences can be put aside or resolutions come to. Why all this negativity? Sam takes these points very seriously, but amidst the doom and gloom there needs to occasionaly be some light-heartedness. Accept it for what it is-an invitation for a friend.

Peace out
Jerome

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:40 pm

Hi Jerome,

I guess you have a different perception of the world than I do, but when I am talking about being abused, I'm hardly likely to be light-hearted.

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

Postby daska » Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:49 pm

It would be good to keep this thread on-topic, so, as Jerome hasn't stated his opinions on the points specifically in question here are some quotes I've found on 'give it a break' about what he thinks ought to be done.

Jerome wrote:What we should be doing at this stage instead of trying to nit-pick eachothers arguments to find faults or the like, is to be joining together to get the truth out of the governers, the staff, whoever you feel should be put in the spot light.


Jerome wrote:The first step has been taken, the report has been an apparent success, and now it is up to any one who feels this is not enough to unite and take some action.

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:27 pm

Thanks Daska, I was wondering where he stood.

And what actiondo you suggest we should take if we are not happy with the report, Jerome. Or even the Governors response?

We would be heavily criticised (and rightfully) if we disrupted the schools any further than this whole mess might have done already. But for all of the wrong thinking about leafletting the speech day and grafitting the school property, I empathise with their frustration.

Perhaps, like the governors you are suggesting a court case? Not much disruption for the school there then!

sparks
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:17 am

Postby sparks » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:15 am

Stanton wrote:....your call for dismissal looks like revenge. It certainly seems to have no bearing on currrent practice.


Stanton, its called taking responsibility for your actions!

No one at the schools has taken responsibility for their direct role in the abuse, nor have the Governors who failed in their duty of care taken any responsibility for their failings.

We are not talking about a trivial 'mistake' here (see the Headteachers statemnt on www.iirep.com ). We are talking about a least a decade of abuse which has caused real and lasting damage to scores of children.

Abuse was not a mistake. It was criminal and it was plain wrong.

    Dedenham presided over the abuse - he remains chair of the ERT
    Caldwell presided over the abuse - she remains a Governor
    Pincham failed in his duty of care - he remains Chair of Governors
    3 other governors failed in tehir duty of care at time - they remain honorary governors
    Lacey, Southwell, Skinner and Hipsion all took part in varying degrees of abuse for well over a decade - they remain as teachers
    David Boddy was rolled out to defend the Schools in 1983 when many of these allegations were first raised (see http://www.stjamesinquiry.org/COMPLAINT ... #pagelink4 and yes, the guy with the tash is Boddy) - yet he is now the new face of St James Seniors, apparently free from any connection with the past


Calling for people to take personal and institutional responsibility is not vindictive - it is a prerequisite for reconsiliation and resolution.

There need to be apologies (SES included), real acknowledgment of the wrong of what happened and the harm caused, followed by an acceptance of responsibility, followed by change. Only after all that is it worth persuing any kind of reconsiliation.

It is not former pupils who need to reconcile themselves with their former teachers. It is the former teachers, the schools and their staff and governors (past and present) who need to be reconcilled with a history of St James that is so different from the lies on which the current school has built itself. It will be painful process for the individuals and for the institutions.

Reconciliation with the victims of their abuse will only be possible when they truely accept, acknowledge and take responsibility for what they have done....otherwise as Townend said ..."talk of reconciliation is just a waste of breath".

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

Postby Tom Grubb » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:55 pm

Hear hear!

nilsabm
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:31 pm

Postby nilsabm » Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:49 pm

sparks wrote: taking responsibility for your actions!


Thanks for your salient points

For a brief moment, on the experiences thread, I thought Stanton had also agreed that the governors should take responsilibity for their actions. What a shame she retracted her statement....

I would like to hear more opinions from current pupils on this thread. especially from the girls school. Mary Edmunds seems to have been the only one allowed/able? to respond to recent debates. Here are her views on reconciliation expressed in her post dated Tues 28th Feb 2006:

Mary Edmunds wrote:In fact I believe that you should be provided with all the means you need to attain closure and that apologies need to be made.


Many thanks M.

N.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests