Letters to governors "private and confidential"

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:04 am

chittani wrote:
Ditto if I start personally abusing you. [/quote

Ah, but what if they personally abuse me? .


Suggesting someone is a 'stooge' for the SES is hardly 'personal abuse'.

If you want to see some real personal abuse I suggest you try the yahoo news boards - the 'top stories' section is particularly nasty. Here's a link for you :)
http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm= ... 25&style=1
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:34 am

Suggesting someone is a 'stooge' for the SES is hardly 'personal abuse'.


Oh, really? Do you regard it as a term of affection? Badge of honour?

Personally speaking, it seems to me like I've wasted a month trying to establish that it's possible to be a member of the School and objective about it, because plenty of people here will, no matter what they say, always regard you as a stooge.

And you see, there no point in talking to a stooge, is there? Why talk to the monkey instead of the organ-grinder? Yes, the more I think about it, the better I'm feeling about being a hapless dupe, an apologist for unspeakable evil. Thank you for letting me see the bright side ADG!

Anyway, can see you're not getting it.

Thanks Goblin Boy, as ever, for your refreshing approach. By the way, to anyone who's genuinely interested, there are some interesting developments going on behind the scenes at the moment that hopefully will lead in a good direction. Won't post about it here though.

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:56 am

Oh, really? Do you regard it as a term of affection?


No, but it is not personal abuse. Consider the link I gave you and consider a paraphrasing of posts (below) that I have seen. The topic is 'affirmative' employment in the US. The spelling is because of the language filters in the board.

"You f*cking n1gger loving a$$hole, shove it up your a$$, these apes don't deserve nothing and your are a turd burling fagg0t to think so"

Now that is personal abuse.

What say you chit?


By the way, to anyone who's genuinely interested, there are some interesting developments going on behind the scenes at the moment that hopefully will lead in a good direction. Won't post about it here though.


why not? why tantalise us?
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:09 am

ADG

I have to say I regret that you've supplied us with that little snippet. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, or add to the debate.

What's tantalising? If you think I'm a stooge, then you would expect anything I say to be misleading. Anyone who doesn't think so can contact me separately.

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:20 am

I have to say I regret that you've supplied us with that little snippet. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, or add to the debate.


Just showing you what the rough and tumble of the internet can be like. Some perspective of what constitutes 'personal abuse' seemed needed.


What's tantalising?


Stop playing -- this IS serious. If there ARE developments in a 'good direction' but don't feel you can post them, at least say WHY!
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Thu Apr 27, 2006 10:57 am

You think somehow you're the only one who's ever heard bad language and brutish abuse? The only difference between me and you is that you think it's big and clever to repeat it.

What I'm saying is that if people think of you as a stooge, they don't respect you or your words. In that situation, you're a fool to speak to them, especially on sensitive issues.

I'm not playing - and, furthermore, I'm taking my ball away.

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

Postby a different guest » Thu Apr 27, 2006 11:08 am

The only difference between me and you is that you think it's big and clever to repeat it.


Hardly. I was just showing you as you seemed so niaive about the internet thinking this BB has some sort of "party line".

It seems you have misrepresented yourself.


What I'm saying is that if people think of you as a stooge, they don't respect you or your words. In that situation, you're a fool to speak to them, especially on sensitive issues.


If you are so sure that you are not then you are a 'fool' to act as if you were.


I'm not playing - and, furthermore, I'm taking my ball away.


I notice you don't have the bat. :|
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:01 pm

It's one thing to read frothy-mouthed blind abuse like that you posted, ADG, and another to read abuse that has been lovingly handcrafted for you, with or without expletives. One means nothing, because the person spewing it is doing just that - spewing random obscenities - and the other can hurt, because it appears the person has actually personally assessed your character and found it wanting. One is actually personal, and one's not. Just saying.

leon
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:13 pm

Postby leon » Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:56 pm

chittani wrote:
Suggesting someone is a 'stooge' for the SES is hardly 'personal abuse'.


there are some interesting developments going on behind the scenes at the moment that hopefully will lead in a good direction. Won't post about it here though.



your getting promoted??

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

Postby a different guest » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:10 am

Bella - that was just a generic one I admit, they do, from people gleaning personal information, get a lot more 'personal' than that. Those boards ain't for the faint-hearted. :)



But back to the word 'stooge' which Chit has googled a definition of - perhaps that is some sort of american definition? According to an ENGLISH english dictionary (Oxford) it means

subordinate, especicially for routine or unpleasant work


Hardly an inflammatory thing to say to someone who is defending both the school and the Govenors' absences from these boards.
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

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

Postby nilsabm » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:58 pm

Stooge; I've seen about half a dozen definitions, often occurring in the same dictionaries, of what it means. In reality its meaning is, of course, context dependent.

The meaning of words is what lies behind much post-modern theory - take Jacques Derrida's 'Writing and Difference', and the wonderful chapter entitled 'Parole Souffle'. Here the playwright Artaud is concerned that the moment he expresses anything it is immediately open to interpretation and likely to take on a meaning different from that he intended. He toys with alternatives to written and spoken language, dance and hieroglyphics for instance, but finds himself unable to express his thoughts in a pure fashion that can't be adulterated by his audience. This eventually drives him mad. A bit like this site at times!

Of course, being a postman is a lot simpler than studying post-modern philosophy (I know, I've done both). So is the study of SES philosophy... i.e. it provides 'right answers' so you don't have to think too hard!

ross nolan
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

personal abuse

Postby ross nolan » Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:10 pm

Since we are being pedantic I would have classified the abusive posting being referred to ( 'nigger loving' etc ) as being racially based rather than strictly personal per se (ie it refers to a class of people having a general characteristic -- in this case fraternal feelings for persons of the negroid persuasion.)

Personal abuse might be references to 'your enormous ugly probiscus' or some other personal feature or behaviour known to the critic.

Labels such as 'misogynist, sexist,chauvanist,etc' are also indicative of a mindset of the critic rather than any knowledge of the actual person and hence any possibility of personal abusive language .

BTW is "hardened activist" preferable to or worse than 'soft pacivist' in terms of a perjorative ?
Skeptic

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:51 pm

I'm going to repost this stuff, because I certainly found it to be personal abuse. Mike chimed in briefly after it had happened, saying "if you don't like her posts, don't read them, but she's welcome here" (thanks), but if it wasn't for the efforts of Free Thinker and Ross at that time, I don't think I'd be here now. (So, you know, blame them.) So apparently I'm stupid, and I'm likely to need a reminder to keep DL away from my "private parts". It's all so very even-handed. So, follows a variety of Gandalf and hohumbug's postings to me in the "Thank you Bella" thread, started by Free Thinker:

simple? Yes Bella you are indeed very simple.

I strongly advise you to ignore Gandalf's suggestion to visit your pontiff, you should stick firmly to the rainforest. You should have no truck with those silly Europeans with all their habitual baggage masquerading as 'tradition'. Keep wearing them Levis gal and keep away from Lambie's annual visits to your parts (public or private -visit I mean).

Ooooooooooooooooh! Bella you are categorised as a valued contributor by virtue of the number of postings you have made but do you really think your experiences in a remote young school in Oz are ultimately relevant to the whole purpose and thrust of this web site except as a perfect example of an SES attendee in the process of getting sucked in without noticing?

Many of us have been there and got that particular t-shirt but that does not make your postings equally relevant any more than a couple of dozen scientists paid for by Exxon to state that global warming isn't happening is to be taken as a balanced counter to the tens of thousands of scientists who have independently concluded the opposite.

Is this supposed to be some kind of DEMOCRATIC web site whose veracity is measured by the NUMBER of postings or the NUMBER of words in each posting?

Before you get all upset it is NOT being suggested you are paid to defend the SES. Your spontaneous eulogies are undoubtedly genuine.
The Exxon analogy above is merely to illustrate the fatal flaw of the media's obsession with so called 'balanced' argument which you seem also to be arrogating to yourself by default in respect of the SES.

You give the impression of someone waving a condom above their head in the aisle of the Catholic chapel in the Brazilian rainforest as proof of the liberality of your organisation's beliefs.


This was in a thread thanking me for contributing to the board. (Page 4 or so, for those of you with my prefs)

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

Postby a different guest » Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:00 pm

Wow - where was I when that thread was a happening thang???
Relatives with long-term involvement in the SES / SOP/ SoEP

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

Postby Keir » Mon May 08, 2006 9:24 am

With all the possibilities that exist on this Bulletin Board to express yourself without editorship from overzealous or issue-led denial, I am surprised that chittani suggests that Governors would be mad to post here.

The response that posts might get is dependent of the content of the post, and in my experience would be most likely to draw dissent when they minimise posters experiences of abuse, claim that nothing is wrong, or suggest that it is all being dealt with. If they are only capable of saying these things then maybe it would be unwise for them to post with an expectation of a totally measured response.

As far as contribution goes to a resolution I have spoken to my mother and brother with an open mind, taken part in an enquiry, posted on this board for at least a year, signed an open 'private and confidential' letter, spoken to chittani for an hour on the phone, offered to meet up with Patrick Wyatt, written a response to John Story and Mary Pickering's letter and a further response to their response.

In contrast, I have seen from the governors/SES/teachers...foot dragging during the inquiry and afterwards. An invitation from Mary and John to writre to them with my concerns, and a response to my carefully measured letter that in a few lines suggests that it is clear that they feel that I do not consider them to be appropriate people to help, and that if I change my mind then to get in touch. I have also seen today Roger Pinchams's response to the open letter, thanks to Matthew passing it on, not through any effort of the governors.

My perception is that I have done a great deal to assist in the resolution of this situation, and been patient and compassionate in considering other points of view. This despite hearing oblique threats of legal action being taken against posters and a lack of assurance that my testimony to the enquiry might open me to legal action.

I dont mind that it is difficult I just wish to correct the assumption that all we do is bitch and rant for therapy on this board. It is about time for serious pressure from current SES members and teachers at St James to elicit change and a proper meaningful apology from the individuals and organisation involved in the abuse that many on this board experienced. The fact that chittani is keen to entice us with the fact that major change is taking place in the SES background is good if a long way from an open meaningful apology by the governors to those they let down, or a specific apology by the teachers who practiced abusive behaviour.

It is telling that despite almost universal agreement on the need for a meaningful apology from current pupils and SES members posting here, nothing is forthcoming despite the proactive hoop-jumping of the complainants. There is however ample evidence that the governors themselves are stuck in their historical attitudes that nothing that they have done is wrong, and the problem requires yet more patronising pseudo philosophising from them to put us at ease.

It is difficult to understand that enthusiastic SES members would be happy to accept that this state of affairs exists within an organisation peopled by their fellow members, and not have the will or capacity to actively change it, or is the suggestion that it will take the governors another 20 years to rehabilitate before they see the light and apologise?

Please accept that this same attitude from the governors is as dangerous to the current pupils as it was to us, even if caning has been made illegal by parliament and minor cosmetic changes have taken place due to social pressure. Without the courage to take responsibility for their own omissions what message are they sending to the children in their care about healthy leadership, personal responsibility, or social duty.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests