Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

The first public (fee paying , private) school I attended was Aldwickbury prep school. http://www.aldwickbury.org.uk/ Have a look at the website. Check out the 'sales pitch'. It is a pretty highly rated prep school. Not 'first tier' maybe but certainly second tier. Fees are currently between £4460 and £5595 per term before extras or between £13,380 and £16,785 per year. Looks pretty good. Maybe the kind of place you might aspire to send your own child to ?

Another side of Aldwickbury prep school is described in this Times article. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all- ... p7gvl227dt

There was a teacher at Aldwickbury Prep school that was systematically sexually abusing pupils there over years, over a decade and possibly longer. I personally, barring suppressed memories, was not so abused but that was simply my 'good fortune'. It was well known that this teacher was engaged in inappropriate behaviour. Well known amongst the pupils and amongst the other staff. It was also well know that if you were to complain about this, to other teachers or you parents the result would not be the removal of the teacher. The result would be physical and psychological retribution by this teacher against you. I personally witness this teacher punching and hitting another pupil and it was well know amongst my peers that this was the result of that pupil having complained about him.

Now of course this kind of sexual predation by a teacher on children can and does happen in all kinds of school. That it occurred in the public school I happened to attend is of course no indication or evidence that such is statically more prevalent in public schools than state schools. As the 2014 Times article states "Aldwickbury is the latest of more than 20 schools that are facing compensation claims following the Jimmy Savile scandal. Its alumni include the lyricist Sir Tim Rice. Other schools in the spotlight have educated establishment figures such as Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg and the actor Damian Lewis." Now the times article does not say 'latest of more than 20 public schools' but if you research this, as I have this is actually the case. More cases have come forward since this article was published.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/loc ... ve-3375180

Sherborne Prep, in Dorset, has been at the centre of the storm since a 2018 TV documentary featured allegations that the school's former headteacher Robin Lindsay had sexually abused pupils over nearly three decades.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/e ... chool.html

A paedophile teacher drugged and molested up to 60 boys as young as 10 at a British private school over a 42-year period spent abusing children around the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ing-pupils

A former sports coach at a leading private school has been jailed for 10 years for sexually abusing six pupils. Ajaz Karim was found guilty in April of nine charges of indecent assault and one of attempted indecent assault relating to his time at Christ’s Hospital school in Horsham, West Sussex, between 1985 and 1993

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49882978

Sexual touching was "seen as acceptable" at the prep school attended by Boris Johnson, an inquiry has heard. The school had an "unforgiving" culture during almost 25 years of abuse from 1969, the hearing was told. Ms Scolding said it was a "feeder school for the most significant public schools, such as Eton", with past pupils including the current prime minister.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 95391.html

Top private school 'ignored' concerns over paedophile teacher who wrapped boy in clingfilm, report says. A paedophile teacher at a top private school was allowed to keep his job despite repeated concerns raised by parents and colleagues over his inappropriate behaviour, which included wrapping a pupil in cling-film.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26073155

The former headmaster of a school attended by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been jailed for eight years for sexually abusing five pupils. Roland Peter Wright, 83, of Farnham Royal, Buckinghamshire, abused boys aged between eight and 13 at Caldicott Preparatory School from 1959 to 1970.

The list goes on and on. Each story leading to another and another. Now even this is not evidence of my contention that such abuse is statistically more likely to occur in a 'public' school that state runs one. However it does show recurring themes. Of abuse going on for years and decades. Of reports being made but ignored. Of denial and cover up.

Now do the maths. The Times article about my school in 2014 talks of 'more than 20 schools' where such things were going on, for years and decades. Many more examples have come out since. I would put the number of reported cases at easily more than 40 but let us err on the side of caution. Let us say the number, for now, is 25 public schools. Government statics for 2003 put the number of state schools (primary and secondary) , excluding special schools, at 21,315. It puts the number of Independent (what I have been calling public schools, fee paying private) at 2160. So if there are 25 reported cases of such abuse at independent schools, from a total of 2160, then if the statistical chance of such in state schools is the same , then there should be 250 such cases in state schools. That is using the undoubtedly low figure of 25 cases for public schools. If the true figures for public schools is say 40 then there should be around 400 such reported cases for state schools, if the statistical chance is the same in state or independent schools. So where are the reports of these 250 plus cases of such abuse in state schools ? They just are not there in those numbers. If you do not believe me try and look yourself.

Now let me be absolutely clear here. This is not just about risk from paedophile teachers. That is just the tip of a much bigger iceberg, it is just the tip from which some sort of credible statistical evidence can be found. I contend that there is not just credible statistical evidence that shows a child is more likely to be damaged by a paedophile teacher if they go to an independent school than a state one. I suggest they are more likely to be damaged by a sadistic, though not paedophile, teacher. A bullying teacher. A belittling teacher. And more beside though coming up with the evidence for these kinds of risks to children and their well being is not as 'easy' as it is in the case of paedophilia. I believe there are rational and logical explanations as to why such kinds of damaging teachers are statistically more prevalent in independent schools that state ones. That the very structures and ethos of a 'classic' British public school are linked to this increased prevalence. That there is by design a form of structural brutality and brutalisation that allows such prevalence to exist and to be sustained over time in public schools that is not the same in state schools.

This then is the basis for my support for integrating such schools in to the state school system. We do not and should not expose our children to such unnecessary risk. It is time for real change.

[Londonrake]

Thank you for posting that Erolz.

Despite your earlier (I'm sure it was tongue-in-cheek) TLDR I read and took it in. I imagine it isn't easy to relate such things.

That was the nice bit.

No.

However, I think it does reinforce my earlier post, where I suggested that your recent run on the thread had much more to do with personal experience and any associated psychological damage than the actual politics relating to the tax status of public schools.

I could of course trawl the net to find and post a myriad of examples of pedophile activities in everyday state schools ("bog standard comprehensives"). Moreover, from things I read not too long ago I could resurrect and relate stories of vandalism and violence (knife crime, sometimes leading to fatalities, etc) which you would probably struggle to uncover in the public school realm.

I'm genuinely sorry for the way things worked out for you. My wife and I did a lot of agonising when our daughter went to a boarding school. We chose to put here there principally because she really wanted to go and our wish to avoid the trauma of her moving school every 3 years or so. We led a very nomadic existence in those days. We took her through a comprehensive survey of her options then, after a lot of discussion (continually emphasising the implication of the decision). When she decided on one my Wife went down with her and stayed at a local B&B, whilst the Daughter spent a week at the school of her choice, living the full life, trying it out.

She had her ups and downs but at the end of 5 years had done so much and been so lucky, in our view. Nowadays she looks back with fondness on her time there.

So, not everybody's experience is like your own.

I reiterate, that in my view the status of public schools really has absolutely nothing to do with funding as far as Corbyn and Co are concerned. Anymore than New Labour's pretense that stopping hunting with horses had to do with a fox's rights to Blair. It's simple dogma, playing to the left and class war.

I suspect Corbyn is extremely unlikely to end up in a position to impose this sort of legislation anyway. He would have much more important fish to (try and) fry.

[erolz66]

I could of course trawl the net to find and post a myriad of examples of pedophile activities in everyday state schools ("bog standard comprehensives").

Try it. The ratio of indpendant school to state school is about 10:1 You do not have to do much trawling or spend much time. The ratio should be apparent pretty quickly and clearly. Find 10 such reports and see how many relate to public schools and how many independent. Unless of course these are waters that are for you 'too dangerous' , in which case go on believing that there are around 10 times as many reports of such from state schools as independent without testing that belief at all.

Moreover, from things I read not too long ago I could resurrect and relate stories of vandalism and violence (knife crime, sometimes leading to fatalities, etc) which you would probably struggle to uncover in the public school realm.

I hear what you are saying. For me there is a key difference here. Such things are perpetrated by children. That is materially different in my book.

So, not everybody's experience is like your own.

I do not know how many times I can say that this is not a case of just taking my own experience and multiplying it up. I have not yet, but may do at some point, talked about and described my personal experience in any detail.

I reiterate, that in my view the status of public schools really has absolutely nothing to do with funding as far as Corbyn and Co are concerned. Anymore than New Labour's pretense that stopping hunting with horses had to do with a fox's rights to Blair. It's simple dogma, playing to the left and class war.

When you apply that to a given individual simply because in your head they are in some binary camp you are doing the thing you complain 'remainers' do to 'leavers. Because some on the left do this, then all you need to know about me, the person and individual, is am on the left or not. If I am then my views on public school are 'dogma'. If you do not want that kind of thing done to you then stop doing it to others would be my suggestion.

I suspect Corbyn is extremely unlikely to end up in a position to impose this sort of legislation anyway. He would have much more important fish to (try and) fry.

If labour were to win power and that is a huge if, I would bet they would end charity status of public schools in their first 5 year term. I would not bet they would integrate such schools in to the state system in a first term.

[Londonrake]

Erolz.
I would say "Don't take this the wrong way" but you will.

It's been mentioned quite a few times before, basically that you have an odd way of expressing yourself. Sometimes your responses could be quite short, perhaps one liners even and you would still effectively make your point. However, for some odd reason you seem compelled to tie it all up in what amounts to the literary equivalent of a Gordian knot.

I mean, what succinctly and concisely does this actually mean?

"When you apply that to a given individual simply because in your head they are in some binary camp you are doing the thing you complain 'remainers' do to 'leavers. Because some on the left do this, then all you need to know about me, the person and individual, is am on the left or not. If I am then my views on public school are 'dogma'. If you do not want that kind of thing done to you then stop doing it to others would be my suggestion."

Frankly, it's mind bending gobbledygook. There was one point, a couple of months or so ago, where literally everybody engaged in the thread just threw in the towel because it all got too hard to interpret and you ended up effectively talking to yourself.

Like I said - don't take it the wrong way. It was probably the fault of your education. (joke)

[erolz66]

Look clearly I am not explaining myself in a way that gets across my meaning in a way you can understand. As I have said I am always willing to make the effort to be understood (and understand) better.

So ill try again.

In the other thread , when I talked about my personal beliefs about public schools I was met, from you or grump or possibly both, with the standard anti left 'trope' - you just want to deny others what you yourself have benefited from - that is what 'socialists' do. Look at Diane Abbott and so on and on. I would hope it is now clear at least that in my personal case, that is not the basis for my for my views on public schools ? I am an individual. I have my own reasons. Yet none of that 'mattered'. The logic went - I am 'left'. There are examples of those on the left who do do this (seek to deny others what they have had). Therefore that must be true of me. The logic and process is false. It is the same false logic and process that leads to the thing you complain about. Some who voted leave are racist. Thus anyone who voted leave is therefore racist.

The commonality is when you take a binary label, place a given individual into one of the two binary options and then apply generalities about that camp to the individual for no other reason that the camp they are in. It does not matter what the individual actually believes. It does not matter if they themselves actually do the 'generalities' you apply to them. It does not even matter if they have a demonstrable personal history of NOT doing such things, of doing the reverse. They are in a given camp (remainer, left whatever) and thus they as an individual must comply to the generalities.

This is a form 'bad thinking' that we all do, to a degree. It is something I personally have only recognised clearly pretty recently. It causes all sorts of problems. One example of those problems is you as a leave voter being labelled racist when you are not racist for no other reason than you are in the 'leave' camp.

[erolz66]

There was one point, a couple of months or so ago, where literally everybody engaged in the thread just threw in the towel because it all got too hard to interpret and you ended up effectively talking to yourself.

How exactly do you know what 'everybody' thought and what motivated their actions or lack of them ? Literally how do you know ? This is a classic 'red flag' warning moment for me. Someone, an individual, speaking of the behalf of 'everybody'. It happens all the time on forums and more often than not is is a great indicator of someone with a weak position or argument. The argument is weak so by trying to present it as the view of 'everyone' the person seeks to try and make such appear stronger.

[erolz66]

It's been mentioned quite a few times before,

Mentioned quite a few times before by yourself saying the same thing over and over ? Or do you mean by multiple different posters ? If you mean the latter care to show say 2 actual examples of these 'quite a few times' ?

[Londonrake]

There was one point, a couple of months or so ago, where literally everybody engaged in the thread just threw in the towel because it all got too hard to interpret and you ended up effectively talking to yourself.

How exactly do you know what 'everybody' thought and what motivated their actions or lack of them ? Literally how do you know ? This is a classic 'red flag' warning moment for me. Someone, an individual, speaking of the behalf of 'everybody'.

Because, after some time "debating" an issue (I can't even remember what it was) everybody that had a contra opinion to your own just stopped posting. Personally, I was tired of trying to work out what you were exactly trying to say. Good enough?

You do seem to have a lot of red flags.

[Londonrake]

It's been mentioned quite a few times before,

Mentioned quite a few times before by yourself saying the same thing over and over ? Or do you mean by multiple different posters ? If you mean the latter care to show say 2 actual examples of these 'quite a few times' ?

I know you like trawling through lots of posts (counting smileys ) but I'm not going to. If you think I'm wrong, well, it wouldn't be the first time, would it?

[erolz66]

Because, after some time "debating" an issue (I can't even remember what it was) everybody that had a contra opinion to your own just stopped posting. Personally, I was tired of trying to work out what you were exactly trying to say. Good enough?

You do seem to have a lot of red flags.

So it is beyond the realms of possibility then that some who 'stop posting' did so because they just had no more to say ? No more counter argument. Or some because they went away for a period of time. Why does the phenomenon of them not posting have be the result of the same singular cause that matches the reason why you as an individual stop posting ? Is that not a somewhat 'ego centric' view of the world ? You stop posting because you could not work out what I was saying. Other people stopped posting. Therefore the reason why they stopped posting must be, can only be, the same as your reason. That seems to be your 'logic'. If you can not see the frailty of such logic then I can not help you.

I do indeed have a range of red flags but to date and from memory and certainly recently I have mentioned only ONE. People talking about what 'everyone' else thinks or believes (which is pretty much always what the person doing this thinks)