Well that was a busy few days with literally thousands of people reading my blog from all over the world, especially the length and breadth of England and especially from the North West. Friday was a record day for me and traffic on Saturday exceeded that, with a levelling off yesterday, our supposed day of rest but it was still hectic. With thousands of people all spending 15 or 20 minutes every day reading what has been written, you begin to realise what a powerful tool a blog can be.
It all started off with news coming through on Friday about the Manchester Evening News report on the abuse at St Bede’s College that was scheduled for their Saturday edition and this was then followed by what seemed at the time a torrent of comments on my previous couple of blog postings and a barrowful of e-mails from supposedly disgruntled pupils, one suspected master and one ex-governor of the school.
When analysed, what looked a lot was in fact less than 27 pupils encouraged by twitter and facebook to write in some absolutely inane comments about how in their little cocooned world they loved the school and its headmaster and fuck its history. None of it alarming, some of it not unreasonable but typical of an immature mind. To say it was orchestrated is beyond my powers but the content was mainly similar and the same IP addresses and e-mail addresses were used quite often.
It was hardly a cross section of opinion but more of a rant by a few, mostly hiding under the shadow of anonymity and accusing me of everything from criticising the school, themselves, their teachers and almost for stealing the crown jewels. None of which I have done. I might have criticised the leadership of the school, Quinlan, the Chair of Governors and Kearney, the headmaster and to a lesser extent Pike, the Deputy Head but as far as I know they are fair game when the complaints that have been put to me by parents and others are concerned and after all it is only my opinion based on what concerned people tell me. I certainly criticised the crew of the Salford Diocese but I have been doing that for years, they seem to like a little flagellation; it seems to go with their celibacy but they and their forbears have been covering up the historic and modern sexual abuse that has totally blemished Bede’s reputation recently.
The big trouble at Bede’s is not the downgrading of the school although that is important but knowing the paucity in the mindset of the management it is inevitable and I think eventually damaging to its ethos and reputation. The big, big thing is that Bede’s will not confront its abuse problem, it keeps shovelling the shit under the carpet. Only one voice, a mother of a pupil, has had the bravery and foresight to say this in a comment on this blog this morning. More parents need to say it and get the desperados in charge to face up to the College’s past and I am afraid, not too distant past either. This hiding, ducking and diving from the elephant in the room is totally detrimental to any progress.
Anyway now that things have settled down on the internet, perhaps we can look at other issues that cropped up, like the Manchester Evening News report on Saturday, 4th May on the forthcoming court case against the Salford Diocese and the Board of Governors of the College and the fact that six of them resigned last Monday, 29th April and which was barely recorded in that torrent of comment and e-mails previously mentioned. True to its word, they having informed me on Friday, the article was printed and true to the paper’s style it had some alarming errors in it. It was written by its supposed chief investigative reporter Dan Thompson, who hardly lived up to his title as he was handed the information on a plate. To me it was all old hat but one or two found it a powerful piece, however it needed to be accurate as its main thrust was on the resigning of a bevy of governors on the foot of the court case. So if some of my acquaintance found it powerful others also might have done so and it probably served its purpose but I wish I could have written it. Anyway it was better than that tawdry piece written by Keegan, the MEN’s top cub reporter and old Bedian two years ago last March about the Bishop’s halfhearted apology to the abused of Bede’s.
What I find strange about this Governor mass resignation is that they have all known about it since early April 2012, over a year ago. Since then nine governors have resigned. One other, a solicitor and probably aware of what was coming down the tracks resigned a month before in February 2012, three of the nine resigned in January this year and six resigned last Monday, 29th April 2013. Thus leaving a rump of seven governors and a secretary. Five clergy, two laymen, one of whom is the accountant and the lady secretary. The clergy consist of one bishop, two monsignors and two priests, one of whom should not be there anyway as he supposedly has been relieved of his duties whilst facing impending charges of child sexual abuse. All the governors with the exception of the offending priest, the accountant and the secretary are all in their 70s. A strange elite to have in charge of a College that no longer declares its Catholic ethos.
Since these resigning governors have known about this situation for over 13 months it is a little disingenuous to suggest it is because of the court case. The correct time for these people to have resigned would have been in February 2012 like the solicitor mentioned who must have given reasons for her dive. By resigning now does not allow them to escape the rigour of the law. All governors of all schools have to realise that when they take on the role of governor, they become responsible for “the sins of their fathers” or in other words previous governors who had a vicarious liability towards abused pupils. It is no good jumping out the back window when the police come knocking on the door because there are half a dozen waiting in the backyard for you.
So to get back to the article, six and not seven governors resigned last week leaving a rump of eight and not ten remaining governors. It also said that at the time of the abuse by Duggan et al, the College was run by the Diocese. There might be a fine legal point here but who the hell is it run by now with a bishop, two monsignors and two priests on the board along with three also rans?
The article also said Mr Byrne resigned in March, it was registered in Companies House on 29th April, so that was when he and the five others resigned and it went on to say they resigned because of impending legal action, which as I said they had known about for over 13 months. Well they resigned in two tranches, Messrs Carr, Keegan and Edwards on 28th January 2013 and Messrs Byrne, Moynihan, Gillespie, Driscoll, O’Flynn and Walsh on 29th April 2013 which hardly smacks of an agreed reason for going. I think they resigned for different reasons and could I suggest one being a difference in opinion on how the school was being managed.
54 thoughts on “St. Bede’s: Situation Desperate The Natives Are Fighting Back.”
Out of interest how much power do the governors actually have? When I was there (’03-’10), I just about knew who the Bursar was and that Msr Quinlan was head of the governors but I couldn’t have named any of the other governors, let alone have said what influence they had on the school. As a student, you care a lot more about the actual teachers and senior teachers (deputies and headmaster) and considerably less about the supposed ‘power behind the thrown’. The vast majority of the current teachers were not even born during the Duggan days and to say that they should take responsibility for his actions is frankly ludicrous.
You will have to read the posting properly and again. I am not blaming the teachers for anything, I am on the side of the teachers and always have been, the men I am against are the Governors and the head and especially Quinlan, who knows about everything and everyone but continues to sweep the shit under the carpet.
The tragedy of all of this is that whilst you are fighting for a noble cause, you are doing it in the wrong way. You criticize the results of the current pupils yet put it all down to management? Surely the pupils and teachers have their part to play in the so called ‘poor results’, no? Poor management would translate to teachers not caring about a) the pupils and b) the results. Yet, every teacher I have puts in 100% effort to get not just a pass but the top grade for any student capable. I would put a large bet on there being twenty pupils in this current fifth year that attain at least 7 A*’s in Summer. The teachers are excellent and it’s a shame that through your condoning of the management and results, it’ll reflect onto them.
‘Quinlan, who knows about everything’.
This comment implies that Quinlan has directly said that he is fully aware that everything was going on. This frankly is again an invalid claim because you have no personal relationship with Quinlan to find this out.I also assume that you do not know anyone to whom Mgr Quinlan has expressed this to. The problem that I continue to notice in your blogs is that you claim to ‘know’ the goings on. Unless you are in the board of Governor’s meeting rooms and hear them say that they knew about the abuse, then you cannot continue to make these misguided, or unconfirmed statements without coming under fire from people.
Christ almighty cannot any of you read and make sense of what you read. I am not criticising the results of the pupils, I’m not criticising the teachers. I’m criticising the management which in business and commercial terms means the Governors and the head. Now do you get it you nervous poor teacher. The pupils are great, the teachers are better, the management is crap.
Let me tell you anonymous former student (what a funny name to be baptised with) I have been on this case since February 2009 I know more about more people than you think. I do not need to be in Qiunlan’s trousers to know him you know.
To know about and to hear about are two very different concepts.
My apologies for continuously quoting you, but it is to support my point. You say above: ‘my opinion based on what concerned people tell me’. I would have thought that this demonstrates that part of what you say, perhaps not all, is down to rumour. Indeed, you know more about the abuse case than I do, but that is not to say that you know for a fact that the Governors knew all about it previously. I could say ‘I know all about Mr Malpas’, but I do not truly know you, or anything about you, other than what I can see on your blog. Therefore, you could say that the Governors knew long before that this was going on, but this is merely speculative ‘knowledge’.
Let me tell you dear anonymous former pupil that each one of the governors and former governors were served with the papers for the case making them respondents in the law suit on or about 5th April 2012. I was part of that action, I vetted the papers before they went out to these present and former individuals (the governors). I think you had better call it quits my lad.
I’m not a ‘nervous poor teacher’, I’m a pupil at the school. And you are the definition of hypocrisy – you have directly criticized the results the school gained last year, thereby criticizing pupils AND teachers. If you aren’t intentionally criticizing them then fine but you ARE through your criticizing of the management and head. It only reflects upon us as pupils and upon the teachers. If you cannot see the destruction and havok you are wreaking amongst pupils and their sense of self worth then you really are a fool.
The MEN were correct re the timings of the resignations.
You are wrong – as usual – re the start of the posting activities. It started with a current Six Formers post on late Thursday evening which surprise surprise attracted bullying from your brother in arms, Mr Taylor. The pupils did not know about or respond to the Evening News Article. Their posts were about your attack on the current management of the school, their fellow pupils (the City boys) and in particular Mr Kearney. Some also drew attention to your clouded view of the reign of Mr Barber. Little if anything was about the Duggan era. It is not their consern any more than the victims of Jimmy Saville is their concern.
You say that these posters are mostly hiding behind anonymity not true. You have counted them how many are anonymous? You state that they are not a cross section of opinions. How do you know? The one fact is that none of the new posters shared your view.
You claim they are of an immature mind. In my opinion a large percentage of the posters have argued their point rationally and eloquently.
You refer to Father Hopkins. Are you certain of your ground here? I suspect not, remember Lord McAlpine.
You obviously do not know the background to the resignations. What has happened – your mole running scared? Or maybe he/she has realised that the titbits he/she has been feeding you over the last 2 or so years has finally been demonstrated to be utter bull.
Your knowledge of the law is poor. This is demonstrated above and by your obvious lack of knowledge on the law of defamation. The legal framework of the management of the School is very different today compared to the 50s and 60s. This difference is called the veil of incorporation. Can I suggest you get your law books out and look at Saloman v Saloman. The reason that you look to Companies House to check the resignations is that St Bedes is an incorporated business. It wasn’t in the 50s and 60s.
Yet again a rambling post from Malpas that is full of lies and inaccuracies.
My knowledge of everything is poor. I’m a Longsight lad and all I know is I do not like you, so fuck off and stop annoying me, you high class accountant, married to a teacher and at the heights of your self inflicted powers. I am no match for you, so accept the fact that you have won. Hitler went to his grave or South America thinking the same.
A word of advice, keep studying, keep working hard, forget what is happening around you, forget your inheritance, forget in fact that you are a human being approaching maturity, try in fact to forget you are a human being and you should be all right. You can jump into the world wide flock and not have to worry about anything, that is until you are sent to the abbatoir. Please grow up and I will love you for it.
Lucky I do not intend to take direction from you, so I will not call it quits. I will refrain from commenting on here from now on because I sense via the patronizing tone of that last sentence that this is heading into the territory of a petty argument which will serve no purpose to either of us.
I am not your lad.I am a lady.
I think the problem is, people are only reading the latest blog.
They know nothing about the struggle you have had with the Salford Diocese safeguarding bods and Bede’s about the abuse. Which could possibly have gone on from the 50’s all the way to the 2000’s.
I have always seen it that your point was to highlight the strategy of the school and the church to negate the claims of pupils from the Duggan era which culminated in the “apology” in the MEN back in 2010.
You have done this by having ago at the senior management (Governors and Head). This started with the resignation of Mr Barber and the appointment of the new guy, along with the reappearance of Byrne as a govenor.
Some of the commentators are missing the point of your argument and the big picture. The way I see it is you are trying to bring to attention the fact that Duggan abused, nobody in power supposedly knew anything about it. Nothing was done, and history repeated it self again with Green. How many times does this cycle need to be repeated to prove that the management and/or management style is not working.
Alas, you avoid the question and other side of the argument again, Paul. You instead post a non sensical paragraph about age and judgment. Your argument is appreciated and the pain you have suffered is too but you are not taking in and absorbing any other side of the modern argument.
There is that many anonymouses, if that is a word, I forget who I am talking to, come out into the light so I can see you.
To: Jon Connor
You are a voice of sanity in a sea of hysteria.
Many people commenting on this blog don’t seem to understand how long this abuse went on for. For a fact, from 1950 to 1966, under Tommy Duggan. From the mid 70’s for over a decade under the Rev Bill Green (is he out of jug yet, following being sent down in 2008?) Not one, but two cases of abuse, with possibly more to be revealed in the court case. If someone had done something about Duggan at the time, it’s far less likely Billy Boy would have got away with it for so long, if at all.
The problem is many people are completely ignorant as to the history of the school’s problems, the resultant repeated denials, alleged cover-ups and the sadly inevitable imminent court case and, as a result, this seems to pass by most of the people posting. They should remember Bede’s partially admitting the offences in March 2011 (not 2010, sorry Jon, to correct you, I don’t think you’ll mind). If not, I’s suggest they look it up.
As a result of the court case, Bede’s reputation will almost certainly be damaged, the press will revel in it, I will not. Do not think for one minute the fact that these things happened years ago will cause it to all go away. That’s not how the legal system works, as we are likely to shortly find out. if you think the fact that it’s historic makes it less newsworthy, try telling that to Stuart Hall.
I have no need to show myself in a light. Why would telling you my name make any difference? Anonymity is another great aspect of the Internet, as you feel blogging is. You avoid questions that ought to be answered and deliver no answers to those you attempt to answer. Au revoir, Paul – I cannot be bothered eloquently posting when you will only reply in an incoherent and pointless manner. Stop attacking and find your justice through the way of the law.
The one big difference is you know who Paul is, he doesn’t know who you are. He’s not anonymous, you are. Till then, you motives will always be suspect. If you don’t see this, then don’t post.
Hasta la vista.
Many people are aware of the extent of Duggan’s sexual abuse. It has been reported and is mentioned frequently here.
What you have to realise is that most of the comments since Friday have been in response to allegations and slurs against the current/recent school and its management.
Your comments don’t chime with my experience of the school and they clearly don’t chime with many current pupils either.
Those not around in the 50s and 60s do not need to discuss the sexual abuse of the 1950s and 1960s. That is better done by those alive at that time. However, pupils, old Bedians and parents can address many of the points which the Pauls make about modern day St Bede’s.
You seem to view the Bede’s of Messrs Byrne, Barber and Kearney through the prism of the past. As such, your views are skewed.
That isn’t necessarily a criticism. I can’t adequately comment on the historical sexual abuse carried out by Monsignor Duggan, other than to say it is heinous and despicable and it is a shame the man never faced justice.
Mr Malpas have you had a drink? You say you don’t like me. Have we met? I suspect what you don’t like is my views. I think comparing anyone to Hitler is serious deformation.
Is it possible for you to read up on Bede’s historic abuse and realise that it wasn’t only Duggan doing the abuse, but more recently Bill Green, abusing up to at least the mid-1980s? Also others are to be named in court as well. Bill Green, another one who faced no punishment until approximately 20 years after leaving Bede’s? Does it not strike you that something may have been inherently wrong regarding the running of the school for nigh on 40 years? How bad does it have to get that it’s gone to court, as even now, they won’t do the decent thing.
The court case is imminent, let’s see what the defendants have to say about how they denied, covered up and ignored until very recently what was going on for years when they get to court. I fear the worst for the College’s reputation, the fact that Stuart Hall last committed an offence nearly 30 years ago hasn’t made his story less newsworthy.
Get through your head who the defendants are in this case. They include Byrne and people who, at least until recently, were involved in the administrative running of the school, not the current crop of teachers. I’ve no problem with them, I’ve no particular axe to grind over Mr Kearney either, though Paul Malpas clearly has.
However, when the press get their teeth into this one, the fact that it’s a High Court case will ensure its prominence, the last thing the College should have wanted.
Think on that as you drink your Horlicks.
Perhaps Deformation is the right word for Mr Driscoll, or can I credit him for trying (and failing) to be funny?
Unless I am very much mistaken, Mr Byrne is not a defendant in any case. As Mr Driscoll said, it may be worth your while reading up on the legal structure of the school; it’s easily done.
Sorry defamation. He has blocked my IP address and typing and reviewing on an iphone not that easy.
Why did he then say he could not comment due to legal action, according to the MEN. Perhaps someone could clarify this? Or has the MEN got that wrong as well?
Perhaps it’s lawyer-speak?
Legal action does not imply that he is a defendant. The very fact that there is confusion over the issue of liability makes your statement untrue. It also makes it damaging. I would exercise more caution until the legal picture clarifies itself.
However, as I’ve said before: I know little of the two cases. As such, I don’t wish to enter an argument over them. However, I do care about the school, as it educated me. That is why I comment on what I perceive to be misleading or unqualified statements. Pupil reaction in the last few days renders much of the information on this blog questionable at best.
Mr Taylor, for someone has absolutely no confidence in the MEN’s portrayal of ‘fact’, I must be mistaken in thinking that your sole basis for claiming the Governor’s are facing court action is actually from your reading of the MEN?
In another post you said that you didn’t believe the credibility of their sources after they invented one supposedly said by you:’So, yes, they actually do make up quotes’
Am I witnessing double standards here?
Bede’s has been in the press regarding sexual abuse every few years this decade. It’s a shame and like you I don’t enjoy seeing it.
However, in terms of reputation, Bede’s is ruined. I can’t really see a way back from this. Especially as it seems increasingly likely there will be another court case the press will find irresistible.
The present administration and it’s supporters can argue on this blog that it is nothing to do with them but what do they think the Judge is going to do. St Bede’s in 2013 is the same St Bede’s as the 1960’s in the eyes of the law. The Bede’s of 2013 will pay for the sins of the 1960’s.
And if the present administration at Bede’s didn’t see this coming then I don’t know what to say.
To; Steve Driscoll
Genuinely sorry to hear that, you must admit it read rather oddly. I can honestly say that with opinions so far part on both sides, little if any progress is being made. Battle fatigue is beginning to set in, I fear.
The MEN’s various errors in reporting on Saturday 4 May do not bode well for the forthcoming court case, I think you’d agree with me on that.
apologies, to clarify, I was referring to your comment about Mr Byrne not Governors in general
Sorry, Anonymous, I hold my hands up, I should have known better. As stated above, I now plead battle fatigue.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
Unlike Bede’s though, I’m man enough to admit my mistakes. I’m thinking of going to the court case myself rather than rely on the MEN’s coverage. It might be the safest way to get a true picture of what actually happens.
Green is not the subject of the allegations. Duggan and his cohorts are. The allegations stop in 1966 how has to do with the current regime or Mr Byrne’s that started in 1983.
To my knowledge nothing came out of the Green case to point the finger of blame at the management of the College. I maybe be wrong it predates me as a Governor. I started in Jan 2011. That will not be the same with Saville and the BBC.
Again how are the current school management (Mr Kearney and his team) covering up Duggan? They weren’t to my knowledge invited to the famous meeting. In fact I suspect the meeting was during the Barber reign. The case against Duggan is being managed by lawyers that will not be referencing the current management team. They have very high safeguarding regulations and protocols to stop it happening today.
Again we get back to the point that the backlash is against the attack on this blog of the current school. Accept that, apologise, delete the posts and concentrate on what you see as the real issue Duggan.
This blog is not even entertaining accidentally anymore. Malpas, you clearly have serious issues. What they were caused by, I don’t know and frankly, it’s none of my concern. Your stock reply to anyone who doesn’t agree with you and supports Bede’s is that they have missed the point. If so many of us are missing the point, has it occurred to you that perhaps you are not making it very well. Because I have read (far too) many of your posts, and I still don’t think I get it, over and above your incessant wailings about the current senior management team, none of whom you have had any educational dealings with whatsoever. You are then surprised that a load of kids defend their College. That’s because it means a lot to them. It means a lot to them because its a damn good place.
Your story here doesn’t even make any sense. Talking about the incredible amounts of traffic your proxy little site has had – it all came from people telling you to do one!
If you have your gripes about issues and events of the past, post away about them. But when you continually post sensationalist stories, and in many cases lies, about an institution close to my heart, about which you know the square root of naff all, then the Bedian family will fight back. Oh, and a classy attack on Mr Driscoll by the way, really rising above the immaturity you were so quick to lay at the feet of the students. If you could express your ideas without resorting to petty name calling, grammatical corrections and swearing, perhaps you could get away with being as patronising as you try to be. And with regards the anonymity thing. Here’s a suggestion Paul. Why don’t YOU stop hiding behind a computer screen and go visit St Bede’s to tell all the management, staff and pupils what you think, face to face. Didn’t think so.
I mean this Paul, and your wee disciple Mr Taylor. Stop posting this diatribe. As I advised previously, stop, refocus on your real reasons for this blog (which apparently, according to you and Taylor, are NOT to attack the people of St Bede’s) and start again. Otherwise I really fear for you, legally and mentally.
To: Steve Driscoll
Fair game, you have a point here, the current regime is separate, but what about the cover-up following TD’s demise? It took till March 2011, 45 years of keeping it quiet, before anything came out. 45 years of various people being responsible for the cover-up at various times. That surely will be the legal issue. To admit what was happening, I’ll have to wait for the court case to find out exactly who is in the proverbial ‘dock’. Till then, no more mention of names from me.
I’m not a lawyer but I find it hard to believe that this is going to court if the case is not strong. Bede’s could yet win the battle, the court case, but lose the war, the bad publicity could be very damaging even in possible victory. Not a great situation for the Alma Mater.
And the thought that a case about an issue 50 years ago would cause harm to the College today? You might like to hope so Paul, but why would it? Really, why? If an employer got taken to tribunal about working conditions in the 60s, does it stop people working for them in 2013?
I hate to disappoint you, but it will do nothing of the sort. St Bede’s of recent times is a fine and proud institution, which will rise above any harm caused to it by one or two people in its history.
To: Luke Kelly
Thanks for the advice, unwarranted though it may be from you, let’s see what the next few weeks bring. You probably won’t need to be worrying shortly about blogs once the court case comes up, the newspapers will be no doubt more Bede’s worry than I could ever be.
Explain to me the reasons why Bede’s would want to go to court and risk untold damage to the school’s already shaky reputation, or doesn’t that concern you, because it should.
At that point, I bid you goodbye.
You ask a question, then bid farewell? How unfortunate you won’t read this then.
1. Of course Bede’s doesn’t want to go to court. Does anyone accused of anything ever want to go to court? However, if it puts an end to nonsense such as this blog, so be it.
2. The ‘already shaky reputation’. What is this, and where does it come from? Do you know things nobody else does? Or is this, I fear, more baseless sensationalism?
I am also still waiting for the huge media coverage of this we were promised by you and your great leader on Friday and Saturday. How disappointed you must be to discover that real life is not quite as engrossed in the mindless rumblings of madmen as you hoped. Paul’s big day, with hope of a mention of his blog site in national media, came to nothing. Aw.
Well that is the end of a lovely Bank Holiday, for 16 hours I was at the coal face and towards the end became a little tired and emotional. But it is a new day, I have been at it for an hour and I feel fit and strong ready to do battle once more with all my anonymous chums and my old friend Steve, who I hope forgives me for our slight altercation of yesterday evening.
A coupe of questions if I may.
We’re you a Govenor when Mr Barber was unceremoniously removed as Headmaster?
Even if not I’m sure you will know the answer to the next questions.
Was the headship advertised as per general best practice in the education sector?
Was the deputy headship advertised as above?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then why not?
Well the c**p hits fan-again! God deliver us from the wrath of the self-serving middle class who see education as a commodity.Ethos?Wot ethos?
Something tells me that anything that may or may not have happened/been covered up at St Bede’s in the last 50 years is likely to be seen to be completely irrelevant next to what has been revealed about Chet’s (Chetham’s School of Music) and the RNCM (Royal Northern College of Music). The headline “39 Manchester Music School Teachers to Face Inquiry” certainly put the situation at Bede’s into perspective.
Messrs Malpas and Taylor must be wetting themselves with excitement with what’s happening at Chetham’s today. It certainly does put any allegations with goings on at Bede’s into perspective.
I think what Malpas et al have underestimated is the strength of positive feelings towards Bede’s. Families have had several generations go to the school and the sense of a Bedian family is stronger than ever. Strength in adversity.
So Bedes can hide behind the smokescreen of Chets et al? Thought the lesser of two evils was STILL evil?
Yes, it should be sorted out, but it shows that it is not a problem that is in any way unique to St Bede’s (especially to the current management) as the bile that Mr Malpas spouts would appear to suggest.
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.
Which matchbox did you find that on?
I’m afraid there’s not much to worry about re Chetham’s, that’s way off a court case yet. Besides, it’s been wiped off the front page, I’m afraid Fergie’s retirement has ensured we’ll get little or no ‘investigative journalism’ from the MEN ace reporters till the end of the season, next Sunday I believe.
However, I’m afraid, to coin a phrase, the very sad story of the Music school will, due to unfortunate timing, probably not be enough to ‘bury the bad news’ when Bede’s comes to court. By then, the press will like to revisit that well-gnawed bone, a good court case, far more interesting than ‘alleged’ offenders, the theatre and drama of the court is far more melodramatic than mere supposition, besides it will sell more papers.
Cynical, yes. Delighted that it’s had to come to court, no. I’m genuinely saddened that it’s comes to this, but I’d be very surprised if this is the last case regarding Bede’s. Once the vulture lawyers get their bones into the carcass, they won’t stop till the bones are licked clean of any meat.
“I’m afraid there’s not much to worry about re Chetham’s, that’s way off a court case yet.”
Well, how about one at the RNCM? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-22479831
Way off a court case yet, possible link to Chetham’s? Still, I’m afraid, next week’s fish and chip wrappings compared to Fergie’s retirement, which will run, at least in the MEN, for a few weeks at least. That you can bet on.
One thing, though. The MEN and media are at least consistent. Once there’s a sniff of a sexual abuse scandal, the trumpets issue a clarion call, and it’s blasted all over the place for all to see, read and hear. They will take no prisoners regarding Bede’s or anyone else, I’m afraid they’re having a field day currently. Blood has been smelled, the pack of hounds are on the chase, pity the poor fox, innocent or otherwise. Burying the bad news somewhere when the Bede’s court case comes up? Not very likely.
These abuse cases have plenty of mileage in them, people being arrested, re-arrested and then charged, then the court case, a conveyor belt of court cases which are likely to last for years. No problem at all filling the column inches. No-one now is going to take a chance after Jimmy Savile now, are they? The pendulum has clearly swung the other way. The game has changed, there must be some very nervous people who committed offences years ago and thought they’d got away with it.
The lawyers are going to be very busy over the next few years, they will certainly be the undoubted winners here. No double-dip recession for them.
It’s so easy to sit there and stir up scandal. By all means anyone who has suffered historic abuse, in any shape or form, must pursue legal retribution. Always.
But get real, Mr Kearney is an excellent headmaster, and very few people these days will take on such a responsibility. Just look at all the “Vacancy for Headmaster” adverts, unanswered in the papers.
For God’s sake support him. Hey, try it yourself Paul!!!
As for criticising an ‘Aussie’ teacher there – I hope you are not referring to the brave man who took 5th/6th form pupils to New York, weathered a flipping hurricane and made sure the Mums back home could talk to their kids on his phone anytime. And on return, he was all too modest. The guy IS GREAT!
What can I say, the school may not be perfect.
Teaching is a hard profession to fulfill and if St Bede’s can deal with the the new Sports Scholarship pupils, great. Good for the school, and bloody good for the new Sports Students.
Carmel McCourt (Miss)
When I was talking about the”Aussie” teacher I was not talking about a brave man, I was talking about a man full of liquer assaulting a much older colleague in a public place
Paul we do follow your blog, we have two children at bedes and whilst we are not happy with certain aspects of the college, cards on the table where are you coming from, why are you so insistent on running the college down. A number of parents are leaving the college and going elsewhere but is it not the case that we should be unified and address the failings and shortcomings of the college and as parents move it forward?
The points you raise are too important to answer in this comments section as they might get lost in the torrent of words poured into this subject. So I will answer your comment in a full blog which I will post today, 25th June 2013, which I will entitle Comment From A Bedian Parent.