I think that under Oily Flecker, that would have resulted in MASS FLOGGINGS !!!!

We were so used to blind Obedience, interspersed by mutterings (Sotto Voce !) it would never have occurred !
Moderator: Moderators
sejintenej wrote:I agree that the major changes came after you and I left but Seaman did institute some changes like assembly in Big School on Wednesdays instead of Chapel (Further to walk and a waste of time IMHO). I think it was he who got rid of the old dining hall superintendant which meant a major improvement in nutrition. There must have been a few more changes but nothing too important I don't think.J.R. wrote:It didn't change much between the 40's and 60's then. Neill.
I believe that the major changes and relaxation came after C.M.E. Seaman left as HM, and have nothing to do with the onset of political correctness and pandering to the social workers that we seem to live (and die) by today
Do you remember the demonstration in Chapel against Seaman's reforms? I was amazed that it was carried out so universally - not that it did anything to deter Seaman.
As a JR contemporary, I can't remember a protest.J.R. wrote:sejintenej wrote:I agree that the major changes came after you and I left but Seaman did institute some changes like assembly in Big School on Wednesdays instead of Chapel (Further to walk and a waste of time IMHO). I think it was he who got rid of the old dining hall superintendant which meant a major improvement in nutrition. There must have been a few more changes but nothing too important I don't think.J.R. wrote:It didn't change much between the 40's and 60's then. Neill.
I believe that the major changes and relaxation came after C.M.E. Seaman left as HM, and have nothing to do with the onset of political correctness and pandering to the social workers that we seem to live (and die) by today
Do you remember the demonstration in Chapel against Seaman's reforms? I was amazed that it was carried out so universally - not that it did anything to deter Seaman.
Remind me, David. I must admit it does ring a very distant bell somewhere in the very back of my mind. Being the 'radical' I, and Trevor Mayes were, we must have got involved somewhere along the line.
Year and reason, if you remember.
Year; shortly after Seaman arrivedJ.R. wrote:sejintenej wrote: Do you remember the demonstration in Chapel against Seaman's reforms? I was amazed that it was carried out so universally - not that it did anything to deter Seaman.
Remind me, David. I must admit it does ring a very distant bell somewhere in the very back of my mind. Being the 'radical' I, and Trevor Mayes were, we must have got involved somewhere along the line.
Year and reason, if you remember.
Most of those were after my time (June 1961). Welcome? you hadn't experienced the previous regime and it is normal to be resistant to "change".michael scuffil wrote:I started the same term as Seaman but don't remember any of this demonstration. Seaman's reforms were mostly welcome. These are some of them (the first eight years)
no marching to chapel
weekly assembly in Big School (Clarence's Crusade)
realizing there was a sex problem and doing various things about it (removing one or two dodgy staff, getting in a professional sex educator (Doctor Matthews) to give lectures on a regular basis)
streamlining the end of term
introduction od senior and junior chapel
greatly expanding deps/Grecians to take account of modern realities (by far the most important) and allowing the now numerous 2nd-year grecians most of the privileges of button grecians
pushing through senior and junior houses.
OK and yes, a huge improvementmichael scuffil wrote:The new Lady Superintendent (Mrs Johnson) arrived some time before Seaman and oversaw the modermization of the kitchens (by all accounts a huge improvement). Seaman had nothing to do with it..
After my time. I think that there might have been a large but not organised walkout from one of the "compulsory" occasional Saturday films in Big School. I wasn't part of that but I did walk out in disgust one evening and got beaten with a slipper for not having good taste. Since those experiences I suppose I have been to less than 12 films since I left CH - 8 under protest and I can remember good reasons for seeing the other 4.michael scuffil wrote:The only "demonstration" I remember in Seaman's time was at the prize-giving in the summer term of 1962. He announced the resignation of AL Johnstone as housemaster of Lamb A, whereupon there was audible cheering. In front of the guest prizegiver (a policeman, I think), he said: "I think the behaviour of the school at this moment is quite appalling", and at the monitors' meeting at the start of the next term, he described the incident as "shaming". This was probably why the presenter at the next prizegiving was not a guest, but the retiring Derrick MacNutt.
I can understand where you are coming from with the DVDs - there must be a lot in this house but it is just not my thing.kerrensimmonds wrote:David.. I can't believe that you have only seen 12 films (whether or not under protest) since you left CH? I too have not been to the cinema that often, over the years, but when I have been, it must add up to over 12. And then there are the multitidudinous DVDs which I have purchased since these were invented. I have to be honest. I own probably getting on for 50 DVDs, and probably 40 or more of those are still in their cellophane wrapping. AArrggh. But my reasons for not watching them at the time are nothing to do with restrictions I experienced at CH. They are to do with showing an interest when the film comes out on DVD and then hoping that one day, maybe in retirement, I shall have the time/opportunity for the viewing of these films................ !
Nasty things, those falls and when you already have problems then they are a nightmare. I can only sympathise.kerrensimmonds wrote:Having said that I have been at home for three days this week, because I had a fall on a slippery paving stone in my garden last Saturday (and if you are large, and arthritic, and have a fall, that is serious stuff). Once I got myself indoors again, half an hour later, and sorted myself out, relieved that though I was bruised and sprained, nothing was broken - I have had to take three days off work until I felt ready to apply my bruised/sprained knee to the clutch pedal. Ho Ho. Friends assumed that I would take some of that time out to watch some of those DVDs... no, sorry, I didn't!....................!
Sorry about the delay - I missed that paragraph.michael scuffil wrote:To Sejintenej
Doctor Matthews was compulsory for everyone. There were three sets of lectures: for the first year, for the O Level year (GE), and for leavers. They took place in school time, and occupied four double lessons each set. There was no suggestion that they were for a few boys only. (Before him. sex education was entrusted to housemasters; the mind boggles.)
.
If they started in your last year, that may explain the discrepancy. I think the first term he came, the only lectures he gave to whole blocks were the (mainly biological) lectures to the first two years. They started in my LE (i.e. 2nd) year, and we (all of us) got the same lectures as the LF (1st year), but thereafter this set of lectures was given to the LF. The next set were for GE (4th year), and introduced relationships. The last set were for leavers, and were designed to prepare us for the heterosexual world. The first time Doc M came, Seaman came to all the lectures, and Doc M dined at his table with the house captains. After that he was left to his own devices, it being assumed he knew the way to the Science Lecture Theatre by then. (I think he stayed in the Headmaster's House, he came 3 days each time).sejintenej wrote:Sorry about the delay - I missed that paragraph.michael scuffil wrote:To Sejintenej
Doctor Matthews was compulsory for everyone. There were three sets of lectures: for the first year, for the O Level year (GE), and for leavers. They took place in school time, and occupied four double lessons each set. There was no suggestion that they were for a few boys only. (Before him. sex education was entrusted to housemasters; the mind boggles.)
.
Sorry, Michael, but you are wrong. The "first year" might have come in after my time because they started in my last year. Yes, they were during school class time - I don't recall how long they were for obvious reasons. I reiterate that they were for the chosen; I was one who escaped them and had to learn "on the job". However, the stories I heard made me thankful that I did miss the two lectures which certainly took place in my time.
I went straight into Prep A; introduced to Mr Jones (rude comment that I spoke a dialect - which he already knew about), name taken, pocket money handed over and parent summarily removed from the premises. Tuck (such as it was) removed for the benefit of older boys. Then it was a case of the nursemaid helping dress in full uniform and marching practice. Eventually pushed into formation and "marching" to dining hall for supper. Back from supper (no idea how I found Prep A!) and then it is a blur. If you couldn't do your own bands straight in 3 adys all sorts of bovver. I think nursemaids were around for about a week but I am going back 58 years!postwarblue wrote:Weird. I also arrived in September 1946 but have absolutely no recollection to match David Rawlins'. The first thing I recall was being in Prep B dayroom and a couple of bods introducing themselves.
.