Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

in a spot of bother.

http://www.bathrugby.com/news/7823.php

Andrew Higgins is the Old Blue

A response through the players' solicitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 055662.stm

I'm afraid to say that there is rarely no smoke without fire.

I have always been suspicious when athletes fail to take a drug-test, or claim that they just 'forgot'.

At least it's not just football and athletics that are involved these days !

Please bear in mind that there may be 'no smoke without fire', but nobody has actually been found guilty! Not only is Andrew an Old Blue, but his parents were housemaster/mistress in Barnes A or B at the time of the merger. (I can never remember which end of the block was which, because I had a daughter in each end.) I believe Mrs Higgins taught RE. How dreadful for his parents if allegations turn out to be true - or even if they don't.

Fjgrogan wrote:Please bear in mind that there may be 'no smoke without fire', but nobody has actually been found guilty! Not only is Andrew an Old Blue, but his parents were housemaster/mistress in Barnes A or B at the time of the merger.

Agreed. I hate that phrase with a vengeance.

I really don't think I expressed myself very clearly before! I know from experience that there can be smoke without fire in this kind of metaphorical sense. Once the comment has been made it immediately plants the suspicion that there must be some truth in the original allegation, even if in fact the allegation was made from pure malice, or just from a lack of information. But once that doubt is expressed the person on the receiving end has very little chance of getting an unbiased hearing and they are left having to live with the outcome indefinitely. I have no idea whether the young men concerned in this incident are innocent, guilty, or just misunderstood, but I abhor the tendency to suggest that there must be something fishy going on, just because somebody thinks there is. [In retrospect, I am not sure that I expressed myself any more clearly this time!]

Fjgrogan wrote:Please bear in mind that there may be 'no smoke without fire', but nobody has actually been found guilty! Not only is Andrew an Old Blue, but his parents were housemaster/mistress in Barnes A or B at the time of the merger. (I can never remember which end of the block was which, because I had a daughter in each end.) I believe Mrs Higgins taught RE. How dreadful for his parents if allegations turn out to be true - or even if they don't.

His father, Mr PF (Peter) Higgins, was assistant housemaster in Mid A when I was at CH and also tried to teach me chemistry at one time, a subject for which I had little or no aptitude.

I firmly subscribe to innocent until proved guilty but they do seem to be fighting something of a rearguard action. One could argue that resignation was a tacit admission of guilt as they would have brazened it out if innocent although I believe Andrew's contract was due to expire or even had expired anyway.

Fjgrogan wrote:I really don't think I expressed myself very clearly before! I know from experience that there can be smoke without fire in this kind of metaphorical sense. Once the comment has been made it immediately plants the suspicion that there must be some truth in the original allegation, even if in fact the allegation was made from pure malice, or just from a lack of information. But once that doubt is expressed the person on the receiving end has very little chance of getting an unbiased hearing and they are left having to live with the outcome indefinitely.

Well, err, yes, sort of! Which is exactly why I hate that phrase with a vengeance. Regardless of what it refers to. I wonder how many lives it has ruined?

It was Barnes A - the other daughter's house! They had the family & we had three single women, I think! Vonny?

Yes - Mr & Mrs Higgins were BaA.
In BaB we had Miss Lindsay as housemistress - I remember her getting engaged to Nick (I think) when we were there. Also we had Miss Muir - the French teacher and also Miss Robinson who was ths sister of the Mr Robinson who taught RDT (I think again ) and went on to marry Miss Hartnett who taught Food & Nutrition.
I vaguely remember us having another woman in BaB A small dark haired lady - really quiet I really can't remember her name.

Mid A 15 wrote:
I firmly subscribe to innocent until proved guilty but they do seem to be fighting something of a rearguard action. One could argue that resignation was a tacit admission of guilt as they would have brazened it out if innocent although I believe Andrew's contract was due to expire or even had expired anyway.

It seems I was wrong to use the word "resignation."

"Termination" appears to be the word and it seems that they are preparing to fight back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... issal.html

I think they may try to go for constructive dismissal but that is pure speculation on my part.

it all seems very mystyerious, with Bath saying the resigned and the player now through a spokesman saying it was not their choice to go? In light of the recent Matt Stevens ban as mentioned in that article Im sure the club want to 'limit damage to them' but they three players involved should also be ocnsidered. It would be a real shame, I have seen Andrew play a number of times for Bristol and Bath at Tigers and have been know when he scored to cheer even though he's the oppostion-he is a very talented player as are the other two.

Mid A 15 wrote:

Mid A 15 wrote:
I firmly subscribe to innocent until proved guilty but they do seem to be fighting something of a rearguard action. One could argue that resignation was a tacit admission of guilt as they would have brazened it out if innocent although I believe Andrew's contract was due to expire or even had expired anyway.

It seems I was wrong to use the word "resignation."

"Termination" appears to be the word and it seems that they are preparing to fight back.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... issal.html

I think they may try to go for constructive dismissal but that is pure speculation on my part.

This is precisely why the police caution was changed after my time, to include.

"If you fail to mention, when questioned, something that you later rely on in court".... etc. etc."

1) To try and stop silence on interview to cover guilt then plead innocence in court.

2) A way round the old chestnut of "NO COMMENT !" to every question asked, then go to court with the complete version of Grimms Fairy Tale.

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

PACE had a lot going for it, and a great deal more against it, unless of course, you are the fibbing crim !

J.R. wrote: If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

Yeah, right. "What do you need a solicitor for? 'If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.'"

Pull the other one, JR!

The majority of innocent people do not have the intelligence or know-how to defend themselves in court of law.

There are solicitors, and then there are 'solicitors'

Sorry JR -- can't resist it ---- there are also SOLICITERS -- who get arrested for soliciting !

My Policeman Daddy said that whenever a real "Nasty" was arrested (Child abuse, attacking old people etc..)
They invariably "Resisted arrest" on the way to the Police Station.


Couldn't happen nowadays could it ?


Could it ?