Roger Martin - trial

This section was setup in August 2018 in order to move the existing related discussions from other sections into this new section to group them together, and separate from the other CH-related topics.

Moderator: Moderators

AMP
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:15 pm
Real Name: Amp

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by AMP »

Now you're getting angry again, calm down.

I have every right to ask you polite probing questions.

I don't know you, have never met you, and a lot of what you have posted is unverifiable, so forgive me if I don't just roll over.

And in response to another poster, anything I put on here I would quite happily say to their face, man to man.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by J.R. »

NO - I'm not going into my previous employment with Surrey Constabulary or to mention specific incidents. I HAVE signed the Official Secrets Act.

YES I am 'old school ' in my views, as my age will prove.

I am NOT vilifing Vilified. I admire his open honesty in his posts. Maybe this thread should be locked.

Anyway, I'm off to Frimley Park Hospital hospital tomorrow for more duodenal surgery, not serious, I add, so I'll catch up with things later
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
AMP
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:15 pm
Real Name: Amp

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by AMP »

wurzel wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 12:00 pm
Chrissie Boy wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:18 am Okay, so he may have taken a split-second wrong turn at a particular point in his earlier life, but I'm sure we've all done that and many times too, and I'm sure we all regret having done so (if we possess fully-functioning consciences, which Vilified clearly does). A few pages back, he mentioned a sad fact of life, which is that some pupils do their utmost to bait their teachers into exploding with rage, and I can't help feeling that we've been seeing a manifestation of that exact same behaviour here on this very thread from some of our contributors. The vicious sanctimoniousness of their posts and the relentless needling of Vilified has left me slack-jawed with consternation and has given me a very different take on some of our community-members.

The hounds will doubtless now turn on me, but at least that'll take the heat off Vilified. In my capacity as a proper grown-up, I shan't bother reading or replying to any criticisms that are thrown at me.
I will add to this with a story from the other side of the fence as it where that if looked at through modern eyes would likely make the papers but at the time was dealt with internally

I will not name names but one of my contempories pulled a replica pistol on Mr Stindt in a maths lesson - being a new teacher who had just come from SouthAfrica (and if the rumours were to be believed -it's stopped military nuclear programme) he started diving behind his desk before his conscious told his instinct it was unlikely to be real - that child was physically lifted from his desk and expelled from the classroom. Later the same pupil had an air pistol at school and it was discovered where he had hidden it (under a window seat in the library but in a bag with a nametape sewn in). For the first incident he had the replica confiscated until the end of term and a DT for the second I think he got sent home a couple of days early - but if those happened today I believe he would have gained a Police record which would have stopped him doing the very successful job he has done for the last 25 years - the world is not Black & White

Do you think Mr Stindt should have been sacked for manhandling a pupil who pulled a gun (replica) on him ?
Thank you!

I have been trying to remember his name!

George Stindt, maths teacher and ex South African army.

Wrong man to pull a gun on.

No evidence of criminality here I think.

He was a house tutor on my GE and being Afrikaans and bilingual, kindly offered to help me with my spoken German.

We used to chat in german in his study on the ground floor, inside the lobby I think, or Golfer may have had that one, can't remember.

He was very encouraging and made me feel I was much better than I was!

Anyway, he was a lovely kind helpful man and had a very pleasant girlfriend.

I think he only stayed for a year sadly.
wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by wurzel »

He did more than a year i think it was 2 min as I had him for ALevel further maths stats - for 1 year at least he had the centre hall study of LhA (about when the incident happened),

Also wasn't it Georg not George
AMP
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:15 pm
Real Name: Amp

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by AMP »

wurzel wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:11 pm He did more than a year i think it was 2 min as I had him for ALevel further maths stats - for 1 year at least he had the centre hall study of LhA (about when the incident happened),

Also wasn't it Georg not George
Yes it was, thank you
TMF
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:03 am
Real Name: TMF

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by TMF »

Observations...

Vilified gets angry.

Vilified lies. Vilified said that he lied by omission to get his next teaching job after leaving Christ's Hospital. (You cannot be honest and say that you lied when you told the truth to get your next job, of course).

Vilified's erudition, half truths, and confession are convincing to many people.

So, on the physical assault...

Vilified said that the boy played in the game following a blow to the head. However, the victim would have been crying. The victim would have been dizzy and in pain, and probably would not have been able to play rugby.

There would have been about 30 witnesses to this event (two teams, etc.). But, so far there has been no other report that resembles Vilified's account.

The earlier post on this site (about a year ago) had the blow to the victim's stomach.

But we know that Vilified departed suddenly - so there was an incident of some sort - and probably an assault victim. I was also surprised to see that Vilified changed a post removing a phrase about 'big boys' class' that (I think) was directed to me. Revisionism is another aspect of Vilified's character. (Though oddly Vilified retained the wording about 'special needs').

I wonder if the victim or another participant in the rugby match will comment? That would be extremely helpful. And if there are no such comments, that would interesting too.
Otter
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Otter »

Regarding the lying by omission: who in the world would voluntarily bring up something in a job interview that you knew would see your application fail?

I would hedge that most or all job candidates lie by omission in this way. Not about hitting children, but about some personal or professional flaw or mistake that you’d be an idiot to bring up when trying to impress a prospective employer.
wurzel
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 393
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:59 pm
Real Name: Ian
Location: Reading

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by wurzel »

TMF wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:33 pm

Vilified said that the boy played in the game following a blow to the head. However, the victim would have been crying. The victim would have been dizzy and in pain, and probably would not have been able to play rugby.

Ignoring the rest of your post or even what this thread is about this statement is wrong - yes nowadays as a manager of a youth rugby team i would not let a player on the pitch after a head knock due the possibility of a concussion and 2nd knock syndrome unless ok'd by a trained medic - there are many times at CH boys played rugby in pain or really unfit to do so - remember most boys houses had 15max on a year so there was great pressure to be "one of the team" and step on the pitch even when not really physically able to. Also I personally have played a match in the past few years after breaking my nose in the warm up (and am sat here with a badly bruised finger from touch at pre seaosn on Tuesday)

When it comes to rugby injuries i would be more worried about the number of concussions that occurred in those days and the complete lack of any aftercare for them - I remember doing Alevel chem revision and finding a page of badly written notes I had no memory of - i tracked them back to a thu afternoon lesson which would have been after senior cupties and realised I didnt really remember the end of the game or score etc
Otter
GE (Great Erasmus)
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:17 pm
Real Name: Stephen O'Rourke
Location: East Anglia

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Otter »

wurzel wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:57 pm
TMF wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:33 pm

Vilified said that the boy played in the game following a blow to the head. However, the victim would have been crying. The victim would have been dizzy and in pain, and probably would not have been able to play rugby.

Ignoring the rest of your post or even what this thread is about this statement is wrong - yes nowadays as a manager of a youth rugby team i would not let a player on the pitch after a head knock due the possibility of a concussion and 2nd knock syndrome unless ok'd by a trained medic - there are many times at CH boys played rugby in pain or really unfit to do so - remember most boys houses had 15max on a year so there was great pressure to be "one of the team" and step on the pitch even when not really physically able to. Also I personally have played a match in the past few years after breaking my nose in the warm up (and am sat here with a badly bruised finger from touch at pre seaosn on Tuesday)

When it comes to rugby injuries i would be more worried about the number of concussions that occurred in those days and the complete lack of any aftercare for them - I remember doing Alevel chem revision and finding a page of badly written notes I had no memory of - i tracked them back to a thu afternoon lesson which would have been after senior cupties and realised I didnt really remember the end of the game or score etc
Matron made me play football with a burst appendix. She thought I was exaggerating to get off playing. But I loved playing football and would never make any excuse not to unless it was a real emergency.

I played, then went to the Infirmary and was rushed to Crawley Hospital. This was on my 3rd Form. After that, one cough and Matron would offer bed rest!
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Pe.A »

TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
Well....depends on tbe abuse...surely...??
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Pe.A »

TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:01 pm
harryh wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:05 pm
TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:50 pm Let's see if I am up to speed:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on context.

Is that the short summary?
Hello....the search for clarity is commendable, but so is a realisation of the time to withdraw.
Right, you have not been around much recently.

But let's work on the logic construction:

Examples:

Physical abuse can be heinous or valid depending on intent.

Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils is bad or laudable depending on context.

Tolerance can be good or bad depending on context and whether that person is saying what one likes (or not) oneself.

The basic form is:

An [action or behavior] is [good or bad] because of [context or feelings]

Ready for the next lesson - please proceed (tolerantly).
Youre thinking of things in Black and White only. Things ate rarely that simple...
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Pe.A »

TMF wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:33 pm
Vilified wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:53 pm
So so tedious, so so dense! How on earth did you get into the big boys' class?
Even though I'm not qualified in teaching special needs, let me try one last time!
You must not over-simplify so grossly and you must refrain from twisting arguments to fit a twisted agenda.
The way it works in assessing harm done to another is this:
Case 1 - A person deliberately maliciously and with full intention sets out to inflict a harm (eg a specific physical injury) on another and succeeds. That (in normal English usage) can be described as 'heinous'.
Case 2 - A person intentionally sets out to inflict a minor harm (eg a non-injurious blow) upon another but the unintended consequence, by accident or miscalculation, is far worse than was originally intended (indeed the intention may have had a positive aim, eg to impose a necessary moderate discipline). Because there is a resultant harm but the harm was not intended, that act could be called 'reckless', the perpetrator may even call it accidental, but it cannot (in normal English usage) be described as 'heinous'.
Case 3 - A person inadvertently inflicts harm upon another, intending no such thing. This act we call 'accidental'.
It may be debatable in the case under examination whether it comes under 2 or 3; but it is blatantly obvious that it does not come under 1, and is not therefore 'heinous'. As to the term 'valid', which you have dragged in from somewhere, it does not fit in anywhere.
The law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter, and accidental death, etc. It does so for a reason and the consequences for person causing the death differ according to the intention. So intention and context are indeed 'all'.
If that still isn't clear, you need to drop down a class or two, because you're plainly out of your depth.
Selfless dedication to the educational cause. I am not sure though that drawing attention to a pupil's needs can be classified as tolerant.

If we accept that physical abuse/GBH is an area shrouded in abstruse subtlety, how would you parse:

Drinking to excess with colleagues and pupils.

Would that be laudable or deplorable? Can you walk us through the cases for that situation?
That is childish. Really basic thinking...
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Pe.A »

DazedandConfused wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:14 pm
Leeautemps wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:39 pm Vilified, I don't like your name-calling or your attempts at legal landscape gardening.
Agreed. Your use of the term ‘special needs’ as an insult is pretty bl**dy offensive.
He didnt use it as an insult. Grow up.
Vilified
3rd Former
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:22 pm
Real Name: RCD

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Vilified »

TMF wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 1:33 pm
Vilified said that the boy played in the game following a blow to the head. However, the victim would have been crying. The victim would have been dizzy and in pain, and probably would not have been able to play rugby.

There would have been about 30 witnesses to this event (two teams, etc.). But, so far there has been no other report that resembles Vilified's account.

The earlier post on this site (about a year ago) had the blow to the victim's stomach.

(Though oddly Vilified retained the wording about 'special needs').

I wonder if the victim or another participant in the rugby match will comment? That would be extremely helpful. And if there are no such comments, that would interesting too.
Whereas your continued viciousness is beneath contempt, as decent people have recognised, and I will not engage with you further beyond this, I will say this:

It is a warped interpretation of what lying means to say that someone who does not go out of his way to disqualify himself from future employment by proactively laying out information prejudicial to the gaining of such employment is lying.

You are yet again being thoroughly offensive, this time in openly calling me a liar.

The boy did play rugby.

Who may have seen the touchline, pre-match incident, I cannot say. A few. Certainly not 30 odd people, as I don't think LHA had arrived and the rest of the BaA team were probably warming up, as instructed.

There don't seem to be many people active on this forum. If there is someone else who knows the truth, no doubt he will corroborate.

As for the vague suggestion of 'a blow to the stomach', that was, as you are well aware, given as no more than a recollection of a rumour, and at least has the merit that of showing that there were 'folk memories' of a physical assault of some sort.

If I retained the wording about 'special needs' that was through hasty editing, and I meant to remove it. I have had a great deal to do with special needs pupils over the years, though not in specialist teaching of them. Most of them have blossomed under my encouragement. Indeed, a few weeks back one former pupil travelled down from the north to meet me and host me and we climbed Snowdon together. He is now a multimillionaire, having shown phenomenal talent in getting there from nothing and virtually disowned by his parents for his academic failings, yet took valuable time out of his hectic life to spend with me, and he was fulsome in his thanks for my encouragement.

One of the last tributes paid to me when I finished with teaching was from another very dyslexic young man, now thriving. He described me as 'a f***ing legend'. That will do, as far as I am concerned. I can live with that.
Pe.A
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:05 pm
Real Name: RTroni

Re: Roger Martin - trial

Post by Pe.A »

richardb wrote: Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:53 pm Thanks for mentioning the Guidelines. As you will have seen, your assault on the pupil merits custody, so can we stop trivialising it.

You may not have intended the level of injury you caused, but you sure as hell intended to assault the lad.
Just out of interest, what are you so up in arms about? The clip round the earhole or the level of injury? How was a clip round the earhole viewed by police and judges at the time? Would they even have bothered reprimanding someone...?
Locked