Queen Ethelburga school and sex abuse

[BatmansBat]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/owner-of-york-boarding-school-queen-ethelburgas-jailed-for-historical-sexual-abuse-of-pupils-3295138%3famp

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9754347/amp/Millionaire-businessman-bought-37-000-year-boarding-school-abuse-pupils-jailed.html

Ok, so I am really cross that the previous thread got deleted. It had a lot of helpful links. This concerns child abuse and safeguarding and I am still aghast that this can happen.

A predatory male buys a boarding school (allegedly through various holding companies)

he installs somewhere between 500 and 700 cameras around the building, including in areas where children get changed

he abuses children

his lawyer threatens to sue MN when women tried to discuss anything negative about the school

He got appointed to Chairman of the Governors which meant that he could help write the safeguarding policies.

He managed to get off from charges the first time

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-44785825.amp

How can this be allowed to happen? As parents we need to know that our children are safe. I think this should be used as an example of how important all safeguarding principles are!

Thank you for starting a new thread about thus, after the original one was derailed.

The thread which lead to threats to prosecute MNetters was not about any sexual abuse in the school. AFAIK there was no attempt to prosecute either MN or MNetters (some of whom, notably TalkinPeace, stood by their posts as fair comment; others withdrew theirs as requested but then reposted in a more lawyer-proof way)

I don't know if the school's (and associated people and entities) general attitude to litigation meant that they escaped comments that couid have led to a faster end to the abuse.

Thank you metrina. To be honest, I have no idea what was posted and not on that thread. It had as many holes as a Swiss cheese and people kept referring to legal letters.

I am so upset about the children this happened to. They were so let down by adults who should have been stricter at implementing and enforcing proper safe guarding principles.

Time and time again I see women talking about safe guarding and time and time again they are being dismissed. This has to stop.

This story is unreal.

I didn't see the original thread... how did it get derailed?

It just shows the lengths some men will go to to access the bodies of women and children. Absolutely shocking.

Thi is insane. is this a recent development? This is that weird school that was always trying to advertise on here right?

I was on the thread, and member it pretty well.

It was a pretty standard 'school review' type thread, with people steps pointing out that they could not think of another school which split pupils into two groups, and assigned then to legally separate bodies (a college and a faculty) so they appeared as two schools with differing results in league tables.

Also a lot of discussion on the nature and quality of their advertising.

And their (probably) unique T&Cs in that if your DC was in a scholarship/bursary and they left before end y13, then the entire value of the award had to be remain. No MNetter could come up with any other school with such terms. Posters warned people to be very careful, because even the most wonderful school can be a poor fit for an individual DC and when it's boarding you need to be able to move them asap (much more important than for a day school)

There were interesting posts on the complicated ownership of the school (well, it seemedcomplicated to me!)

Allegations from someone who purported to be from a former staff member were deleted, but IIRC were getting in to the territory f the events that have now been tested in court and resulted in convictions.

There was a link to a piece in the Telegraph (2015) about the extraordinary number of surveillance cameras on the premises

Somewhat unusually, posters responded to pleas to not speculate on the thread, or to rise to strange posts on it (fair few new posters, who then never posted on another thread) so that it did not end up so full of holes that it had to be taken down - determinined provocation of that type had caused a couple of others to go.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight, I think there are explanations for the school's litigious approach that go beyond what was assumed at the time (which centred on the odd split in reporting results, and the unusual amount of PR - possibly to attract international students, hence need to expunge readily discoverable stuff online that showed the holes in the 'top school' narrative.

Unfortunately it seems as if the concerns they did not want coming to light were considerably graver

This reminds me of the soft play centre owner who installed spy cams in the women's loos at his business. Was finally caught when the children he was filming in the mixed sex changing at the local pool spotted his phone under the cubicle.

Hundreds of images of naked women and children found on his computer. What an abuse of power, filming his preschool clients, their mothers, and his employees at work. And of course the pool still has the very same mixed sex changing where it impossible for a female to even wash properly away from male gaze and all the cubicles have huge gaps.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6109857/amp/Eddie-Catz-play-centre-founder-Darren-Johnson-filmed-girls-undressing-jailed.html

Apologies for the Mail link but the Independent article neglected to cover the soft play centre crimes and only mentioned the pool. Huge omission given the man was the soft play boss and the kids here much younger.

But no man would go to as much trouble to access women and kids in a state of vulnerability, right?

It doesn't surprise me at all. I worked there in 2004 and saw a lot of stuff that I really didn't like.

Ew.
I was desperate to go in the early 00’s for the equestrian facilities. Thank fuck my family are poor, ey?

It was a fucking miserable place and I left with severe clinical depression! You had a lucky escape!

I missed the original thread on this. Agree with others that shows the lengths abusers will go to in order to procure victims.

As aside I seem to recall this has always been a bit of a contentious school. I remember reading some threads on MN years back.

I remember this school in the late 90s always advertising in teen horse magazines and begging my parents to send me!

There have been many threads on this school and many have ended up full of holes.
To the point where anyone asking about it on the Education board would be told something along the lines of "the fact we can't really discuss this school probably tells you what you need to know".

I didn't even know about this case - another teacher sentenced in March for hidden cameras.
yorkmix.com/cold-and-calculating-teacher-hid-camera-in-bathroom-of-school-near-york/

That is shocking Endoplasmic. Another pervert on the same school. And this must have been going on after the Owner had already been accused, acquitted and the prosecution appealed.

Why is this always males? What is wrong with men?

Any thread about this school gets deleted…it’s been the way for 15 years or so.

Why always males?

Well, it seems that the penis and the hormones that go with it is a powerful driver for behaviour, and misbehaviour.

Which rather proves that sex matters.

Covid, I hope that this thread will stay up. It would be outrageous if they took it down when they have two convictions for sex offences among staff - which has been published in national papers.

I do wonder if there is anything we can learn from this? Just in terms of more oversight over the safeguarding policies and the implementation of those at schools? More public scrutiny would be good.

I also think it is interesting how litigatious the school seem to have been in the light of this. It could be completely unrelated (I understand that the previous threads didn’t touch upon sex offences??) but they seem to have been remarkably quick to try to shut down any gossip.

Previous threads did not mention sex offences although they did mention cameras, as this was in the news after an inspection.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/queen-ethelburgas-school-given-notice-improve-government-1809273

I remember this school in the late 90s always advertising in teen horse magazines and begging my parents to send me!

Me too - in the early 70s

What on earth was deletable about the original thread? This has been reported in the press (although oddly only The Daily Mail amongst the nationals has picked it up)

Goodness, this is even more awful than I first suspected.

I had seen their constant vigilance and aggression towards the threads on here and it was obvious something disastrous was going on but I didn't expect it to be to this scale.

It has had a terrible reputation educationally for at least 30 years but this is profoundly horrible.

The last thread got deleted (so many brilliant links disappeared) but my understanding is that the results were presented in an innovative way.

a) They divided the school up in two subsections where on was better performing and was was worse performing.

b) this division ticked all regulatory boxes but there was no obvious reason for the split (like two single sex schools like haberdashers or different locations) and the pupils shared teachers and buildings.

c) the results tables (showing excellent rankings) excluded well known extremely academic schools like Westminster and St Pauls for some unknown reason.

d) ownership structure was extremely complicated and the school was owned via various trusts. According to the recent articles the ultimate owner, Mr Martin, is sentenced for sexual abuse of children at the school.

a) Mr Martin was overseeing the school as a governor when all the cameras were placed all over the school, including in changing areas.

When any hints of improper arrangements were made by the women here, the lawyer for Mr Martin (?) contacted MN and threatened to sue. They were stating things like “the division between the two part of the school is legal” (well ticking all boxes but maybe unethical?) and (the owner of the school is a trust/charity (well yes, but then you had the owner of the trust and of that trust etc, ending up with Mr Martin).

I think this shows three things.

1. The extraordinarily entitlement on some men and how they will operate technically within the law but with a disregard for the spirit of the law.

2. How some men will go to any effort to access children for sexual gratification. This man bought an entire school

3. when people start playing fast and loose with safeguarding for whatever reason (the school was criticised for the cameras) really bad things will happen. Because only the most rigorous safeguarding policies will protect children from predators who are willing to do anything for their sexual gratification.

4. people who are so worried about a discussion that they manage to get thread after thread deleted and even involve lawyers are likely to have something to hide.

people who are so worried about a discussion that they manage to get thread after thread deleted and even involve lawyers are likely to have something to hide.

I never dreamed it was anything on this scale. It seemed like a bit of a joke, and I feel sick that I found it funny. But I just wasn't very cynical back then, and I suspect I thought it was unfair and prejudiced against males to look out for signs they might be predators.

I think very differently now. I now realise that safeguarding should start from the worst possible scenario- you're supposed to suspect the worst, so you can design policies that will baffle predators. It's about prioritizing the vulnerable.

No-one in my previous retail jobs got offended that we were all treated as potential thieves in the rules about who could cash up the end of day takings from the tills and where they could do the cashing up? Surely children's psychological and physical welfare are at least as important as a piece of plastic and metal containing £50 in cash?

@KimikosNightmare

What on earth was deletable about the original thread? This has been reported in the press (although oddly only The Daily Mail amongst the nationals has picked it up)

Interesting. My DH mentioned it and when I saw this I realised I hadn't seen any stories in the Times etc and forgot about it.

I now realise that safeguarding should start from the worst possible scenario- you're supposed to suspect the worst, so you can design policies that will baffle predators. It's about prioritizing the vulnerable.

This is what I've learnt too, expect the worst to create the best possible outcome. All children should be protected from predators, sexual or otherwise. As an advanced, morally sound society, we protect the vulnerable, from the very young to the very old. It's really not complicated but failures in recognising potential threats, silencing whistleblowers or concerned voices and ultimately letting predators do as they wish (he bought a school?!) we (everyone) lets down those who become victims.

I'm very sad to see the other thread go but we have this one now. Thanks OP for keeping this conversation going.