Talk:Caldicott School

Untitled
May I suggest you take a look at the Americam Boy Choir School Wiki entry.

Information available on the web indicates there is more which can be written about this subject on these pages about Caldicott. So far I have let matters pass, but the repeated removal of information published by two reputable newspapers is wrong. As far as I can establish this institution has not served papers against either of the newspapers for wrongful publication or libel. If I am wrong please inform me. Removing the information is therefore unacceptable until you can indicate the papers have been served, and the institution has successfully prosecuted a case.

Where you go from here is your decision. (Cartitza 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

External Link Tensions
As I have said in the past please refer to the American Boychoir School.

History cannot be erased because it is inconvenient. It is a common occurrence with those who are ashamed of the past, and history is important as the school makes only too clear on it's Wiki entry.

The matters covered in the press involved a perpetrator (Wright) firstly being charged in a magistrates court. Wright then appeared in Aylesbury Crown court claiming 'an abuse of process.' This was successful. As a result the case was stayed in Feb 2003. A stay means the case is 'parked.' Wright can neither be presumed innocent or guilty of the charges made against him. This is made clear in an article in The * Daily Telegraph by the Education Editor.

In the Article in The * New York Times the London correspondent gave the school the right to comment which was accepted.

Another former teacher was charged in 2001 with Sexual abuse of Caldicott pupils - Mr EME Carson a science teacher - hired it seems during Wright's tenure as Head. He also appeared at Aylesbury Crown Court in April 2003 and pleaded guilty to multiple offences of sexual abuse against pupils at the school and was convicted to 2 years imprisonment.

This information is in the public domain, and is part of the history of the school, and therefore in the blood. The public interest is served by these issues appearing on the Wiki entry, and are all matters of public record.

I hope this explains matters sufficiently clearly that removal of these external links, and the fact that Wright was the former Head, will cease. (Cartitza 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC))


 * In view of the horrific acts of sexual abuse by three teachers and another man recounted by the brave victims in the documentary, "Chosen," one is left to wonder why this school is still open. The issue is not whether this event should feature in the Wiki article but why so little space has been dedicated to it. 87.80.9.63 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Additions of the 18th October
I think your addition of the 18th October showing the names of 2 students and their roles at this school is profoundly unwise. I suggest you reflect on this foolishness which cannot be removed completely from these pages without the assistance of Wiki. I suggest you seek their assistance quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.171.52 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reference to the fourth headmaster as being JUDGE Shewell Cooper is wrong. I was a pupil at the school between 1940 and 1942 and shared a dormitory with Peter Wright. I could say more but will not. At that time there were joint headmasters, F G Wood and Shewell Cooper. Both were bachelors. Cooper was not a lawyer and I think the writer of the pieced may be confusing him with another family member. I think Cooper's father was the gardening correspondent of The Times.

Michael Baron, MBE. Source.. I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.53.105 (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"The original Victorian house remains..."
Someone wrote that the school moved to its present site in 1938. So IF there is an original Victorian House, it was not originally Caldicott School (Queen Victoria having inconveniently gone and died in 1901). Maybe someone could add a couple of lines to address the questions that arise. Please. & thanks. Charles01 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Undue Weight
Does anyone agree with the warning message about undue weight having been given to certain ideas, incidents or controversies? Assuming this flag refers to the sexual abuse at the school, I don't, for the following reasons: - the statements are statements of fact, not opinion, so cannot be seen as a minority view - all statements are well supported by good quality references - The abuse was not just a single case by an individual teacher, but was consistent over many years by a significant proprtion of the number of teachers at the school, and so is a significant part of the school's history - the statements are all made in an impartial tone Does anyone have any arguments against the above, or shall we delete the warning? Smartcom (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)