ORIGINAL MESSAGE

NAME: John Reimann

DATE: 21 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Inmate 1960 - 1966

QE Boys School, Barnet is not just a school.  It is a dreadful remnant of an Era of The British Empire.  This 'Culture' is still present in that dreadful institution from what I have read.  It tied to get recognition as some sort of Eaton or Harrow in the 'Pompous' days around WW1 and WW2 and the 'boys' were probable cannon fodder, hence the paramilitary nature of the school and it's teaching staff.  Today, that place sounds still so aweful!  I feel sorry for every boy in that place and the British Govnt should change the entire 'culture' of that miserable hole.

1st REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 21 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

John, I'm not sure how you can know what the school is like today.  There are very few contributions on this site from present or recent pupils, from which you could form an opinion.  I worked there briefly (in a very unlikely capacity) in the 1990s, and in many ways it seemed to have improved greatly since my unhappy days as a pupil in the same place in the '50s.  Discipline, though not as stifling as it was, is probably still firmer than average, but that's surely something to be applauded in this day and age?

2nd REPLY

NAME: Nigel Wood  

DATE: 24 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64

If the school had been so 'paramilitary' fifty years ago, why didn't it have a Combined Cadet Force (the successor to an Officers' Training Corps)?  Most public schools would have had these units.  Maybe Herts County Council wouldn't wear it, or the services were too snobbish to encourage officer training in state schools.  But perhaps Jenkins never even considered establishing a Corps, even though he certainly did want QE to emulate what he saw as the excellence of the public schools.  [Sorry to take the word 'paramilitary' a bit literally; it's just that it set me thinking.  I'm not trying here to comment on the general running of QE.]

Jenkins served as a Naval Officer in WW1 and like many of his generation was clearly deeply affected by that war.  In his last year at QE (1961) he had the choir singing Elgar's settings of The Fourth of August (the day GB entered the war) and For the Fallen.  One was vaguely jingoistic, the other sombre.

Was it also Jenkins who had some of Frank Brangwyn's WW1 battlefield art hung in the 'new' building (the one with the gym and refectory)?  I remember thinking at the time how odd all this was.  But none of it shows Jenkins to have been - or not to have been - militaristic.

3rd REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 24 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

The school indeed had a Combined Cadet Force at one time, Nigel, but it was disbanded shortly before I started there in '54.  The Gun Field (over which the big extensions were built in the late '50s and early '60s) were where they practised.  I remember that it still had the concrete firing range.  Every time I looked at it it made me angry but at the same time grateful that I'd just missed having to play at soldiers.  I also just missed National Service when that, too, came to an end a few years later.  Funny how no-one at the time took the trouble to explain the perceived need for either of those things to us in the context of the aftermath of two world wars.  At this distance of time, the context is clear and the erstwhile intolerable has become understandable.

4th REPLY

NAME: John Reimann

DATE: 24 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: six year sentence 60-66

Yes Vic, over 40 years has gone by [see reply 2].  I don't know QE today whatsoever, nor do I want to know.  What I do know is that the history of that 'cultural institution' is not that of a 'School'.  A school is a place of education funded by the public local tax revenues and should be a healthy happy environment monitored heavily by the authorities and parents.  Pupils should have happy enthusiastic memories of their schooling and teachers.  This is not the case of QE, particularly in the past.  I again repeat myself to say or strongly imply that QE's past is nothing but a shameful novel from Charles Dickens.  It is on a par with the shame in nations with 'war crimes'.  Oh well, if a child can survive QE, they'll survive hell.

5th REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 24 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

Dotheboys Hall?  Mmm ... Don't remember the treacle tart having brimstone in it.  Seriously, though, won't some proud present-day pupil or teacher come to the rescue?

6th REPLY

NAME: Stephen Giles  

DATE: 28 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Nuisance 1957-64

Yes, I remember the Gun Field references [see reply 3].  I never knew that Jenkins was a naval officer in WW1 - possibly accounted for his brutal ways, although I never suffered the cane from him, only rather feeble canings from Poker.  John Reimann - do you perhaps bear a grudge as indeed I do that one was forced to miss Saturday Club on the BBC Light Programme on a Saturday morning during term times?

7th REPLY

NAME: Nigel Wood  

DATE: 28 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64

Thanks, Vic, for putting the facts straight about the Combined Cadet Force (CCF) at QE [see reply 3].  I'd still like to know whether it was Jenkins's decision to disband it, or whether he was forced to do so.  Most well-known independent schools seem to have retained a CCF (with voluntary membership) to this day.

8th REPLY

NAME: John Hamilton  

DATE: 22 October 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1958-64

I seriously wonder how many old boys really feel that things were as dreadful as John Reiman makes out?  Whilst not excelling at anything particular myself and thus never being favoured with sporting 'colours' or a prefect gown, etc, I never hated school in its entirety and the overall impression I have with hindsight is that most boys were turned out fairly well prepared for either tertiary education or the rigours of employment where workplace discipline was expected.  I had my share of 'lines' but don't think being caned featured on my CV.  Maybe I was just a quiet'ish plodder rather than an outright rebel.  I have written before about being taught by Mr Cocks, but that is more than balanced by better memories of the majority of the teachers, Richard Dilley and Eric Crofts in particular.

When one watches the portrayal of pupils or school age kids in TV fiction, one is often left thinking the inmates have taken over the asylum.  I don't think there is too much variance from reality in these productions.  So many would appear so undisciplined, foul-mouthed and boorish that they are likely to be unemployable - what sort of future lies ahead for them?  Was it really so bad to be brought up in our admittedly imperfect world to understand that a certain level of discipline and respect for others is essential for society to function well?  The achievements of current pupils at QE seems remarkably impressive in so many fields.  I get the impression that few of them would have a vocabulary mainly consisting of, "whatever" or "innit" and responding to properly written emails (not texts or IM's) with just one word, 'LOL'.  I recently had to ask my granddaughter what she meant by LMFAO - [Laughing My Fat Arse Off ] - charming from a 12-year girl don't you think?  Attending Southend on Sea High School in Essex in case you were wondering!

School is about preparing people for life in the real world and by and large I think QE's regime makes a fairly good fist of it and serves the majority well.

Being mischievous, I wonder if John Reimann got involved in the hierarchy of educationalists who have wreaked havoc in much of the system in the past 30 years, or became a Councillor overseeing local education?

9th REPLY

NAME: Martyn Day   Then & Now

DATE: 23 October 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: student 1956-63

I agree with John Hamilton. The school certainly had its share of eccentrics and deadbeats but I think that most of us managed to walk away from it with our heads held fairly high.  As for today's students, I was back at the school last week taking part in a Careers Forum and the boys I spoke to were very polite, interested in what I had to say and most had a sense of what they wanted to do when they left school.  Unfortunately most of them wanted to be lawyers, which was very disappointing to a Media person like myself !  Still, Q.E is a grammar school and that is what grammar schools are supposed to do - produce lawyers!

10th REPLY

NAME: John Reimann

DATE: 27 October 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Sufferant 60-66

No, No.  Any pupil coming out of any type of school will survive on their IQ and level of sufferance to places like QE (was?)  QE cannot claim ever any special academic excellence because in my era the teaching staff were nearly all totally abysmal!!  The kids survived that place, not benefitted by that horror show!  We are all human beings but that place was shameful regarding teaching!  It's like David Copperfield.  I gotta stop sounding so negative, but there is nothing good to say about that place.  And by the way Vic, I see you won't publish my older posts which give the graphic descriptions of that place (back in my day).  If you want to run a Website of history of a school - then accept what people say - you cannot have a sweet little 'Old Boys' network from a place like QE in those days. Most men would rather forget it like the Holocaust!

11th REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 24 September 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

Actually, John, there were a number of reasons why some of your posts were not published.  Firstly, despite a previous reminder, you have not been putting the number of the thread you are replying to on the form.  As I prefer not to have an automated system, it's important to specify the thread number, as I haven't always time to work out which thread you are replying to.  Secondly, you have not really gone into 'graphic descriptions' as you claim - you have simply repeated the same strong condemnation in general terms, and six of those very similar messages have now been published.  Thirdly, some of the messages were just a bit too strong (you admitted that yourself about one of them).

Many different feelings about the school as it used to be have been expressed on this site, some negative, some positive, some mixed - and that's in accordance with the aim of overall impartiality, as expressed on the home page.  As for our being an 'old boys network' - well, yes, that's a very satisfying aspect of the site.  The fact is that the site has enabled those of us who had an unhappy time of the school to get it off our chests.  Now, with the benefit of age, we're moving on and owning up to the fact that there might have been one or two more positive aspects after all (and that's quite an admission, coming from me).

12th REPLY

NAME: Adam Lines   Then & Now

DATE: 05 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1957-64

Mr Reimann's views on the old QE may seem rather extreme but I do understand and sympathise with them.  It was only the friendship of some of my peers and the humanism of a couple of masters that made an otherwise pretty miserable time bearable.  I cannot speak for the present regime but reading the Headmaster's Report in the latest Elizabethan magazine, I suspect that the current regime of forced worship at the altar of meritocracy may be giving rise to similar comments from the present intake in 50 years' time.

13th REPLY

NAME: John Smith

DATE: 17 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Current pupil

Sorry to have to be anonymous, but that's the nature of QE's online monitoring.

Which brings me onto my first point: the school's online activities are rather draconian, in that they have tried, several times, to shut down other sites like this, run by more recent students, who have bad things to say about current teachers.

Nonetheless, I must object in the strongest possible terms to the description given by the original poster, John Reimann, as QE as some kind of imperial playground.  I would argue that it is now the absolute opposite - it is now a thoroughly left wing institution. The heads of every department are either liberal or out-and-out socialist, and the teachers in most of the departments, most especially humanities, are usually socialist or left wing.  There are few places less imperial.

I remember one chap suggesting the Russians were not the "right" side, or the "good" side during the Cold War, and he was practically accused of racism - I kid you not.

Furthermore, the year heads are left-wing, consisting of former NUS workers, Labour supporters, God-haters and, worst of all, someone who said something along the lines of "I couldn't work for anything but the State" and "it would be against my beliefs to own a private business".

When there was an in-school 'mock election' in 2005 around the time of the real general election, a Year 13 wanted to run as a BNP candidate.  This was refused.  He then asked if he could run as a Communist Party candidate.  This was accepted - where is the neutrality and perspective there?

All this means there is a particularly nasty interpretation of history which the rest of you would not have experienced, and a general attitude of liberalism that means the worst-behaved kids are given special treatment, the teachers share in their jokes and refuse to punish them for bullying, racism etc.

On the subject of racism, I have been racially abused multiple times - I am white, however - much more than a non-white person might experience.  Nonetheless, several year heads have refused to do anything about it at all.

As for the 'paramilitary' aspect, there is no evidence of this today, nor has there been since at least the 1990s, as far as I can establish.  There is a CCF squad here, but far from being some kind of martial supremacists, they are widely mocked for their activities, and for their enthusiasm in their membership of CCF.

Back to the teaching, in history, for example, the Nazis are referred to as "conservatives" - a blatant smear on the Conservatives of today, completely ignoring the fact the Nazis were the most radical group we'd ever seen, hardly conservatives at all!

The curriculum in history consists of a positive, revisionist interpretation of Soviet Russia, as taught by admirers of the regime, and a justifiably harsh look at the Nazis, as taught by people who, as mentioned, misconstrue the Nazis as some kind of ideological forefathers of the Tories!

The politics department used to have a Labour supporter who thought Tony Blair had "sold out" etc, who criticised Israel at length for being a "racist, apartheid state", who also constantly labeled David Cameron as a "nationalist racist, who is really a poor man's Nick Griffin".

So, no, there is no imperialism here at all.  Quite the opposite - a brainwashing left wing regime exists here, I am sad to say.

14th REPLY

NAME: Adam Lines   Then & Now

DATE: 19 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1957-64

Well said young man and to the Webmaster again for providing the forum herein.  Alarming as the current situation appears to be at the school with the political pendulum clearly having swung fully the other way, I take heart that as long as there are students willing to speak out, all may not yet be lost.  Publish and be damned I say!

15th REPLY

NAME: John Hamilton  

DATE: 19 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: pupil 1958-64

Crikey, can all this be true [Reply 13]?  I think we would like to hear from other current or recent pupils (albeit with aliases).  Can we also be pointed at some of these other websites that the 'current QE regime' has not closed?

16th REPLY

NAME: Nigel Wood  

DATE: 20 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1957-64

'John Smith' [reply 13] paints a totally unexpected picture of QE, and one which should certainly provoke debate.  But aren't there some very broad brush-strokes?  For one thing, to know the political leanings of 'the teachers in most of the departments', which I take to imply most of the teachers, seems odd, because in my experience the great majority of schoolteachers - not all, of course - keep their politics to themselves.  The 'curriculum in history' seems to be restricted to about ¾ of the twentieth century.  Not throughout the school, surely?  I find the reference to God-haters an interesting one.  If 'God-hater' means atheist (or even proselytising atheist) I don't see any obvious link to politics.  But perhaps I'm missing something?

17th REPLY

NAME: John Smith

DATE: 22 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Current pupil

To John Hamilton [reply 15]: I hope some other current QE Boys come forward, but I'm doubtful - I'm not aware of anyone else seeing this site, unfortunately.  As for other sites, I believe one of the few remaining sources of - albeit pathetic and immature - dissent can be accessed by searching on Google for 'QE The Truth' (it seems pasting a url link is against the rules).  To Nigel Wood [reply 16]: I apologise for not making myself clearer: from GCSE (Year 10) upwards, 20th century history is pretty much the sole focus, so Year 10s through to Year 13s are subjected to the aforementioned experiences.  By God-haters, I mean people who actively seek to insult anything vaguely moral or religious in a student, by likening God and/or Judeo-Christianic values to some kind of childish moral throwback.  They are broad brush-strokes, but I would put my money on each and every one of my assertions.

18th REPLY

NAME: Vic Coughtrey   Then & Now

DATE: 22 November 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Pupil 1954-59

Actually, John, current QE boys do send messages from time to time.  You'll see a few on the site, but I have to reject most of them.  The reasons vary: some are barely literate or are in textspeak, some are libellous and some are plain silly.

On a technical note, there is no blanket ban on links to other sites.  It's just that as an anti-spam measure I've constructed the form so that it won't work if you put a weblink in it.  That renders it useless to most spammers.  However, if any of you want to include a weblink just replace the dots with semicolons.  Thus www.fred.com becomes www;fred;com.  I can then correct it when posting your message.  Having said that, I wouldn't have included a link to that particular site in any case, having looked at it.  Suggesting to people that they Google it is not quite the same as putting a direct link to it !

19th REPLY

NAME: Joe Bloggs

DATE: 10 December 2009

CONNECTION WITH QE: Current pupil

Whites are a significant ethnic minority in Queen Elizabeth's.  We are often taunted by Asian students who make up the majority, because of our minority status in the school.  My experiences have been very similar to those of fellow pupil 'John Smith' [reply 17].  Unlike 20 years ago, bullying is not taken seriously at all, and teachers, in particular certain year heads do nothing whatsoever when you report an incident.  John and I are not the only ones who have experienced this, I can assure you.  Although I do not think I know John, I completely sympathise with a fellow pupil who is tired of this overtly 'leftist' establishment.

20th REPLY

NAME: Stephen Giles  

DATE: 12 January 2010

CONNECTION WITH QE: 'Learner' 1957-64

Whatever the status quo is at QE today Joe Bloggs, I suggest you just get on with it and learn to give the so called ethnic majority a good biffing.  Still, as an ethnic minority you would be provided with an Individual Learning Plan as part of the school's Diversity Policy - would you not???  Anyway when you are called up for Afghan or some other ethnic majority duties, your current experiences will 'pale' into insignificance lad!