If you wish to leave a message on this page please click the 'SIGN GUEST BOOK' button.



We wish you all a very HAPPY CHRISTMAS 



Current Comments:
Post number:
20th of December 2014 12:01 PM by Peter Ballantine
Never had the cane and only a few detentions. Can't say it was a reign of terror - the best teachers did not need it though you knew that corporal punishment was in the background. Worst violence was at my primary school when head knocked a boy the ground and kicked him (he was removed) and I had a class teacher with anger management problems.
Post number:
20th of December 2014 10:05 AM by Ron Riches
My comments were not specifically aimed at the two preceding posts David L. Its more a case of my noticing almost since this admirable site's birth, sporadic outbursts implying what I would describe as a potential for some masters to harbour a slightly sadistic streak which perhaps manifested itself more to some pupils that it did to others in particular myself. If I'm becoming a little paranoid please put it down to my age and try to humour me!
Post number:
19th of December 2014 06:19 PM by Mick Wright
My experiences at HGS pale into insignificance when compared to those as a 9 year old in the second year at Goldstone .juniors. My form master, whose name I shall leave anonymous, used to throw board dusters and chalk at me, gave me 700 lines one easter holiday and called me mentally deficient. He did, in fact, make that year of my life intolerable, so there are other punishments. I think I preferred the cane, despite going home from a Tabby thrashing, with Joe Allan as his witness, with a bleeding backside.
Post number:
19th of December 2014 05:48 PM by David Gregory
Punishment can be given out in various ways and doesn't always take place in the form of physical abuse with a slipper or the leather end of the ropes suspended from the gymnasium roof. There are other more subtle methods especially in use today - namely the dreaded naughty step. Poor old DL has now been on it for 10 days and 5 hours. I think Webmaster should have the grace to let him off for the Christmas and New year period. We will grant Webmaster the right to take his own decision as to whether he is put back on it in 2015. Merry Christmas everybody and good health for the New Year.
Post number:
19th of December 2014 03:57 PM by David Langley
Ron, if you carefully re-read the two posts previous to yours you will see that were on the tack of "No Violence in our time".
Post number:
19th of December 2014 09:40 AM by Ron Riches
I'm beginning to wonder if I attended the same HCGSB as some of the contributors to this site. "Masters resorting to fear and violence" where on earth did that come from? For my part, I certainly respected some masters more than others but I never saw any reason to fear any of them and the nearest thing to violence that I experienced was the cane, an excepted form of punishment in the forties/fifties and infinitely more acceptable to a Haywards Heath train boy than a "B" detention which saw me sitting down to my tea at 6.20pm.
Post number:
18th of December 2014 10:18 PM by David Hitchin
David Langley wrote, "I never knew of Basher Bates laying a finger/ plimsoll, rope end on any boy."

There were some teachers who automatically earned so much respect that they never needed to resort to fear or violence.
Post number:
18th of December 2014 11:36 AM by David Langley
I never knew of Basher Bates laying a finger/ plimsoll, rope end on any boy.

Proves nothing, but there is a suggestion that muscle was more condoned later?
Post number:
17th of December 2014 08:33 PM by Mick Wright
Re DL post 1098, certainly the PE master called Grant, who was there when I joined in '64 was a liberal user of the plimsole and the leather end of a gym climbing rope, and took great joy in sending the troups through the freezing showers.
The problem Williamson had was that his demeanour was completely different from that of Bouncer, Chalk and cheese - one a short rotund guy with something of a sense of humour and camaradarie, the other tall, thin, pale and more aggressive in his tone. This, coupled with the fact that he shared the caning duties with Tabby, made him quite unpopular and even after 7 years under his reign I never got the impression that anyone liked him very much. He wasn't particularly approachable, but that seemed to be the way in those days.
Post number:
17th of December 2014 11:52 AM by Bill Green
Yes Peter B I do recall your earlier comments and of the three teachers you mentioned, I experienced the interesting skills only of Ned Land in his Geography classes.
I am currently enjoying some overseas winter sunshine, so while my inconsistent WiFi seems to be working at the moment I am taking this early opportunity of wishing all friends and contributors on this site a Happy Christmas with Good Health in the New Year, which by all the comments I am hearing on the TV over here in Tenerife is forecast to be a particularly challenging one for the UK´s citizens.
Post number:
13th of December 2014 02:09 PM by Ron Riches
How refreshing to hear comments regarding the late lamented Mr Williamson from someone with personal knowledge of the much maligned fellow rather than via unsubstantiated character assassinations published on his old school's website by people no doubt with an axe to grind. Let's hope that the matter ends here.
Post number:
12th of December 2014 07:26 PM by Peter Ballantine
I'm pretty busy at the moment so some brief thoughts - David Langley writes some wise words I feel. Bill Green - sorry to underestimate your youthfulness! However, if you had read an earlier contribution, you would have noted my praise for much of the teaching i received. My A levels with Ross (Latin) History (Ken Garland in particular) and Geography (Ned Land especially) were stimulating and rewarding. Ross and Garland were brilliant.
Post number:
12th of December 2014 05:10 PM by David Langley
Very many thanks to Mr Jennings's posting regarding Stand GS under Mr Williamson. As one of the prime movers [perhaps the only one] in equating Williamson to a reign of terror, clearly I must moderate my opinion and do so gladly.

Nevertheless I hope that Mr Jennings would accept that there is published more than a hint of behaviours at Stand that go beyond anything alluded to here on the HCGS[B] site.

I don't want to labour the point but Stand's Mr Williamson presided over/ allowed/ condoned some very violent masters and one master who [it is more than hinted] regularly interfered sexually with his pupils. Perhaps this same permissiveness later allowed some staff at Hove to reveal some unpleasant behaviour that the benevolent Bouncer did not countenance?
I can only say that, other than by the Head or Deputy, the only physical violence by a master that I remember was one who in the early days [say 1950] occasionally flung a wooden-backed board duster. And it hit me. End of matter.
Enough said, and the matter of violence is perhaps a distraction from the thrust of recent posts which seek to compare the "rose-tinted" memories of the 1940s and 1950s with less happy experiences later.
Remember: not only did masters change; boys, and their external influences, changed too.
Post number:
11th of December 2014 08:33 PM by Steven Jennings
I write as an Old Standian, who attended Stand Grammar School in Whitefield, north Manchester, from January 1960 until the summer of 1966. Almost all of my time at the school was therefore spent under the headmastership of Austin Williamson (who I think left to go to Hove at the end of 1965). I was going through some old photos etc last night and came across some school reports and that induced me in an idle moment to Google his name and that's how I came across your website. I can't comment on what life was like at your school under Williamson, but I have to say that the picture of him which has been presented in a number of postings as someone obsessed with corporal punishment is not one which I recognise from my time at Stand. Nor, despite the references on your website to postings on the Stand website, do I think that one could make that judgment from reading that website. Williamson certainly used the cane, but not, so far as I was aware, with any great frequency (although I accept that, when he did use it, he seemed to do so with quite some vigour : I never received it myself, but I was present on one occasion when he administered it to another boy).

Williamson was respected within the school, but in my experience he did not inspire fear, unlike a few of the ordinary masters, some of whom sometimes used corporal punishment (as the Stand website testifies) in a vindictive way and, on occasion, with such violence that I think that even in the early 1960s it might have been considered a criminal assault (I remember one Latin master who was an amateur boxer hitting a 4th former across the back of the head with all his strength several times : it was very rare, but disgusting nevertheless). But those were the occasional actions of a small minority (perhaps three or four). The great majority of masters didn't use corporal punishment at all : Dotheboys Hall it wasn't.
Post number:
11th of December 2014 07:54 PM by David Hitchin
It is easy to confuse "what is the best education" with "what is the most appropriate for each person". People have very different levels of ability (which view some condemn as heresy), for example in mathematics and music. It's not useful or appropriate to try to teach everyone differential equations, and it is wrong to deny the gifted the education which will develop their talents. The idea of grammar, technical and "secondary modern" was not necessarily wrong, but selection at 11, lack of flexibility in later years, and the wide disparity of funding, were all wrong. The "one-size-fits-all" is not right either.
Post number:
10th of December 2014 08:41 PM by Bill Green
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with Geoff that the grammar school system is better, the discussion on this website about the relative merits of the current system or the "old" system is skewed because most, if not all contributors, have experience only of HCGSB. It will be interesting if the suggestion to widen the scope is taken up and we move ahead to read any contrary comments, although care must be taken not to fall foul of the moderator! But as Webmaster has written - we are all ears.
Post number:
10th of December 2014 05:07 PM by Geoff Stoner
To revert if I may to the morality or otherwise of selective education. We must start from the premise that no system is perfect, and therefore there will always be an aspect of grammar schools open to attack. The question is 'was education as a whole better in the era of grammar schools than it is now?' I believe that there is no doubt that it was, and it also gave working-class children (such as me) a far better chance in life, whilst providing safeguards for late developers, etc. It is instructive that the most vehement critics are the champagne socialists and limousine liberals.
Post number:
10th of December 2014 02:11 PM by David Langley
In 1965 the good-humoured reign of Bouncer Greatwood at HCGS[B] came to an end. His role was velvet glove, Tabby's was iron fist, although Tabby could be surprised into laughter as well as wrath.

When setting up the boxing ring in the Hall for annual bloodletting "THERE ARE TEN CHAIRS THERE THAT WEREN'T THERE WHEN I PUT THEM THERE!" Collapse of stout Tabby, so we chair-movers slunk around with silly grins like the condemned reprieved.

Such comments as we have had from the next few years hint, nay, write, of a harsher regime. Words like "Transylvania" have been written. "God" and the like.

Perhaps the new Head was unfortunate in both his timing [Flower Power, Sex being invented officially] and his approach.

In another valiant attempt to move the debate about HCGS[B], did I imagine having to attend for interview after the 11-plus? Did any others? Or was I so marginal that a special scrutiny was deemed necessary? If so, good decision, I was marginal thereafter!
Post number:
10th of December 2014 01:11 PM by Webmaster
PLEASE GO AHEAD P.B. We're all ears!
Post number:
10th of December 2014 12:56 PM by Bill Green
In response to PB´s post 1088, the Guest Book Registry indicates he was at HCGSB from 1958 to 1965, so he started only a year after I left. Whilst I was by no means "first generation" my complimentary comments about the education I received seem by implication, not to be shared by him. So to widen the discussions is there merit to be had in identifying what contributed to any such different recollections, especially over such a short timescale. Was it internal (different teachers, new Headmaster etc) or external changes imposed by the governing authorities?
Post number:
10th of December 2014 11:56 AM by David Gregory
DL. I actually agreed with the majority of your comments regarding the eleven plus. It does seem an early age to be pigeon holed for the rest of your life. My last and final words on the subject are that education doesn't end when you leave school, it is preparing you to be educated for the remainder of your life.
Post number:
10th of December 2014 09:34 AM by Peter Ballantine
My reaction to the debate on grammar schools in general is that the participants all seem to be of the first generation of pupils at Hove Grammar. i am of a later generation and feel differently - but how can we widen our debates?
Post number:
10th of December 2014 09:25 AM by Webmaster
Please note that all Comments submitted to this Welcome page are currently being moderated prior to entry so there may be a delay between submitting the comment and its appearance on the public page.
Post number:
9th of December 2014 10:33 PM by David Langley
Please note that I have been placed on the naughty step by the Webmaster, and told that I should mention HCGS{B} in each post.

I shall, I shall. In fact I did.

In a feeble and probably misguided attempt to change the subject, please does anybody know what happened to the Scout Hut [wooden] and the Scout Hall [brick] situated to the north of the gymn and beside the bike sheds? The murals in the Hall should have been subject to a Preservation Order.

Post number:
9th of December 2014 10:00 PM by Bill Green
I did not share your discomfort regarding DL´s comment. The deep theoretical training and advanced academic education needed to become a nuclear scientist in my opinion differs most significantly from the progression which similarly intelligent and dedicated people can achieve by experience, common sense and application through the ranks of the police, commercial organisations and for those with flair and entrepreneurial skills to manage and own successful businesses. Those of my generation who were not privileged to benefit from the old grammar school type education could achieve all of the foregoing except, in my view, for the nuclear scientist career where not only is a first degree from a University essential, but probably a PhD in addition.

I do not have any statistics to back this up, but my impression is that a high proportion of students in the grammar schools´ sixth forms during my time went on to University to study those more traditional Arts and Science based degrees, whereas the comprehensive system seems to have resulted in fewer of these courses being taken up. If there is evidence to support this opinion, it may also be a relevant factor in the UK´s continuing need to attract skilled immigrants to satisfy the requirements of industrialists and business owners alike?
Post number:
8th of December 2014 10:04 PM by David Gregory
We have to remember the 1944 Education Act was initially a 1940 educational ideal backed by a Coalition Government to "achieve the ideal establishment of a society where the advantages and privileges which had hitherto only been enjoyed by a few should be shared by the nation".
It was underpinned by the principle that the nature of a child's education should be based on their capacity and promise and not by the circumstance of his parent.
Winston Churchill described the Act as the greatest scheme of improved education that has ever been attempted by a responsible government.
This was a time of great reform for all of us and heralded the birth of the National Health Service 1946 introduced in July 1948. the New Towns Act 1946 and others, to bring some form of equality to Britain.
I was sitting comfortably reading David L's last posting until I came across the sentence "people who cannot pass the eleven plus are unlikely to become nuclear scientist's". Try telling that to a Chief Constable I used to play Golf with who started life as a shipyard welder in Newcastle, or to my 3 brothers and one sister who were all educated at Knoll School and left at 14, two of whom ran their own businesses successfully and the other two achieved responsible managerial positions.
I do concede that eleven years of age is rather young for a definitive decision to be made on a persons ability bearing in mind late developers, and this could be addressed.
My views on equality are coloured by my father having to leave school at the age of 12 in 1908 to assist in support of a large family. He worked as an errand boy in Winchester College. He never had a chance. Maybe if he had been born in 1933, like me, he would have.
Of course the 1944 Act had flaws. You can't please all of the people all of the time and successive governments have tinkered without necessarily improving. Whilst its possible to criticize, nobody has yet put forward a better alternative.
Post number:
8th of December 2014 06:56 PM by Ron Riches
I'm sure that there are many walks of life where the concept of equal opportunities can be effectively applied but I'm equally sure that it cannot be satisfactorily applied to education. The idealistic tub-thumpers who expounded the theory in the fifties and sixties decided to ignore the simple if unsavoury fact that some kids are brighter that others and that to lump them together only served to hold back the brighter students whilst placing many of the less academic out of their depth.

I've heard it said that the old eleven plus system was elitist but on the council estate where I spent my formative years the blazer of which I was so proud was often ridiculed by kids who were perfectly happy with their lot at the local comprehensive school where they received an education that assured most of them a worthwhile career..

Its also worth remembering that the old system catered for those lads who struggled in an exam environment and I know of three boys who were picked up as having slipped through the net and who were reassessed and transferred to HCGS.
Post number:
8th of December 2014 02:08 PM by David Morris
Grammar Schools

One of this morning's papers has a heading " Britain to get first new grammar in 50 years". it is hoped that a new grammar school will open in Sevenoaks, Kent, officially as an "annexe" of the existing Weald of Kent school.

It will be interesting to see if the Education Secretary gives his approval.
Post number:
8th of December 2014 01:05 PM by Bill Green
Few of us should be offended by the concept of equal opportunity, including the standard of primary school education we received to prepare us to sit, and be lucky, in passing the entrance exams to the grammar schools. However both nature and nurture contribute significantly to our ability to absorb that education and also to show the dynamism and application which I agree is a major component of the "good fortune" of some successful careers. Not being part of the current educational establishment, I have only my HCGSB experience of 60 years ago, and a general impression of todays youth to believe "our system" of grammar schools is preferred to the existing comprehensive model and to the appearance and behaviour of teachers.
Post number:
8th of December 2014 10:06 AM by Bob Kennett
DL : I am fascinated to know who is offended by the notion of "equal opportunity" - bearing in mind of course that 11+ selection is far from equal opportunity.
Having benefitted from the system and the resultant increased opportunities do not some of the HGSB old boys harbour a little sadness that the opportunities were not afforded to all of their peers many of whom were equally able but a little less "lucky" on the day . Dynamism and application seem to have been the bringers of good fortune as much as academic achievement so I struggle to understand exactly what the reinstatement of the old system will bring about - apart that is the destruction of the existing one!
Post number:
7th of December 2014 11:42 PM by David Langley
Bill, I agree.Extended families of we who were thus privileged tend to either move to Lincolnshire or Kent [Grammar Schools] or strive to pay for private education as in Magdalene School Oxford and Queen Elizabeth High Oxford. None of the families are by any measurement well off but they are united by the ethos of betterment.Which, dare I say, is where we came in!I am totally in favour of equality of opportunity, but also totally in favour of people who eschew fags, booze, Costa holidays and new cars to build opportunities. This clearly offends some!.
We were, after all, trained to be well-mannered elitists
Post number:
6th of December 2014 01:18 PM by Bill Green
I had not realised there were that many MPs calling for the re-introduction of Grammar Schools, and can only hope their numbers grow and their petitioning is successful. Although two of my grandchildren, who live in Kent, attend grammar schools, it was a major disappointment to me when our parliamentarians, many of whom had enjoyed the benefits of a grammar school education, decided to drop the concept in most parts of the country, in favour of what I see as a "levelling down" alternative.
I, and doubtless many of the contributors to this site, would have had harder and diminished opportunities to make our way in the world had we not been able to benefit from the excellent chances given to us by HCGSB, however "snobby" its conception may have appeared initially.
Oh for the return of these good old days for our youngsters!?
Post number:
6th of December 2014 11:20 AM by David Gregory
A very precise and illuminating post by Bill Brock (1075) which mentions the 1944 Education Act introduced by the then Education Minister "RAB" Butler. This ground breaking Act was the reason why I was fortunate enough to be educated at HCGSB starting in 1944 and passing the newly established 11 plus exam, and which ensured that education for all was free and gave equal opportunities for all children. Up till then, and I assume this applied to HCGSB, only half of places at Grammar Schools were free, the remainder were fee paying.
It was not possible for all successful 11 plus entrants to accept their grammar school education due to the extra cost of uniforms, sports gear, etc. I know with my own parents it was a constant battle to find the extra money but somehow they managed
The Act provided for three types of education. Grammar school for the academic, Technical for those skilled with their hands, and secondary modern for the remainder.
A few years ago I managed to obtain a copy of a 50's 11 plus exam paper and sat down with enthusiasm to complete it. After much head scratching, a cup of tea and the use of a dictionary I managed a creditable pass.
One final thought. After the demise of Grammar Schools over the years, why are there approximately 80 MP' now calling for them to be re-established?.
Post number:
6th of December 2014 09:46 AM by Bob Kennett
Thanks for that Bill - it seems it was mainly changes in official policy with a light sprinkling of snobbery.
I confess to a liking of the old "County" tag.
Post number:
5th of December 2014 06:22 PM by Bill Brock
The 1901 Education Act made the recently established County Councils responsible for secondary education and the newly built schools were known as County Schools. Sussex had several, including the one at Lewes. So when East Sussex County Council built our school in Hove in 1936 it was officially Hove County School for Boys. The term Grammar was implicit for it was understood that the curriculum followed the model set by public schools. When Greatwood arrived in 1946 he insisted that the proper title was Hove County Grammar School for Boys to differentiate it from local secondary modern schools established by the 1944 Education Act. That title stayed until 1961 when Hove Borough Council became responsible for the school's administration. It was only then that we became Hove Grammar School for Boys, though the school magazine did not catch up with this title until the May 1966 issue.
Post number:
5th of December 2014 01:58 PM by David Langley
It was always "The County School" in my 1948-55 days.

Not officially, but that is where we "went".
Post number:
5th of December 2014 11:58 AM by David Morris
Bob - A suggestion to your enquiry about the dropping of the word County in the school's title.

I believe I recall one of our correspondents mentioning the loss of the train boys as they went to another school - perhaps Haywards Heath.

Possibly there could have been a change of local education boundaries when those outside of Hove had to go elsewhere.

Perhaps one of our Hove residents could help?
Post number:
4th of December 2014 06:15 PM by Bob Kennett
I recently met an old boy of the Knoll School who when referring to HGSB seemed to emphasise the word COUNTY (can't imagine why). When exactly did the name change and was the decision to drop the word County snobbery or was there some technical reason ? (e.g. a change in the education structure at the time).
I can see the origin of County schools in the post war education legislation (to which ,in my opinion, we owe a great deal) but not any official note of the change. I can remember that the school was referred to as "the County" by my peers with no reference to "Grammar". And what was the school referred to in later years (post 1960)?
Post number:
4th of December 2014 03:36 AM by Michael John Smithson
1958-1965, being one of the only 2 fellows that achieved the 11+ from West Blatchington Junior School, and myself succeeding to get into the top class after 1z and 1y!
Post number:
29th of November 2014 11:34 PM by David Langley
After a slack handful of GCE O Levels I passed Physics A [Joe Allen thank you} and very very narrowly failed both maths. Best thing I ever did.
Instead of joining Rolls Royce as a sandwich degree apprentice, I drifted into the Meteorological Office, and found myself among like-minded perfectionists grappling with the imponderable.
On day release I eased the resits, and the lovely organisation that it was kept promoting me until I reached rather higher than my level of incompetence.
I never ever forgot the lessons that I was taught about manners, standards, ethics, logic and English. And we never had lessons called manners, standards, ethics and logic!
Post number:
28th of November 2014 07:07 PM by Ron Riches
You are as ever spot on David G. I suppose that my disappointment was to some extent muted by the philosophy that has always been my watchword "If you can't have what you want, then want what you have" but having had the same ambition for so long, it was a bitter pill to swallow,

At the end of the day however, although the constant theme of my reports, that is "could do better" could probably be applied to a great deal of my life, I've now enjoyed more that sixteen years of blissful retirement, I feel much fitter that I ever expected to at eighty-one and only the one regret blights my memories.

Whilst I have no hesitation in giving Hove County Grammar School much of the credit for my contentment I had better call it a day now as I can feel a bit of a lump in my throat and my glasses are misting up.
Post number:
28th of November 2014 03:05 PM by Geoffrey Christopher
Re Post No 1068 - What an excellent piece of philosophy from David Gregory - a lesson for all!
Post number:
27th of November 2014 02:24 PM by David Gregory
Ron. Join the club. As a fellow "failure" to obtain the necessary number of passes to be awarded the coveted certificate I feel well qualified to say it has never been a disadvantage to my illustrious career. I am aware there are plenty of old students on this site whose successful careers have been based on obtaining high grades at school and rightly so. In all my working life I have never been asked to produce any evidence of my education but I was always proud to mention I had been educated at Hove COUNTY Grammar School for Boys.
I think the whole question of success in life depends on how you measure it. Is it Money, possessions, station, achievement, satisfaction or a thousand other qualities. When I left school I had the choice of several different career paths without the assistance of anyone from the school. The fact I made the wrong choice then was my own fault. I have a belief that when being interviewed a face to face discussion counts as much as any certificates being produced. If I did not obtain the necessary certificate at school I do believe my education at HCGSB gave me some confidence to start real life at the age of 16.
Reading this again I realise I have come over all philosophical (had to look that up and yes I did pass English School Cert). Ron, maybe after all we were better of discussing Aero engines, air raid shelters or even the dreaded train of shame. Don't have regrets about what could have been, just be proud of what you have achieved.
Post number:
27th of November 2014 11:56 AM by Bill Green
Quel domage Ron - c`est ne pas juste. From one failure to another!
Post number:
27th of November 2014 11:34 AM by Ron Riches
Enough of air-raid shelters, Hawker Harts and the revered Tabby for a while, I would like to air a grievance that I have harboured in my bosom for the last sixty-five years since I sat the Oxford School Certificate exam and in my opinion failed on a technicality. I'll probably be instantly shot down when I suggest that apart from myself, only David Gregory and our antipodean correspondent Frank Langley among you would have sat the exam which was abandoned in favour of the GCE system in 1950.

To obtain the coveted certificate, one had to obtain as I recall six passes including English Language, Maths and the compulsory second language, French and I have to tell you that if I had studied French to this day, I would still have failed. I didn't like the French who had dropped us in it in successive world wars and whose language I thought best suited to a speaker with defective adenoids. So, for credits in English Language, English Literature and Maths together with three quite respectable passes I was rewarded with a document headed "This is not a School Certificate".

That put and end to my life-long ambition to take up a permanent commission in the Army whereas, a year later, six good GCEs would have satisfied the War Office Selection Board sufficiently to assure my entry to the Mons Officer Cadet School. Sandhurst would not have approved of my strong Sussex burr!

Breaks your heart doesn't it!! Well doesn't it?
Post number:
25th of November 2014 09:13 AM by Bill Green
On several postings I have written in a complimentary way about Tabby and the photo has done nothing to diminish my great respect for him in spite of his reputation for wielding the cane and his constant habit of calling me "funny face", behaviours which in today´s environment of "do-gooders" and PC nonsense would be seen as unacceptable. He was an excellent teacher who was able to make lessons interesting, albeit fiendishly difficult at times, and I am sure he made a big contribution to the development of those of us fortunate to encounter him in and outside the classroom. The photo shows a man enjoying his job and apparently participating in the true spirit of the occasion.
Post number:
25th of November 2014 12:02 AM by Frank Langley
I agree with Geoffrey's and David's view of Tabby. He had a sense of fun. He once conducted a geometry lesson with us, a notoriously ill-behaved bunch, without him saying a word from the moment he entered the room – just chalk, and pointing to boys for answers. He won a bet he had made with Mr Bartlett.
Post number:
24th of November 2014 09:42 PM by David Gregory
Tabby was a teacher educated by the principles of his generation. There was no doubt that whilst his idea of discipline was stronger than most it certainly had no lasting ill effect on me. The discipline was a lot easier than most of us had experienced during our initial training in the forces.
I had looked forward to seeing the photo as an opportunity to obtain some sort of satisfaction. However the more I looked the more I saw a man who was obviously enjoying being on holiday with his pupils and showing a side of him which we never saw a school. I say let the photo remain for others to make up their own minds as I have.
Post number:
24th of November 2014 06:52 PM by Ron Riches
I'm sure that we can all agree to disagree on the subject using great dollops of the respect for each other's opinion that is so close to my heart.. Great to see democracy at work!