Burnley Grammar School

I have a diary entry from Monday 16th December 1985, this very date 38 years ago when I was in the lower sixth form at school at 16. I did a barechested cross country that morning along with many of the other boys of the lower sixth first thing that day. It was quite a mild but cloudy and damp day so I say. Although lower sixth we got told to run that way and went out of school to do so, mostly off road but some nearby roads briefly. Diaries kept from your schooldays bring so much back to life.

If I was to see the same thing today 38 years later I'd certainly make me open my eyes in some surprise.

I'm can confirm I'm not Alan as that has been alleged in the lengthy post earlier based on the timings of two of my comments which are supposed to match the other poster who writes in the very early morning.

Just accept and understand the scepticism you have attracted and grasp why you have faced it.

You can probably search back and find other comments of mine that should prove a very different viewpoint to Alan somewhere. I am not he.

It's quite possible that there are two separate people on either end of this argument who are both playing games with multi names to make their points and back ups. Then again it might all be genuine. I no longer know or care because I'll not be wasting much more time or energy over this and go and find better reading elsewhere that I can trust.

You protest too much Barney, and no I do not believe you saw that large class of boys out like that with not a stitch of clothing above any of their waists in full public view a couple of weeks before Christmas.

Barney - 'On 12th December, I made a post recounting my morning walk home, a walk I take Monday – Friday after OGG. I pass the boundary of the school field where I am governor. In that post, I recounted seeing TWO classes of lads and TWO PE masters out running, a total of about fifty lads or twenty five for each class. I also recounted that I walked across and spoke to ONE of the PE masters and there I asked him about the policy on shirts as no one was wearing one and I gave HIS response. Given the interest in bare skin running, I thought it was a valid post to make.'



I think this paragraph was basically seen as your undoing wasn't it. I've seen your previous comments and never had any problem with what you have said and taken it at face value without hesitation. Then came the day you described what you have repeated in the paragraph above and my own instinct was disbelief and doubt.

So in the interests of fairness could I ask you some non-identifying questions around that encounter please? I am not seeking to trip you up.

What type of school is this?

What age did the boys appear to be?

Was that the teacher or boys decision do you know?

Was every single pupil shirtless including all teachers present?

What were the weather conditions like at the time?

Did they leave school grounds?

Was that the first time you had ever seen that situation? If so, why do you think it happened now?

How long have you been a governor and what type of governor are you?

Thanks.

Comment by: Will on 16th December 2023 at 17:58

To add to your very valid points Will, most forums allow their users to start new thread discussions. You do not appear to be able to do that on here, so who exactly did start these threads in the first place then? Normally you can also see who began a specific thread discussion on forums.

Why is this website forum moderator/administrator hiding? There were issues with this site a few months back where it wasn't working and someone actively sorted it out, it wasn't left to wither on the vine unloved, neglected and forgotten.

One other personal observation is that the three fully named former and current teachers who have been posting here for a while on and off have never between any of them resorted to any kind of insulting or unkind language towards anyone else at any point that I have seen even with disagreements, which is what I would largely expect infact from such people.

Online by 22:45! So, just over an hour

Mr Chips on 16th December 2023 at 11:17

I’m relieved to read your post. I had noted that you, like me, was on the end of an intentional and systematic character assassination but I hadn’t realised how developed it had become.


My earlier posts were about growing up in the 1960s in a two up, two down terrace house where I was the first in family to win a grammar school scholarship and indeed, though I don’t think I said this at the time, the only lad in the street to be at grammar school. The whole street was proud of me and when I went on to university, there was a street party and a bigger one when I graduated. It opened doors for me that no one else in the street could even imagine and I’ve never forgotten how fortunate I am.

I made a couple of posts about watching lads rugby training on my way home from my Monday to Friday gym sessions with my retired mates – OGG we call it, old gits gym. It’s at the school I attended as a boy and where I’m now a governor. Within the day, I was accused of ‘unsavoury loitering’ on the school boundary and told to stop immediately and who was the source of this accusation other than Alan on 25th October 2023 at 03:29 also insisting I was lying because it was half term week. Others corrected the half term lie on Alan’s part but of course there was no word of an apology for his maybe deliberate error and insult.

Alan on 25th October 2023 at 16:25 followed up the same day with further insults.

Alan on 26th October 2023 at 03:28 more insults.

At the same time there were numerous other posts appreciating what I had written about my youth.

I was then left alone for a while but there were posts attacking Nathan Hind, Original Andy, Hugh, Graham Butterfield and others.

I gave the site a wide berth for a few weeks, sickened by Alan’s behaviour but of course that’s what he would seem to want to happen. It’s typical bully behaviour and cyber bullies are no different to the ones that used to steal dinner money.

On 12th December, I made a post recounting my morning walk home, a walk I take Monday – Friday after OGG. I pass the boundary of the school field where I am governor. In that post, I recounted seeing TWO classes of lads and TWO PE masters out running, a total of about fifty lads or twenty five for each class. I also recounted that I walked across and spoke to ONE of the PE masters and there I asked him about the policy on shirts as no one was wearing one and I gave HIS response. Given the interest in bare skin running, I thought it was a valid post to make.

What followed here from that post has been abuse of me of the most revolting kind and this in the midst of anther discussion about the age of majority which is eighteen in the UK and Alan refusing to accept the reality of the law and insisting on something different but I don’t know what.

Roy on 13th December 2023 at 02:40 – (note the time, Alan posts about then quite often)

“Usually a couple of classes are out doing PE and this morning was no exception. Two classes of lads running circuits of the field and over about fifty lads and two PE masters running with them, there wasn't a shirt between them.' Name the school or I'll consider this fiction.”

Ian on 13th December 2023 at 15:43

“Of course you're not Barney are you, because it only happened in your imagination.

A theme has developed here recently with this kind of outlandish stuff being written and then flat refusals to add a bit of perfectly reasonable information when asked by other forum members. It leads me to think this is all penned under the same hand because the replies always end up so similarly belligerent.”


Jon on 13th December 2023 at 17:42

“FIFTY lads at school PE going out bare chested along with a couple of shirtless teachers with them, this very week, outside in December. Yeah right. Nice try Barney. Don't take readers on here for complete fools please.”

Peter on 13th December 2023 at 20:13

“Just like the others, I don't believe a word of the above timed comment that was trying to be passed off as a real observation and then encounter either.”

Roy on 14th December 2023 at 02:34 (Again in the middle of the night)
More of the same.
Vic on 14th December 2023 at 12:34

“As a retired school teacher if I had been approached by a random gentleman at the school fence making enquiries about the way pupils were dressed and their changing room arrangements in respect of doing the lesson without a shirt or taking a shower then my suspicions would be raised to very concerned levels about that. I would consider that a very unhealthy obsession for anyone unconnected directly to a school to be having, whether a former pupil or not. In my case I would have immediately asked who the person was and why they wanted such information and been unlikely to give anything.”

Of course the ultra-ignorant Vic like so many more had clearly not even read my post but was jumping on the bandwagon of condemn. A random gentleman means a school governor. He’s a retired school teacher? I think he needs to learn to read and comprehend but he probably isn’t intelligent enough. He would have asked who I was even though the PE master concerned and I know each other. Another demonstration of his intelligence.

The we have Geoff on 14th December 2023 at 15:46 I’ll cite this because it refers to me even though it’s addressed to Original Andy.

“I'd also suggest that anyone spending too much time near school gates or fencing without due cause should expect to be asked a question. I remember a case of a school calling us because the same two elderly men were often to be found watching a girls PE lesson through the fence. and it was making them very uncomfortable because nobody knew who they were. A PC from the station made regular patrols in the area and eventually saw these gentlemen and having questioned them both then gave them some sound advice about the effect their behaviour was having. If they had been seen again they would have been brought to the station but that never arose.”

Lots of insults, lots of assumptions, none of them in any way valid, just ignorant. I think the response to this of Original Andy on 15th December 2023 at 09:22 sums it up perfectly, I need add no more.

Alan on 14th December 2023 at 18:22 – another insult.

David W on 14th December 2023 at 21:03

Yet another insult written by someone who hasn’t read anything I said.
Alan on 15th December 2023 at 03:56

Another insults written in the same sort of posting slot as Roy.

A change here from Matthew S on 15th December 2023 at 23:11 stating that perhaps I’m recounting the truth, thank you Matthew S.

Of course that was not allowed to be considered because here again we have Alan on 16th December 2023 at 08:31 immediately putting down Matthew S, heaven forbid any other view than the Alan sponsored one, built on lies and half truths should be allowed to see the light of day.

Nathan Hind on 16th December 2023 at 12:54

Thank you, you make strong points and an intelligent post. Of course every school has polices and rules. I should know, I’ve spent enough hours pouring over them in my capacity as a governor and though now retired, as my career was in HR you can believe I get more than my fair share of those to look at.

So, like Mr Chips, (wait for a further allegation that he, Original Andy, Hugh, me and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all are the same person) I will say the cancer here is Alan. There’s lots of it and it needs to be cut out. It’s called cyber bullying and there are ways of dealing with it.

Mr Chips -

I have no wish to get embroiled in the vitriol, sadly now yours as well, currently engulfing this valuable site, but I do want to make two points, after which I propose to leave for good.

1 - Please go back and read my two last posts. I did not make any suggestions to the owner of the site as to how it should be run. I merely pointed out a few very obvious shortcomings.

2 - I am not Andy, never have been, and have never communicated with him privately. It does not always take four hours for posts to get published here. It is now 20:32 on 16th December. Let's see the time stamp when this appears on line.

Goodbye Mr Chips!

Comment by: Hugh on 14th December 2023 at 21:57

Alan on 14th December 2023 at 18:22
Either you still haven't seen the psychiatrist as I recommended or you have stopped taking your medication, which is it because your level of delusion is back and severe and you are posting under all your troll names in short order.
Please seek help or I really can see you being detained under the Mental Health Act again.





A man who a few weeks ago on here told us he was a medical doctor actually said this unkind comment to a complete stranger and thought it was appropriate use of his time to do so.

No wonder the NHS is up the creek and nobody can actually see these people anymore.

Just found this post thought this may be of interest to the group. These are my experiences only. When I left school in 1995 bare top indoors PE/Games was very much the preferred teaching method. We were introduced to going bare chest at middle school and at the time It wasn't unusual for boys to wear vests under their games shirt. I did and quite a few others did too though I chose to stop wearing one the following year..At the start of one lesson we were sat in the gym as he pointed and said skin or shirt As we started peeling off he saw our vests and told us to drop them too and go bare chest. If we'd forgotten kit there was always lost property and you were given a pair of shorts.
High school was slightly different in that you were expected to change into a vest initially and take it off as soon we made the sports hall. We had one outdoor lesson a month that we all had to do bare chests and it was usually press ups and other things if the field was swamped we'd be on the yard to exercise. For cross country we'd be split into vests vs skins to run. The school vests were really thin and offered little warmth so most boys preferred to run as skins. I fully appreciate I maybe in the minority here but I was happy to be bare chests during my time at school..

"Of course, as I’ve seen with others, what happens then is a number of names with no identifiable posting history jump on the bandwagon to condemn and despise."


I've looked back through the thread into this claim that was made this morning and it is not correct. Many of those who have added further comments have been regular contributors over the past year or two and are familiar returning names and the comments appear consistent with previous views and attitudes from most of them.

Alan needs to stop making insinuations towards individuals in a provocative manner (they also need to stop doing it back at him) and anyone is free to defend themselves against personal slurs on their character but Mr Chips if you wish to be regarded as authentic I'd urge you to desist from the troublesome trivia of tit for tat character assassinating, your words, that is going on.

Question - when did you last see an 83 year old man jogging, never mind doing so in just his shorts and trainers with a bare chest, and in the winter time as well?

Comment by: Phil on 16th December 2023 at 16:15

Penned from the same keyboard in all probability. Claire nailed the problem with this forum perfectly.

Most of this whole forum attracts very little traffic at all actually, hardly anything infact. Yet this particular thread has gained almost six thousand comments. Some subjects on here have none at all, even the other school PE ones go quiet for weeks with no input. But this one is different. Why is that?

I'm a member of a well known media forum as well where the moderators often appear within discussions to say things, give advice and bring off topic discussion back on track and are able to ban offensive users and posting rights.

The admin of this site are reading the comments daily. It's not automated I'm sure about that. In that case how about the administrator adds his own comment for once on here like most forum admin would do from time to time. Why is this not happening here? It's so easy to stick comments on here so just where is admin and why the silence?

I can understand the response earlier today of Mr Chips, if I was called a 'dirty old man' by another poster here who was choosing to misrepresent to the point of lies my original post, I would also have something pretty strong to say back.

So I would ask, before you comment, know what you are commenting about because a lot of people here just seem to hit the keyboard and insult others or more to the point, bully them.

Comment by: Mr Chips on 16th December 2023 at 11:17


For an erudite teacher of 42 years standing you overuse the word "vile" quite a bit. S you think I am "vile" Fine - I can live with that.

There are certain things in your posts which are open to question: Why the need to make the point that you caned a boy minus trousers and underpants?. Our Mr Boreham, years ago, loved using the cane (he was quite proud of his reputation of being hated and feared, it has to be said) but even he, perverted as he was, would not have got away with a bare arse caning. Perhaps London is different. In the same way when "Barney" suggests he stops to look at boys in their outside games lessons, if you did that in London - even when I was at school, and most certainly today, a member of staff would come out and see what you wanted, if it was suspected that it wasn't a parent dawdling there. One has to wonder why elderly gents wants to look at them?

One other point that confuses me - you said in an earlier post that some of your old pupils are in their 70s now - excusez-moi!

You have jumped on the Andy/Barney bandwagon suggesting that I am every one of the people who disagree with you. I am as transparent as I can be, I post my email address. I repeat I am neither "Mr Dando", or any of the other people who have questioned them and you in certain posts. I have never professed to be a barrister, a policeman, a teacher and certainly not a woman ("Claire"). I've given up the drag act!. If you really believe it to be true, I can't mollify you, but it makes you look frankly paranoid. I am not going to justify myself any further to you or anybody else.

I don't agree with a lot of Alan's obsessive's on here and I think I might have said this once before. But I'm not going to personally attack the man for his views.

I've now read the latest comment from Chips here, why are you now going off topic into personal attack dog mode as well Chips? It all looks horribly familiar to the others and you are beginning to lose credibility. Stick to the subject and not personal jibes or lose it completely.

What initially caught my eye about this site which looked at first glance like an inoffensive history archive site for mainly the older generation was the discovery around about a year and a half ago that someone had written something about the school I work at and condemned it for its PE policies, mainly the continuation of showering. That was written by the person styling themselves Mr Dando at that time. I gave a very robust defence.

I am not going to condemn anybody as a liar because I wasn't there and don't know the details as those that were provided have been very sparse. But there is a lot of truth in what Matthew says although rules on healthy and safety at school are down to each school to interpret and some places I'm sure are more zealous than others. In my school I would not be allowed to take a double or triple sized class of boys for PE outside at this time of year and either ask or tell them to do PE without upper body coverage of any kind. I suppose if I wished to do so I could do so myself but that would not be a choice I would make so would not happen. This contrasts completely with doing PE indoors where I have autonomy to choose that option and on occasions some of the PE class or the whole class do some PE in a shirtless capacity largely without any incidents about it.

I think shirtless PE can be considered a reasonable thing, as can running like that, like the bareskin runner has mentioned, it is a healthy option but not if you might be giving your class hypothermia or other health related issues.

There appears to be systematic and utterly intentional character assassination going on here. It and its author are utterly disgusting.

I first posted because I thought my recollections of my forty two years as a school master teaching French and coaching rugby might be of interest along with some recollections of my earlier life and school days. After all, it’s what this site seems to be about. I told it as it was back then and also stated that things have changed a great deal and what was acceptable in the early 1960s when I started teaching would not be acceptable now. My comments initially seemed to be very well received and I provided responses to questions I was asked. I also joined in some other topics, wild swimming which I did again earlier today and bare skin running, something seeing a revival but when I was a boy it was normal. We simply didn’t have shirts for PE and many who post here recollect the same thing or if they did, they didn’t wear them.

One topic I was asked questions about was corporal punishment, something very normal in the 1960s but illegal now. I answered the questions even though they dug a bit deeper than I expected them to. I couldn’t see any merit in withholding information, it’s all in the past and when I first replied, my response began with the observation that it must be remembered that what I was saying was the norm at the time though now it would not be legal but times have changed. Pushed, I answered a question about what I referred to as the ‘ultimate sanction’ and emphasised that with the exception of a sixth former bullying a younger boy, which happened less than once a year during my career, the ‘ultimate sanction’ was used extremely rarely and only for a persistent offender. My comments were dispassionate and factual as anyone who took the trouble to actually read them would, I think, agree.

That has now been misquoted, taken completely out of context and reframed, describing me as “A dirty old man who boasts of making a boy remove his underpants in order for him to cane him”. And of course, the author of that one liner was Alan on 14th December 2023 at 20:43.
And “It is bad enough that such punishments were allowed in the past, to salivate about it in retirement seems especially seedy.” Alan on 13th December 2023 at 05:09.

Just two of the many very nasty comments aimed at me for simply answering questions and as I say dispassionately. The revolting twists that have been put on these responses are of course 100% Alan and if anyone has a perverted and disordered mind, it is him.

Of course, as I’ve seen with others, what happens then is a number of names with no identifiable posting history jump on the bandwagon to condemn and despise.

Barney is a clear victim of this too. I see he has started to refute Alan’s vile posts and he may well have more, much more to say. I’ve read back through Barney’s posts and going back to the beginning a few months back, he provides some very interesting accounts of his life growing up and yet again, a single thing he says is pulled out, twisted, misrepresented and becomes a single topic of vilification on the part of Alan and a number of other one line posts all agreeing with Alan. It seems orchestrated.

Original Andy, can I’m sure stand up for himself. He has provided some excellent information on his personal training regime which helped others and provoked some thinking for me. It seems that Alan has a long standing dislike of Original Andy who is clearly an accomplished, professional and erudite man. Then we see a new poster pop up claiming to be a retired policeman and effectively carrying out a character assassination of Original Andy which is refuted. Almost immediately we have Alan popping up in full agreement with the supposed policeman and condemning Original Andy for refuting the supposed policeman’s claims, in fact the response from Alan was so fast, you would think he had his response prepared already. It was a vile response and since he mentioned me, I will quote it here;

“I think I have seen it all this morning, though with this post (Comment by: Original Andy on 15th December 2023 at 09:22), where he takes to task an ex police officer, with a load of bluster, common abuse and ignorant and condescending cant, reeking with snobbery (similar to the good Doctor "Hugh") . He almost puts old "Mr. Chips" and his claims of caning "younger boys", sans trousers and underwear and Barney's morning prowling of school playing fields to watch half naked schoolboys in their exercises. "Barney" says he is retired, so why should a man in his sixties or seventies seek out schoolboys - not just once, but persistently?” Alan on 15th December 2023 at 11:33

It's a vile comment and if anyone takes the trouble to actually read what I and others have written, they will recognise the not even half truths but utter lies Alan is writing in the post.

Move on a little, then we have a character called Claire pop up making a number of suggestions about the management of this site. I’m sure the site manager has considered the management of it. Now, we all know it takes several hours meaning at least three to four for posts to appear here, I don’t understand why but that’s what happens and others report exactly the same experience so I believe it to be the norm. We see Claire’s post and of course it’s still there for all to see. Within two hours of Claire’s post, we see four other posts all agreeing with her and of course as one might expect, one of them is from Alan. You would have to believe those four posts knew the content of Claire’s post before it was published. Yet Alan is so quick to call out others but this time he’s been caught red handed.

Looking back there is a clear history of Alan at work here, people who don’t agree with him have to be driven away and will be ridiculed and belittled until they grow fed up and nauseated by the vile posts that he makes. I felt quite sick when I saw what he had written about me. I think it’s called slander and there can be consequences to that.

I’ve no doubt now that this post will be taken out of context, misquoted and twisted but my quotes of Alan are cut and pasted, not twisted, not misinterpreted, not misrepresented. They are what he said.

There is no doubt whatever to me where the absolute rot, call it a cancer of the worst sort is on this board. It’s vile and disgusting. Please don’t be taken in by it. In future, I was assume that those agreeing with Alan are actually posts being made by him under other names because in reality, no decent person would agree with his foul and slanderous writings.

Comment by: Matthew S on 15th December 2023 at 23:11


A few cranks jump into the sea on Xmas Day, Matthew, but we are being asked to believe that an entire class of fifty lads (50 lads to a class is worse than my day) of their own volition, chose so to do on a cold December day.

I am afraid I do not believe that for a moment.

Matthew S.

Summertime quite possibly. Shirtless PE does still take place at the request of the teacher but in terms of what was described it would fall foul of modern day health and safety rules on assessment of the risks involved in most schools now. This is according to a teacher governor friend of mine at an 1100 pupil secondary who I met for a festive tipple this evening and brought this comment up for an opinion. A further opinion from any of the other ex and current teachers would be welcome if they haven't all been scared off by the diabolical mud slinging, and who could blame them.

Don't mind my intruding, but isn't it possible Barney is telling the truth?

You see adults and children happily jumping in the sea on Christmas Eve.
His being a school governor is explanation enough for him not to want to name the school.

A pity we can't get back to politely exchanging recollections.

I'm not being turned by that explanation Barney, sorry and until you made that fifty shirtless boys and teachers post I had no reason to think you were anything other than genuine. I am no apologist for Alan either whose posts are far too obsessively negative and sometimes do my head in.

My very first post here was attacked in the most vile and condescending manner by Alan and so he has continued to partly quote things I've said or even not said to attempt to make me look like the pervert he is. I never have and never would do anything wrong and I've explained, now several times my involvement with the school which Alan ignores and continues to abuse me. It is he and not me that is the disordered person here and his obsession with a poster using multiple names only demonstrates his own guilt.

I stand by what I've said, I will not refer to Alan again, or indeed the obviously many other names he uses and I would suggest that no sensible person should. It's clear, anyone who disagrees with him is to be utterly discredited. We have someone claiming to be a policeman posting dubious content, all subjective attacking someone who claims to be a barrister refuting it quite objectively. Andy dislikes the barrister and wishes to bring him into disrepute, a bit like me. The policeman is held up as someone of virtue, the barrister's response is treated like rubbish.

The source of the problem, to anyone looking objectively is Alan.

This is my last reference to this subject.

On about three occasions I've submitted mundane polite inoffensive comments and they have failed to appear for some reason. The inner workings of this site appear to be somewhat mysterious don't they. I was having similar thoughts to Derek after browsing the current batch.

Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

If what the poster had written was back in December 1973 I'd not think twice about it. I ran a few shirtless cross countries in the early 1970s, although not in December, I think I did a few as late as the end of October half term break up, so in '73 school must have broken up on 26th October, I was 14, and I used to have PE on a Friday, as well as Tuesdays.

Boys could tend to be reluctant to do so but we just used to get shouted at if we malingered over such things we weren't going to change. It was okay once you got out there and going but I didn't like going along public roads and local lanes.

But that was now fifty years ago and times have surely changed and although I did the very things that Barney says, in groups of anywhere from 30 to quite possibly 50 or maybe even more, I do struggle to imagine that in December 2023 and if I was on a jury panel having to decide one way or the other I'd not believe it as it was told.

Hear, hear Claire!

Agree with every word of that.

I'd like to second Claire's eminently sensible post of 10.02 this morning. I think there should be some more stringent methods for signing it and verifying accounts, so that those of us who post under our own names cannot be "confused" by the more vexatious or elderly posters, as having other profiles. For the record I have only one forename, but I suspect those blessed with two or three use those to post what are, on close examination very similar, and often insulting messages, by using all of them for different, though similar messages.

I think I have seen it all this morning, though with this post (Comment by: Original Andy on 15th December 2023 at 09:22), where he takes to task an ex police officer, with a load of bluster, common abuse and ignorant and condescending cant, reeking with snobbery (similar to the good Doctor "Hugh") . He almost puts old "Mr. Chips" and his claims of caning "younger boys", sans trousers and underwear and Barney's morning prowling of school playing fields to watch half naked schoolboys in their exercises. "Barney" says he is retired, so why should a man in his sixties or seventies seek out schoolboys - not just once, but persistently?.

I frankly don't believe these events took place - but that is not the point. It is things they would have LIKED to have happened, which shows the state of their lascivious minds. The more logical their critics are, the more , the more outrageous their insults become. It is the cyber equivalent of writing anonymous letters in green ink.

By all means, Claire - and forum director, let's have a more secure sign-in system, so readers can be assured we are who we say we are. I have nothing to hide, and I am sure most f the decent people on here who contribute to the site haven't either.

Those who enter into personal abuse against others have lost the argument. It's that simple really.

Claire you speak a lot of sense there and you are spot on.

If nothing else I want to know where the moderation is and why highly abusive personal comments are being published on this discussion that relate nothing to the subject in hand here. The comments never appear immediately, some take hours to come up. Who on earth could think some of this bile is worth placing here. Even the most basic responsible site will normally filter this kind of thing out.

It's increasingly clear that mainly one person appears to be responsible for creating the illusion of widespread bad feeling. The tone is all the same, the manner things are being said, the referring to highly professional jobs etc.

The historical novelist Edward Rutherfurd (born 1948), who wrote among others the novel "Sarum" about the history of Salisbury, tells this amusing anecdote from his schooldays:

https://www.edwardrutherfurd.com/the-history-boys.html

Though it has nothing to do with French, Latin or physical education, I thought Mr Chips might appreciate that story.

And as i don't seem to have been "bounced", even the verification code is NOT case-sensitive!