Burnley Grammar School

Comment by: Mickey on 20th May 2024 at 19:55
Craig - some interesting points you make about your runners not all having been the type to go shirtless in school or elsewhere. I don't think I could join! I wonder - and don't answer if this is intrusive - do you have many chubby guys, or hairy shoulders/backs, or even outie belly buttons?




Hi Mickey.

To answer those questions, the chubby one, well nobody is what you'd define as fat, but there are a few guys with what you'd call a couple of extra pounds on the waist. Regular shaped men in other words. Obviously the kinds of people who like to go running or keep fit in general are unlikely to have ended up too overweight. But that doesn't preclude anyone who is from joining our group and maybe doing smaller group or shorter distances. Nobody is judgemental and some guys have made comments in the past about how we look, often to say how good one or two look for their age, never anything negative.

On the body hair question, I've not noticed anything dramatic, just normal looking guys for the most part. I think there is a lot more body shaving nowadays so even really hairy chests are not exactly common. It's possible that men who are really hairy just don't like showing it off much, and I mean very thick dark hair, not normal everyday slightly hairy chests, we've enough of those among our group. Until you get up close to me my body seems hairless but it's there on close inspection a little bit, nothing much though. I must admit I would hate to be excessively hairy and if I was I would probably take it off.

Your final question on navels, now there's a question I cannot answer because I haven't actually noticed or thought about it. Nothing has caught my eye let's just say that. There must be some. I'll let you know sometime! Now you've said this I know it's going to make me look now. I've just got what looks the commonest. I know someone wrote about this on here before, his name was Toby I think. Would this small thing really put you off removing your shirt then?

As I've said before, we are all just regular normal looking guys, perhaps with the exception of the six and a half footer I mentioned last time who is on the tall and long limbed side. There are no overdone six packs on 28 inch waists with fake tans and biceps that look like they were made on steroids. None of that. One or two of the younger guys have a couple of tattoo's but the majority of us have none at all. You just try getting nearly 40 men aged 20 to 60 with their shirts off in one place nowadays without seeing a tattoo on any patch of visible skin above the waistline, an almost impossible task it seems.

You say you don't think you could join. I've heard that comment 3 times so far from men who did join and not only joined, took part once and then came back again on some of our larger runs. It's kind of nice for people to find some confidence they untap. Just because you might have been an awkward kid at school who had a dislike for PE or for taking your shirt off in company doesn't mean you have to continue being that child and you can become that adult that throws those awkward PE child shackles off.

While most of us, me included, like to run best with others, even just in a pair sometimes, this adds confidence, but we did have someone at Easter who didn't come with us on the Monday run we did because he thought the group was far too big and he would feel less comfortable making such a large show of things and likes the more modest groups of 4 to 6 we go out on. So although many of us like running bareskins in company, one of our number felt there was a critical mass, it was more than 20 of us, that made him feel self conscious, not by being among the group but about how we might be perceived in such a large group running along bareskins by others looking on.

If anyone thinks we are nothing more than a lot of super confident show offs then think again. It's just not like that at all.

Does it secretly appeal to you then Mickey, even though you don't think you could do it?

Sorry! It was Mickey's first paragraph.

Comment by: Alan on 21st May 2024 at 04:44
'Finally the confirmation of the degree of voyeurism that went on in schools, confirmed in the past few weeks, from the women who admit that they enjoyed looking at half naked boys in school, and got gratification from it, to the men who admitted that they enjoyed looking at other lads showering at school for "comparison" purposes (it is very obvious, btw, they did not go to tough inner city schools. If they had been doing their "comparing" in the school I went to, they would have got beaten up).'



Voyeurism?

This is all thoroughly normal human behaviour, especially among the young, and not akin to voyeurism/perving/potential criminality of any kind for 99.999% of us. Unless blind, teenage girls noticing boys with their shirts off near them is hardly surprising is it, and if you're stood stark naked in a shower room with your fellow class at school it would be impossible not to see (check out) what's around you wouldn't it. All completely normal in my book, everyone has done it whatever their inclination.

Mickey's second paragraph below hits the nail on the head. The solution is to ignore the obsessive and insulting comments and not to reply to the individual who makes them.
Recently someone remarked that interesting contributors had left the discussion. Can anyone blame them? Just ignore him!

Comment by: Tony on 20th May 2024 at 22:36


Hello Tony. On the subject of names, I do not like the way teachers had the habit of saying "Smith" when they could have said "David", for example. I wonder if they still do so? - it wouldn't surprise me. It takes the scholastic world about thirty years to catch up with everybody else. As the world gets more informal, so do schools get ever more pompous and self-important with their interminable rules. On the subject of shortening names, a band I was in already had an Alan, so I was always referred to as Al, which didn't bother me in the slightest - it sounds friendly - far better than calling somebody by their surname only. If Charles was offended, then I apologise. Believe it or not, I like to be friendly!.

Yes - you are right. I am angry. So many people on this site seem to just accept what had happened at R.L (you see I am considerate, I don't want to make poor, overwrought Sue "SCREAM") and shrugged it off. It is noticeable not one of the people on this site who are either in the profession now, or in the ;past, condemned what the criminal had done - instead they seemed angry and put out that I had dared to mention it. Why?.

There was a smattering of support for the shocking abuse both Nick Campbell and Earl Spencer had to put up with (he is the late Lady Diana's brother), but again - not one condemnation from present or former teachers. I would just remind everybody that many ordinary lads suffered similar abuse, but because they are not TV stars or nobility, it seems to be forgotten that their wellbeing was just as important, and the consequences of the abuse, that affected Mr. Campbell and the Earl are just as vivid and corrosive, even if they are not "important". They both remember it vividly after 40'/50 years - so do less prominent men.

Certainly if I were in a profession that seemed to attract more than it's fair share of dubious characters, I would have something to say about it. As I have said before, the fault might lie with local authorities who fail to perform proper background checks on the characters they employ. Just yesterday a "nursery assistant" was found guilty of the manslaughter of a BABY who she tied to a beanbag, for an hour and a half, because - in this 37 year old woman's opinion, - the poor little kid had not "slept long enough".

How can such disgusting behaviour be excused. Anyone who knows anything about humans knows we are all different. I sleep about 4 hours a night. I wouldn't sleep any longer if I were tied up. Did the employer not realise that this woman had anger management issues, and how was she allowed, by fellow employees, to get away with such extreme behaviour?. Just imagine the lengths that dreadful woman might have gone to had she taught in a proper school. Would any of her colleagues report her?. I very much doubt it, in the same way "decent" teachers acted like the three wise monkeys when they had suspicions of some of their colleagues. If there was a prosecution, they might then admit they had suspicions, but put their heads above the parapet? - no chance.

Finally the confirmation of the degree of voyeurism that went on in schools, confirmed in the past few weeks, from the women who admit that they enjoyed looking at half naked boys in school, and got gratification from it, to the men who admitted that they enjoyed looking at other lads showering at school for "comparison" purposes (it is very obvious, btw, they did not go to tough inner city schools. If they had been doing their "comparing" in the school I went to, they would have got beaten up).

School was a squalid, miserable experience for many people in the past - you hope it isn't now, but I suspect, for many, it still is, and this is down to teachers, just as much as the pupils, because they enable it..

I have answered you at length, because your response seemed genuine, not band-wagon jumping.

Alan.

I remember you having a conversation on here some time ago about how you wished to be referred to correctly when meeting people. I think it was when the discussion had turned to those of us who were being referred to by our surnames only at school. You had a strong view on the correct way you wished to be addressed. There was little to disagree with you on that I think.

So it's really very disappointing to see you respond to Charles by calling him Charlie instead as some people would see that as a sign of disrespect I'm sure you of all people would agree.

I also noticed you namechecked someone called Carl when I think you meant Craig, but that was obviously just an oversight.

I think the comment from Sue was broadly along the right track there. I think you have reduced the power of your argument and diluted it through sheer volume of making it, similar to crying wolf too many times and having nobody listen in the end.

Just think of this as considered well meaning respectful friendly advice. You sound very depressed and angry Alan and that saddens me. I'm not trying to sound patronising.

Alan earlier today;
'Well done, Shirley. I am sure this ever-so-amusing family anecdote is just what the men on this site suffering from Stockholm Syndrome want to read.'


Oh Alan I think we can allow Shirley a laugh with her own brother can't we? It's what siblings do with each other all the time at these ages. Infact in my own case at school I tried my best to ignore my own older sister.

I agree Sue, but you have to bear in mind the possibility that anyone you engage with on an Internet message board who has extremely limited self awareness, perspective, and can't recognise their repeated points (whether sensible or not) have so exceeded reasonable behaviour is probably in some way dealing with their own issues or demons. If there is someone here who I know writes prejudiced rubbish, I just don't read their post. If others don't reply then that works very well and the individual can carry on as they please.

Craig - some interesting points you make about your runners not all having been the type to go shirtless in school or elsewhere. I don't think I could join! I wonder - and don't answer if this is intrusive - do you have many chubby guys, or hairy shoulders/backs, or even outie belly buttons?

We had two PE teachers who couldn't have been more different. The younger of the two was an excellent inspiring teacher, who also taught maths. The older guy was incompetent and had serious anger management issues. We never knew in advance who would be taking the class. The wait to find out is a powerful memory.

Comment by: Charles on 20th May 2024 at 11:13


....." I am sure I am not alone in thinking we do not want you here!"

There is a lot of things I don't want Charlie, for example women gushing that they liked looking at half naked lads, - when they were at school to learn, not to gawp, - but there you are - that is democracy for you.


Comment by: Mel on 20th May 2024 at 15:02


"A few points from me.

Mike, yes this website has suddenly become riddled with intrusive ads my end too. One of the worst is the pop up at the bottom of the screen that I have had to click away a lot........"

Why not use an Ad Blocker?. You can get them for Windows machines, Chromebooks and Macs. They are free and easy to install. I use them all the time - they are very effective on national newspapers, and on You Tube. It might tell you on some YT videos that you are not "allowed" to use Adblockers, but just refresh the page and you will get to see the video. The screen might go blank for 15-30 seconds, that is just the amount of time the ad runs for, it is just blanking them out - that is better than some of the garbage that is being advertised, and the "music" that accompanies them.

A few points from me.

Mike, yes this website has suddenly become riddled with intrusive ads my end too. One of the worst is the pop up at the bottom of the screen that I have had to click away a lot.

Sue, another agreement from me too.

As I previously said when on here a number of weeks ago, my own 14 year old is in school right now in a Daventry secondary and has taken frequent lessons in a bare chest, it happens with his fortnightly Thursday gym PE lesson and appears to be how these teachers there choose to do this at his school, although nowhere does anything mention this, either the school website or the prospectus I have when he started. When I left school 30 years ago this kind of thing for the boys was par for the course without a second thought given to it and I won't deny when I got to know my own son now did this a couple of times a month in PE, since 2021, I was surprised because it appeared they all had to do so, according to him, and I know he's not a natural when it comes to removing and going about in a bare chest apart from on a few foreign holidays we've had when he was a lot younger.

I am not questioning the motives of those that teach him these lessons because he has had multiple teachers and they all do the same thing with them. I do not think I should view these teachers as potential perverts just because they are doing this with the boys. That way lies madness. It seems they insist on bare chests and it is compulsory, but at least it's the same for all of them. Yes you can question why, but why anything in this life. It's not something worth getting wound up about to the point of stupidity over and my son is doing just fine anyway and gets positive reports back to me from these teachers, a couple who I have met and I made a good judgement of them. But I keep aware of things all the same.

A few people have left clips of here and spoken of gym displays and sports days with the boys in bare chests long ago. Next month he's got his sports day we can go to if we want. Now this is the point where I would ask for answers, if the boys at that were all in bare chests at that and being told to do so. I would say something if I saw that. Not if there were a few in bare chests because they wanted to, only if it was clear they were being told to be bare chests. But that has not happened in the last two summers in 2022 and 2023 and I am quite certain it won't happen this year either.


Robbie, I have noticed that the former teachers now retired have been absent recently too. Another who was quite interesting has also absented and I think there was a rather interesting ongoing story there over his own dilemma as he saw it for his class and their summer PE kit the school said should be bare chests just like in my son's school gym. That was the Yorkshire Dad, so if you are about I'd like to hear how things have turned out so far.

Sue on the 19th May: Well said. Agree with you 100%. Why on earth does the so-called moderator continually allow such defamatory, insulting, and repetitious nonsense? What used to be, and no doubt was intended to be, an interesting, nostalgic forum has been allowed to turn into “the Alan show” with barely anyone allowed to say anything without his biased, distorted and twisted view of the matter being posted in response. You have been urged countless times to get help, Alan, but it seems all you want to do is force your vitriol on the rest of us. How many more interesting contributors are going to give up visiting this site because of your rants? I am sure I am not alone in thinking we do not want you here!

Comment by: Shirley on 19th May 2024 at 22:55


"The boys at my secondary school had compulsory no tops on for PE. Girls joined them sometimes and never made any comments but the first time I did this with them and first saw so many boys in the same room without shirts on in all their bare chests I did feel a little flutter of something just seeing them all. My brother used to slam the door in my face if I caught him in his bedroom getting changed or with his top off. I walked past the school gym window one day when he was in there doing PE with his shirt off and laughed at him. It was the only time I caught him at school like that with his shirt off although I saw lots of other boys in my classes up close and very personal. All looked good shape and I don't remember seeing any boys even close to being obese, so wonder why all these old 70's schoolboys worry so much."

Well done, Shirley. I am sure this ever-so-amusing family anecdote is just what the men on this site suffering from Stockholm Syndrome want to read. Well done -0 and keep it up - and we musn't forget retired teacher Sue, must we?. who - just like MPs during the expenses scandal got so sick and tired (and doubtless wanted to "SCREAM") when anyone dare mention the fact that there were rotten apples in their barrel. Just like M.P's, teachers are egotists and cannot bear being reminded that they, too have feet of clay, are not omniscient, even though they like to pretend they are. They are often two-faced and devious. But for God's sake stop pretending they are benign little gifts from heaven, and beyond critisism.

Sue - like your goodself, turn up out of the blue, then disappear into cyberspace. Like the woman last week you seem to have regarded school as a peep show. If the boot had been on the other foot, and we had men coming on here, making jocular references to gawping at girls in a state of undress, would make you (and dear old Sue) think it just as harmless?. Yet another example of double standards..

As for Sue's many backers, may I just remind you that, a rounded picture of history, includes the bad as well as the good - and the rotten. That the rotten exist is not my fault.

Comment by: Robbie on 19th May 2024 at 15:24
Comment by: Sue on 19th May 2024 at 12:57
This would be a much more enjoyable thread without it Sue, so I can agree with you, yes. I've noticed that the amount of open PE teacher involvement has almost dried up, excluding the current one. There used to be a few retired PE teachers on the forum worth a read.





Robbie I have noticed this also. I have been considering whether further input is either wise or productive myself because it's actually quite demoralising to read such inaccurate comments about the vast majority of people who teach my subject who are nothing like they are portrayed here by Alan and not even close to it. It's such grotesque misrepresentation, and the assertion that people such as myself do the job on account of our poor academic ability is nonsense too.

I've given a good account of myself and even given a good account of my pupils own opinions.

Comment by: Chris G on 19th May 2024 at 22:34
Sue
I'l join you in the SCREAMING!!




My feelings - https://youtu.be/HXiZHXkG-ac?si=tC4A_P_YlAEuw1PX

The boys at my secondary school had compulsory no tops on for PE. Girls joined them sometimes and never made any comments but the first time I did this with them and first saw so many boys in the same room without shirts on in all their bare chests I did feel a little flutter of something just seeing them all. My brother used to slam the door in my face if I caught him in his bedroom getting changed or with his top off. I walked past the school gym window one day when he was in there doing PE with his shirt off and laughed at him. It was the only time I caught him at school like that with his shirt off although I saw lots of other boys in my classes up close and very personal. All looked good shape and I don't remember seeing any boys even close to being obese, so wonder why all these old 70's schoolboys worry so much.

I think everyone is getting pretty fed up with Alans input on this forum. I hope he can find a better place to express his feelings on sites that are more relevant to his cause!

Sue
I'l join you in the SCREAMING!!,

Sue - you are absolutely right but the offender still refuses to see it.

I think all my p.e. teachers also taught an academic subject as well - they were not stupid nor were they bullies or paedophiles.

I tend to agree with you Sue. I need say no more. I knew I shouldn't have placed that BBC article on here on Friday, I think a misjudgement on my part. I've no desire to encourage the discussion into that direction too much.

I also agree with you Mike on the sudden influx of excessive advertising going on here. Is this anyone else's experience too?

Comment by: Alan on 19th May 2024

I think this is as much about the constant repeating of the same train of thought as much as the content, so on that basis I have to agree with Sue I'm afraid.

Do you remember when everyone decided to start showing a lot more respect to each other and refrain from direct insults (to you mostly) after a bit of a ding dong at the end of last year? I think that has largely held out since then but it's now you who is lacking respectful discourse with others you disgaree with, have you not noticed that. Irony eh.

We all want to scream I think.

Just put a bloody sock in it once and for all.

Comment by: Sue on 19th May 2024 at 12:57
<If I see the words "Royal Liberty" or associated issues written down once more on this forum I think I am going to SCREAM.
You are an over obsessive zealot treating this website and those who wish to engage with it for its actual intended purposes with disrespect now and we are stuck in a perpetual groundhog day without prospect of release.
If you agree with me please say, so this man finally understands.>




This would be a much more enjoyable thread without it Sue, so I can agree with you, yes. I've noticed that the amount of open PE teacher involvement has almost dried up, excluding the current one. There used to be a few retired PE teachers on the forum worth a read.

Comment by: Sue on 19th May 2024 at 12:57

"If I see the words "Royal Liberty" or associated issues written down once more on this forum I think I am going to SCREAM."

A pedant with anger management issues. Well, well - there's a surprise?.

What do you expect to see on a history website?. If it were about the war, would you just expect to read about the sing-songs in the tube stations ("I'm Going To Get Lit Up When The Lights Go On In London") and how you gave away the garden railings for scrap, and saving up your ration cupons for warm bloomers for Xmas, ?. Nothing about Nazi's or the misery they caused in the world for six years?

History includes bad as well as good, Sue dear.

Comment by: Sue on 19th May 2024 at 12:57

I do agree with your sentiments Sue. I also remember PE teachers taking other subject lessons as well by the way. It's no surprise how you found your way to this site considering your teaching background is it!

I'd also like to know why the pages of this site are now becoming saturated with intrusive adverts even between comments now like never before.

Sue, I am in full agreement with you here.

If I see the words "Royal Liberty" or associated issues written down once more on this forum I think I am going to SCREAM.

You are an over obsessive zealot treating this website and those who wish to engage with it for its actual intended purposes with disrespect now and we are stuck in a perpetual groundhog day without prospect of release.

If you agree with me please say, so this man finally understands.


Retired History/PE teacher, so while I am here I will clear up the incorrect assumption that those who teach PE teach nothing else because they are too stupid to. A lot like me took second subjects.

Comment by: Nicholas J on 18th May 2024 at 17:42


..."You seem to be lashing out or being very cutting to normal comments that don't require those sort of resposnse Alan. Veronica and Nathan the latest examples......."


Not at all, Nicholas. I am sorry you found it so. I was just gently pointing out to Veronica that he smart response wasn't that smart at all, and to Nathan I was encouraging him to put his money where his mouth is. He once told us that his excuse for shirtless P.E was so that he could check the muscle development of his boys - well with such a large group that Carl has - much bigger than one of his classes, he will have a field day in research.

As regards your question, the answer is quite simple - more thorough background checks before a person is employed and then constant monitoring once they are employed - and a bit of commonsense. For example, why did the N HS or the GMC not notice than an inordinate number of old ladies just happen to give up the ghost when they were in Dr. Harold Shipman's surgery?. Why did it take so long to discover that so many babies were dying when Nurse Lucy Letby was on duty. Why didn't Royal Liberty notice that a certain teacher - who "liked blonde teenage boys" locked the doors to the school swimming pool?, People are given jobs then just allowed to do as they like.

Better background checks and a willingness to dismiss bad employees, and if necessary, bring in the police is the answer - and if the unions want to waste their money by propping up useless personnel -well it is their money to waste.

In regard to the paedo nympho on Friday, I dare say the two boys enjoyed their experiences at the time - however much they now say they didn't - but at least there was no question of unnatural practices involved, as there were in the other cases I have highlighted . That doesn't excuse her appalling behaviour, however - but again people don't just suddenly become paedophiles, as they might join Weight Watchers or the local book club. The school authorities, as so often, just didn't do their homework.

You seem to be lashing out or being very cutting to normal comments that don't require those sort of resposnse Alan. Veronica and Nathan the latest examples.

On Veronica's point that you took her to task over, point still stands regardless of your correction. But lets take your corrected point then. Who precisely do you expect to work and teach alongside boys in an all boys school then? Someone has to do it, and as we have seen with the news item about that woman messing about with boys in school, even if you had an all female staff in an all boys school you'd still be having issues in some instances, maybe many more infact. So what do you suggest as your solution then that would satisfy you?

Bernard - yes, it was just the accepted thing, wasn’t it, in those far-off days of the 1960s and 70s.
As there were no such things as trainers, plimsolls were the only type of footwear available for PE and cross country, and were useless. I think most of my classmates - both boys and girls - were glad that bare feet were compulsory.

Ryan - At the time I didn’t really think about experiencing the different feelings underfoot, but I do remember that although some of the cross country course was a little rough, we soon got used to it.