Talk:King Edward VI School, Lichfield

Potentially libelous content

Two IP addresses keep adding potentially libelous content. I can find no independent verification for the content. If this is factual, please provide independent references. Also consider whether it is legal to include named individuals. Jschwa1 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say in what way you tried to verify the content, so what you say doesn't amount to very much to be perfectly frank - and whatever you may or may not have done doesn't give you the right to act as a censor. This appears to be a carefully considered and reasonably well-written contribution and you should stop vandalizing it.

Wikipedia conventions

Please read this page Wikipedia:Wikipedia in brief before adding potentially libellous content which does not represent a neutral point of view, one of the key principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for making allegations of illegal activity, however well intentioned.

You clearly have strong views on the allegations you are making. Can I suggest the following action:

If you were involved in these events and believe illegal activity happened which has not been investigated by the police, then consider raising the matter with the police.
If these alleged events have been investigated by police and tried and proved in a court of law then consider adding content which conforms to the NPOV guidelines for Wikipedia. You will also need to ensure that any content is verifiable.

As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Jschwa1 11:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truthful statements cannot be libelous

You can't verify the content because you are not able to look in the right place. This is an accurate historical record by witnesses. As unpalatable as it may be, it is a part of the school's history and it is in the public interest that these issues are examined. The cat, as it were, is out of the bag and you can't put it back in.

As for naming individuals, it is high time that this was done. Perhaps it is time to name and shame more of the individuals concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.0.128.56 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The article brings the school into disrepute

The quality of English used in this article is very poor and consequently brings the school into disrepute. Is there no-one in the school, whether student or teacher, who is capable of reworking it to a high standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.126.162 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion: nomination of various 'Former pupils' categories

The 'former pupils' category associated with this school has nominated for renaming, along with all similar categories. Comments are invited at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Occuli (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richards was a scoundrel

William Richards, a headmaster of King Edward VI Grammar School, Lichfield, was informed that a chemistry teacher by the name of Christopher Hood had beaten the buttocks of two pupils to satisfy his lust. The teacher should have been prosecuted, but Richards, a magistrate, covered the matter up. Absolutely shameful behaviour.

Richards and the authority, Staffordshire County Council

Richards and the local education authority, Staffordshire County Council, owed a duty of care to pupils at King Edward VI Grammar School. They should be sued to the fullest extent of the law. === I agree. Richards was an absolute scoundrel.