It has previously been observed that the "famous" bikini picture of the delectable Ms Ashcroft does not seem to show evidence of Mr Ing's attention the previous week.

True it does not expand well, and there may be a pixelation effect, but to me there is a hint of a mark on the left side below the bikini.

Maybe this is the hopeful eye of faith but if it were real it would suggest Mr Ing was left handed.

Well Rodney Bacon, darned if I don't think you might possibly be right! Ultra-close scrutiny (only in the interests of research for this estimable Forum you understand! ) shows several possible suspect areas. However I think most of them are certainly not cane marks - unless Mr Ing was a very erratic caner. Probably not the case, as he seems to have had plenty of practise!

There is however one mark which could just be a cane tip mark, a fraction below and around ²/₃ of the way up the bikini line on the left. Is that the one you mean?

An interesting exercise is to reduce red in the picture by taking the colour balance over to cyan. That particular mark then resolves itself as an pinkish area with a yellowish inner marking, unlike any of the other originally red areas. Manipulation of the red channel also leaves that area looking a little different to anything else.

Pro:

• The possible mark is in an area where a cane tip might just land, with a left-handed caner and a short cane. ILEA canes for girls seem to have been shortish at under 30 inches.
• A cane tip strike would probably leave a longer lasting mark, with almost certainly some bruising, which would fade via a yellow colouration.

Con:

• Only a graphics anorak is going to see the possible effect, and graphics anoraks often have vivid imaginations!
• We don't know if Mr Ing was a left-hander.
• We don't know that Leah was caned on the bottom - or do we, I can't remember and I haven't got time to re-read the relevant threads.

So, over to anyone else with an interest in this undoubtedly fascinating subject and a facility with graphics packages!

BTW, Rodney Bacon, are you prepared to say if we know you under another name in this estimable Forum? I have a feeling that we might but I'm not always right about that sort of thing!

Oh dear, sorry all, very sloppy of me! We do indeed know that Leah was caned on the bottom if we believe her original post about it on FR. See the splendid detective work by Mr Alan Turing at 12:06 on 01 July 2009 in The Bacon girls thread.

And whilst taking my mind off the dentist's drill this morning another con occured to me. However much she might desire to display that delectable derrière in her new bikini I don't think Leah, or any other young lady for that matter, would have done so if there was any chance at all that a cane mark might be visible. So probably not - but then again she could have misjudged!

Extensive research on Bacons over the last 8-9 months has been done by yours truly, majoring on the blessed Wilfred.

No one's mentioned this in discussing what Wilfred did to them. Their mind may in many cases have been severly distracted, but people have tended to remember events of 25-30 years with astonishing clarity, possibly because they were traumatised by him.

I can't help thinking, somehow, given the extremely fussy ritual he went through when caning lovely young girl's bums, that Wilf's left-handedness would have stood out a mile before,during or after his canings.

Wilf was a lot of words I can't use on this page, and especially one word Chaucer's Wife of Bath slipped into polite conversation without any of her social betters batting an eyelid. A great big ice-cream one, too, as we say in Camberwell.

But left-hander isn't the mot juste, methinks.

A_L

It is many years since I posted and to be completely honest I have forgotten the identity that I used.

Recently I have been inspired by the depth of research of correspondents, by the Misses Ashcroft and Cousins, and the apparent reduction in FR censorship.

One observation I make about Bacon's is that in the past (in the halcyon early days of FR) Miss Paige was usually cited as the caner of girls, and there was no mention of Mr Ing doing so. I note that Ms Cousins has recently added Miss Paige to her list of assailants.

On which subject can anybody identify "Drac" identified by Ms Cousins, and his/her role at Bacon's. Presumably this is an abbreviation of Dracula but was the real name? I did know a teacher who was known by his pupils as "Drac/ula" from his real name Drake.

Some of you may recall the case of Miss Olds in October 1978, who was in the second year and well on her way to Ms Cousins claimed record having been caned "two or three times", once in front of the class, before refusing a caning and being suspended.

Maybe she was due to encounter Mr Ing as a frequent offender, and didn't fancy it. Does anybody know the conclusion of the Olds story, did she decide to take her punishment or was she transferred elsewhere?

RB

Thank you Steve. I wondered if you might be able to throw any light on this. I agree with you that in general terms we might expect left-handedness to be commented on. For instance I will usually notice if someone writes left-handed. Indeed when recruiting people I used to specifically watch for this trait, as together with possession of an O-level or better in Latin it was a strong indicator for success in the type of computer jobs I was recruiting for. Absolutely true, I assure you, based on years of practical observation. I don't have either, though I would have been left-handed if they hadn't forced me, and any other left handers, to be right-handed as soon as we started to learn to write at school.

And that brings me to an area where I have to play the devil's advocate and raise just a little doubt about how much Mr Ing's handedness might have stood out. I notice left-handedness because of events at school and because of the job link. I'm not sure that people much younger than me would notice it. In later generations, after those schools that did so stopped forcing right-handedness, there seem to be a relatively high proportion of left-handers. It isn't unusual in those generations, and I don't think they would particularly notice it in older people where it might be less common.

Going further, I would suggest that the last thing anyone being caned would notice would be the handedness of the caner, particularly if that person did most or all of the caning they had experienced. Being caned must be a fairly traumatic experience even if the punishment is carried out in a fairly simple and straightforward manner. There seems to be evidence that some girls at Bacons underwent canings which might have made the side the caner was standing on the last thing they'd be worried about. We'll probably never know, but I think there is at least an area of doubt.

And, before I conclude, one more point. Sorry about this, I hate being a clever-clogs, but we earnest seekers after the truth have to tell it as it is, whether it supports our case or not. I'll leave you to judge which applies here. From your post at 16:29 on 5 January 2009 in the 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread here:

He also regularly gave girls 4 or 6, boys 3 or 4. This was on the basis that his teachers were more likely to clip boys round the ear than slap girls, so if they'd been sent to him, they were unlikely to have had a short sharp shock beforehand in class. ...... non-relevant bit snipped ....

I've had that confirmed by 3 different ex-pupils who left in 1975,1980 & 1984, and who are not related nor live in the same area. Even more interestingly, A_L & Alan Turing please note, Ing got arthritis in his caning hand and, when forced to switch to the left, developed a powerful wrist-flick to impart more pain.

Left handed caning, a powerful wrist flick, fast accelerating cane tip, possibility of pronounced cane tip impact and consequential longer lasting mark(s). Now the caning we are discussing here took place in 1982, so there seems to be a good chance the switch to left handed caning by Mr Ing had taken place before that.

I'd like to say I rest my case m'lud, but you have more of the details than I have.

APOLOGIES!!

I did indeed say that. I can only plead I got so excited by this flick of the wrist,the switch of hand went right out of my head!

My correspondents back then DID confirm it, so you know now I'm as capable as spouting total nonsense as anyone on here. As if anyone needs to be told that!!

I wish what I also discovered about Wilf was spurious. But it appears the weight of evidence suggests otherwise. I'm afraid that also rather made me forget what I'd initially found out.

The people I've contacted since weren't asked about that, so I'll get on to that forthwith, just to confirm Rodney's keen observations.


Steve M

Hi Steve. You are clearly in a difficult position as confidences must be respected. My own suspicion for some time has been that things went on in the CP regime at Bacons that weren't quite according to Hoyle. But then things that weren't quite according to Hoyle seem to have gone on at many schools. Small snippets escape but the full story is suppressed, often with the apparent connivence of those punished.

In the 1950s the Senior school associated with my primary school may be one example. I've only heard one account, of which I can personally verify one small element, but I've heard hints, promptly followed by abrupt end of conversation. In the 1990s the Rodney School is another example. Almost too many accounts, but all apparently impossible to verify and sometimes contradictory. Somewhere in between, at least datewise, is Bacons School. I'm sure there are lots of others.

I think there may be some common factors. A Head Teacher respected and admired by parents, and by a fair proportion of the pupils. A climate of thought within the school administration, and probably amongst some parents, that girls are at special risk, either of doing things that might be detrimental to themselves or of becoming a threat to general discipline in the school. In those circumstances 'special measures' may be seen by all the adults involved, and by some of the pupils, as justified and necessary. I believe these factors were definitely present in the three schools I've instanced here. Certainly all three Head Teachers had a very high degree of parental support, and, at least as far as I can judge, were respected by a good proportion of their pupils.

So how can we judge what seems to have happened in these schools? The answer is we probably can't. We weren't there and we don't know the full story, though we might know one facet of it. We can apply our own personal standards and arrive at a personal judgement, disgust, fury, acceptance, approval, whatever, and that's about as far as we can go. We can be interested in what happened, and we can try to research and expand on it. But whatever we do we can't get the full picture, because many of the people who were involved, even if they are still around, aren't going to give it to us!

We know of plenty of cases where Head Teachers and Teachers were prosecuted for corporal punishment practises that departed too far from the norm. That hasn't happenened in any of the cases I've discussed here. I can only assume that it didn't happen because it wasn't seen to be justified by the circumstances. Either those circumstances meant it was never even considered, or if it was considered there were insufficient grounds for action. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the former would have been the case for all the three schools I've mentioned.

So, there's my position. I'd like to know what went on with regard to the corporal punishment of girls at those three schools, and indeed at others, but I accept it is probably always going to be an incomplete picture.

Hi Rodney Bacon. First, as regards the subject of your thread, as you'll have seen above, according to the only information available, Mr Ing did cane left handed, possibly for the latter part of his career. Whether he caned Leah left handed prior to her beach picture we don't know for sure, though it seems likely.

Second, were we looking at the same mark, or were we both seeing different things, both probably illusory?

You ask many questions regarding Bacons. I don't know the answer to most of them. A post on FR by Leah Ashcroft, quoted in the 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread I've linked above does indeed appear to confirm that Drac is short for Dracula. I wonder if he was the deputy head, described by an anonymous contributor here in 2004 who claimed to have done teaching practise at Bacons as wearing orthopaedic footwear. No idea what his real name was.

You say of Sue Olds:

Some of you may recall the case of Miss Olds in October 1978, who was in the second year and well on her way to Ms Cousins claimed record having been caned "two or three times", once in front of the class, before refusing a caning and being suspended.

Maybe she was due to encounter Mr Ing as a frequent offender, and didn't fancy it. Does anybody know the conclusion of the Olds story, did she decide to take her punishment or was she transferred elsewhere?

There was a report in the London Evening Standard of 30 October 1978 by reporter Sue Reid, quoted in the 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread, which said of Sue Olds:

GIRL WHO'S AFRAID OF GOING TO SCHOOL
'They are waiting to cane me if I go back - I can't stand it again' By Sue Reid

Teenager Sue Olds will not go back to Bacon's Comprehensive in London's docklands because a cane is waiting for her. Fourteen year old Sue faces a dose of the cane before she is allowed back into class at the 1,000 pupil Church of England school - revealed recently as a 'top-caning' comprehensive. And today after three weeks' suspension for truancy she said: "I cannot go back there. I have been warned I will be caned and I cannot stand it again. "I want to go to another school. They have caned me 6 or 7 times at Bacons - once in front of some boys - and every time I get ill."

So if that is correct and she had already been caned 6 or 7 times, she was in fact the holder of the girls caning record, not Alison Cousins! I don't recall what eventually happened to her.

For further answers we must hope that some confidentiality issues can be resolved, which may free StevefromSE5 to tell us more. He did a tremendous amount of research during the currency of the 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread and has continued to do so since. Jack, who started that thread, seemed to know a great deal but hasn't, I think, posted for some time. I don't know if he is still reading this estimable Forum.

Alternatively a pupil at Bacons during the relevant period may turn up. I have hoped for just such a thing in the Rodney school thread. No less than 6 of them commented on the YouTube Dormitory Fight video, which is pretty remarkable as I doubt if more than 1500-1800 pupils attended Rodney School in its 62 year life. Sadly though, vast as the readership of this Forum is, the YouTube visitor count is much larger! However, Bacons was a much bigger school than Rodney School - over a 1000 pupils during the 'interesting' period, so we may get lucky!

A_L

Yes, I was looking at the possible partially visible mark that could be a slightly low swipe, although not as low as some dished out by my old head!

RB

Wanting to do a bit of conversion to negative, a webpage project , I took the opportunity to snatch the pic of Leah off FR and had a play in PS element 7, C4 refuses point blank to load with my Vista.

I didnt check but I suspect an upload to FR has a built in re-seizer or set to a max resolution, but I could be wrong.

The image in question has quite low resolution, W 259, H 500, 96 DPI, so the best we can hope is to resize to 300-350% max, already you depixelate and the image blurs, but still recognisable, above this and we loose any real image, pixels become blocks of blurred colour, In effect you're asking the software to guess what the extra pixels should be. We can help our enlarged visible pic a little by reducing the noise this tends to smooth the image, so at the same time we need to sharpen,

If we look at the pixel colouration in the suspect area although blurred we can see what looks like a red line but this is none conclusive, similar colouration appears on other areas of the body, and could be due to light or shadowing

If this mark had been produced by a cane it appears to wrap to the thigh area , which suggests a thin or long cane, I cannot as A_L suggests define a red mark or darker area consistent to a cane tip or bruising

One way we could try to enlarge the image would be to print the image, retake the pic at a much higher resolution then set about trying to blow the image again, though I doubt it would reveal much more or enoug to be conclusive, this is also flawed by the results obtained by the printer and the quality of ink, .

There are a couple of plug ins for element 7 which allow images to be enlarged with less loss of definition but alas I dont know anyone to beg steal or borrow from, IMO I dont think we are seeing anything suspect, rather imagining whats not there. Any girl of 16 struggling to wear high heels on a beach to impress the boyfriend would be highly unlikely to display any tell tale signs of what took place the week before.

Ketta

Hi Ketta. Well, we're using similar software, though mine's the full version, and presumably the same photograph, but we are obviously seeing different things! I seem to be able to work at 500% magnification before loss of detail becomes noticeable. I can't see anything approaching a red line, at least not one running in the direction one would expect cane marks to run, more or less horizontal across the buttocks. The only horizontal thing I can see is the left gluteal sulcus, emphasised by the posture of left leg back and right leg forward, and that certainly isn't a cane mark!

The area I am looking at is just below the bikini bottom line on the left side. If it is a mark part of it would be beneath the bikini. Using pixel coordinates from the Photoshop rulers (top left of picture = 0,0 and bottom right of pictue = 259,500) the area I am looking at would fall within the square with top left corner 85,242 and bottom right corner 94,250. There I see a slightly pinker area with what might be a healing bruise, still a bit yellow, within it. As noted, if it is indeed the remnants of a cane tip bruise it would extend under the bikini.

I'd be grateful if you'd let me have the coordinates of the red line you are looking at, in case I'm missing something through concentrating too hard on the fine detail.

Having said all that, as I noted earlier in the thread and as you've confirmed, it is most unlikely that Leah, or any other 16 year old girl for that matter, would have worn a bikini if she had thought cane marks would show. It would simply be too embarrassing, or should I say un-cool! The reason I thought my possible mark might be real is that it is so nearly covered by the bikini and might have 'escaped' as she tried to manage those high heels!

I'm afraid I can't agree with your suggestion of printing out and re-photographing to possibly increase detail. Not only is it impossible to restore detail that isn't there in the first place, except using computerised methods to extrapolate (read guess) the missing detail, but, as you note, detail will be lost on printing the image out. It will also possibly be lost in the re-photographing.

BTW Ketta, you may have some unfinished business from 18:46 on 16 July 2009 in your 'Uniform debate' thread here. Like Sill Lee Asso in the post after yours, Another_Lurker doesn't want to miss out on any possible reports of skirt raising during punishment!