ccc Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/teacher-should-have-been-jailed-over-assault-boy-s-mum-says-1-4150978 Todays' update. Apparently this boy is now a 'changed laddie' and hardly went out of his room for 2 and a half years.... I can hear the doors of a Lawyers office opening. You try to escape detention. Your teacher stops you by pushing you up against the wall. You go to the hospital and have a sore arm. If this affected the poor wee petal for 2.5 years he probably shouldn't have been allowed out of his front door in the first place. What if someone pelted him with a snowball !! Or he had a fight with some local chavs !! This countries gone so soft its incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbon Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The complete opposite to this teacher, who obviously gave enough of a f*** to get into confrontation with these two little pieces of crap is what I experienced when I went to the most rubbish comp in my city. 90% of the teachers had just given up, would let the one or two disruptive kids run wild and pretty much cause everyone else in the class to miss out on a education, just so they could have an easy life. The two kids in this situation should never of been in school in the first place. Pull them out on the third strike, let their parents deal with the consequences and let the children who do want to learn have a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The complete opposite to this teacher, who obviously gave enough of a f*** to get into confrontation with these two little pieces of crap is what I experienced when I went to the most rubbish comp in my city. 90% of the teachers had just given up, would let the one or two disruptive kids run wild and pretty much cause everyone else in the class to miss out on a education, just so they could have an easy life. The two kids in this situation should never of been in school in the first place. Pull them out on the third strike, let their parents deal with the consequences and let the children who do want to learn have a chance. Exactly Gibbon, that's what Dorkins and his fellow travellers are ignoring in their quest for "niceness": that in doing so you are blighting the education of the 95% of kids who are not there to ruin everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 Exactly Gibbon, that's what Dorkins and his fellow travellers are ignoring in their quest for "niceness": that in doing so you are blighting the education of the 95% of kids who are not there to ruin everything. Until they are a threat. Up until that point they have free reign to do what the hell they want - no matter who else suffers. I know we all have differing opinions - and the World would be one dull as ****** place if we didn't. But I still find it quite staggering people could think that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The rights and concomitant responsibilities for children are different to adults. We (rightly) don't prosecute children for criminal acts, it is expected that parents or those "in loco parentis" sanction them directly.And whilst violence against your own children is not illegal, it is frowned upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Exactly Gibbon, that's what Dorkins and his fellow travellers are ignoring in their quest for "niceness": that in doing so you are blighting the education of the 95% of kids who are not there to ruin everything.Traveller? It's not about "niceness" it's about prejudice and you clearly have that in spades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Schools are not prisons are schoolchildren are not prisoners. The child was not a threat to anybody.wasting your time mate, it's the the "never did any harm to me" brigade.Some people think violence is unacceptable. The others are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hail the Tripod Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 And whilst violence against your own children is not illegal, it is frowned upon. Certainly by the sanctimonious few, but not in principle by most normal people. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bid-ban-smacking-children-little-7013008 YouGov survey shows 69% oppose ban on parents smacking their children, compared to just 19% in favour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 Certainly by the sanctimonious few, but not in principle by most normal people. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bid-ban-smacking-children-little-7013008 I have never known anyone that was smacked as a child have any issue with it today if you discuss it with them. I only don't know any of them that have a penchant for violence of any kind. Very small sample of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 Certainly by the sanctimonious few, but not in principle by most normal people. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bid-ban-smacking-children-little-7013008 And yet it was the non-violent people who were accused of mealy mouthed weasel words. Frowned upon =/ ban it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I have never known anyone that was smacked as a child have any issue with it today if you discuss it with them. I only don't know any of them that have a penchant for violence of any kind. Very small sample of course. Stockholm syndrome sufferers deny there is a problem shock horror. of course you won't see a problem if you have been accustomed to the behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 10, 2016 Author Share Posted June 10, 2016 Stockholm syndrome sufferers deny there is a problem shock horror. of course you won't see a problem if you have been accustomed to the behaviour. I don't have a problem with the behaviuor - long as its just a quick smack and there is a good reason behind it. Actually quick question - I know your views on this in general now. But do you think this should have been a Police matter or not ? I know you think it's wrong - just wondering how far you think these sort of things should be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 I don't have a problem with the behaviuor - long as its just a quick smack and there is a good reason behind it. Actually quick question - I know your views on this in general now. But do you think this should have been a Police matter or not ? I know you think it's wrong - just wondering how far you think these sort of things should be taken. Probably not but it's doubtful he's fit to be a teacher any more. Using force is showing a weakness now.You know in football where you wind up an opponent to get them in trouble. Violence not allowed there either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 He should have used the force to throttle the child without laying a hand on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
long time lurking Posted June 10, 2016 Share Posted June 10, 2016 The problem we have now is the only option for a school that has to deal with a disruptive pupil is exclusion which is an effective course of action for the school but often leaves a child with no education ..there's a reason you see so many apparently feral kids these days I have personally seen two families where four out of five of the kids from those two families never got past the first year of comprehensive school ,that's four adults now that are basically educated to the level of the average ten year old at best, this is all down to exclusion being the only option ,this never happened in my time and yes the real problem started at home as they were allowed to run wild and obviously had no discipline there , in years gone by, would have seen them one way or another being taught respect and discipline at school no matter what Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 11, 2016 Author Share Posted June 11, 2016 Probably not but it's doubtful he's fit to be a teacher any more. Using force is showing a weakness now. You know in football where you wind up an opponent to get them in trouble. Violence not allowed there either... Eric Cantona was pushed to the limit. The vast majority of people - whilst not supportive of his actions - understood where he was coming from and didn't judge him too harshly. As for showing force is now a weakness ? That goes against a few million years of evolution. We are slowly killing ourselves in a desperate attempt to appear 'nice'. It's not natural and it won't end well. The signs are all around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I'm trying to say this in as uninvolved a way as possible... There's something strange about the way we view 'acceptable' behavipur towards children vs adults. It's refelected in the Law too. Take freedom of movement. Massive chanhes in the law to protect adults in the last few years...you can't even lock a door, if it'll stop someone having to ask before they can leave...without having all sorts of checks and controls in place...unacceptable to restrict the movement of an adult. The law doesn't say you can restrict childrens movements...but it doesn't say you can't either. And it's 'common sense'..."Of course you can...it's for their safety"...but it's still an assumption made, not always provable. I don't know which side of the fence I sit on, it's just a curiosity I've noticed the more I work in Adult settings and the more I learn about rights/restrictions etc. Also...common sense seems to say a teacher has special privilege...linked to 'learning', teaching kids how to behave...why? It's a valid question to ask I think. P The difference is that at the start of a child's life they must be physically restrained for their own safety.They lack the adult capacities for reason and logic. The development of which are what fundamentally mark the transition of a child's mind to an adult's mind. My son is 2 and a half. I've spent his entire life so far restricting his movements. If I hadn't done so he'd be dead. I've physically restrained him from running into the road, into the sea, and into a lake. He's starting to get a bit better and has got over his obsession with just running into large open bodies of water. I've also taught him the rudiments of crossing the road, but I still stand ready to physically restrain him every time we cross the road. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a teacher to physically restrain a child. We do however have a strange definition of childhood these days that involves being forced through threat of violence (it's the law, and fundamentally all laws are enforced by the threat of violence) to stay a child in school until you are 18. I'd argue that the age at which it is no longer reasonable for a teacher to physically restrain a child, and the age at which a child is an adult who should not be forced to attend schooling against their will are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 I think it's perfectly reasonable for a teacher to physically restrain a child. We do however have a strange definition of childhood these days that involves being forced through threat of violence (it's the law, and fundamentally all laws are enforced by the threat of violence) to stay a child in school until you are 18. You need to stay until you're 18 now? That's pretty bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 You need to stay until you're 18 now? That's pretty bonkers. I've simplified it a bit, but yes, you need to be in some sort of formal education until 18. https://www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 11, 2016 Author Share Posted June 11, 2016 18 !! That's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted June 11, 2016 Share Posted June 11, 2016 The kid really rubbed it in a bit by claiming to be injured (of course he might well have been hurt/injured) and the hospital did their bit by slinging his shoulder/arm etc. Must be compo in the pipeline? Teachers would be advised not to touch them and just let the head and the governors etc sort it all out - if they won't do as they're told. Schools are like mini communities so maybe they should employ a specialist police type force to maintain control if teachers are prevented by the law from doing it. It's not just in the school but lots of them display the same sort of behaviour outside - kids will be kids of course but that teacher went to court, was found at fault under the law, lost his job and his marriage as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 A child does most of the learning they are going to do by the time they reach...8? 10? The idea that you cam teach an unruly 12 or 13 year old how to behave with physical force is IMO fallacious. They've already learnt to be disruptive and physical to get what they want. Best case, all you're teaching them is that they ain't big enough...yet. But when they are... If they've never learned boundaries instincitively by that age then they're probably a lost cause anyway. It also means that physical force is about the only thing they will understand. However unpleasant it might sound to you though the possibility of it does work, that's why most of us don't want to get on the wrong side of criminals for example. We don't want to go as far as kneecapping them in a dark alley (perhaps), but leaving them to do whatever the hell they please with no consequences is no answer whatsoever, and I can't understand why someone would find it preferable to leave them to do that until it reaches the point of expulsion rather than have to restrain them occasionally. The latter is very definitely a much lesser evil IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted June 12, 2016 Author Share Posted June 12, 2016 I wonder if they have such issues in Russian schools ? Thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 If they've never learned boundaries instincitively by that age then they're probably a lost cause anyway. Seems like the 18 stone 58 year old teacher who thinks it's okay to push a child half his size around is the one who "never learned boundaries instinctively". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 12, 2016 Share Posted June 12, 2016 I wonder if they have such issues in Russian schools ? Thought not. Russia's a corrupt sh1thole undergoing demographic collapse. Is that your model for a successful society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.