[mjn]

Ok, well maybe.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/4361724.stm

[Miyazaki]

1 in a million mate. Tragic, but very rare. I've never heard any incidents like this happen at my school, and mine is a rough as rats inner city school!

[Ethics Gradient]

Whats the the betting that the parents of the girl that assaulted her end up saying something like.

" Shes a good girl - shes just too much energy " etc

[Nobber22]

That poor girl is screwed! Her doctor reckons she MAY need plastic surgery?????? Idiot!!

[richjthorpe]

Arbourthorne is one of roughest areas in Sheffield along with the Manor Top. Guess which school is smack bang in the middle of them.

[shahedz]

what is the world coming to? poor girl, good on her for going back to the same school , plenty of kids would have been scared off!

[Ethics Gradient]

Originally Posted by richjthorpe

Arbourthorne is one of roughest areas in Sheffield along with the Manor Top. Guess which school is smack bang in the middle of them.

My sister lives just under a mile away

[richjthorpe]

Originally Posted by Ethics Gradient

My sister lives just under a mile away

I used to live in Handsworth which is about 2 miles.

[overkill]

what is the world coming to

When I was at school the 'top' bully stabbed one of the 'nerdy guys' 22 times in the leg with a compass. The only way the teacher knew something was going on was when the guy he was assaulting passed out from the pain and slumped to the floor. His trousers were soaked in blood. That was in 1977'. In a school nearby two boys were killed in a game of chase across the A3 underpass. One was decapitated. The year was 1975'. There are good kids, brave kids (like this girl) bad kids, and stupid kids.

Nothing has changed in that respect.

I admire her bravery and I hope the parents of that Girl who assaulted her have the decency to apologise for what happened. I agree with EG, in that I somehow doubt they will.

They never do, and never have.

[Jenn]

Sorry if this is a "stupid" question but have parents ever been responsible for their kids' actions ?

I mean would a dad go to jail or pay huge fines if his son had been repeatedly violent and the dad never tried to discipline him ?
That would get a few parents to care...

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by overkill

When I was at school the 'top' bully stabbed one of the 'nerdy guys' 22 times in the leg with a compass. The only way the teacher knew something was going on was when the guy he was assaulting passed out from the pain and slumped to the floor. His trousers were soaked in blood. That was in 1977'. In a school nearby two boys were killed in a game of chase across the A3 underpass. One was decapitated. The year was 1975'. There are good kids, brave kids (like this girl) bad kids, and stupid kids.

Nothing has changed in that respect.

I admire her bravery and I hope the parents of that Girl who assaulted her have the decency to apologise for what happened. I agree with EG, in that I somehow doubt they will.

They never do, and never have.

Have to say there was extremely very little bullying at the schools I attended.
But today it seems a matter of course, and is the norm, also now the knock the stuffing out of you and use there phones to send it to there mate.

Its a shame that the poor girl got it for sticking up for an other person who was being bullied. Often wondered about the adage No good deed goes unpunished.

Not only are the schools to blame the parents in many cases are and more so, if there kid gets into trouble they turn on the injured party.

[pjclark1]

sudden violent attacks in or out of lesson are almost impossible to stop, it's usually all over before a teacher gets there.
If you do get there in time, you can't touch either pupil or you are likely to be in trouble yourself.


The Teachers dilemma
Do I risk jail and maybe lose my career and employment prospects forever?
or do I let two kids, I don't really know, beat the living daylights out of each other (no risk to me)?

The Schools dilemma
Can we afford to pay the large bill, if we exclude them?
or do we just hope they don't do it again (no cost to the school)?
(schools have to pay penalties if they exclude a kid, until kid goes to new school)

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by Garrett

Not only are the schools to blame the parents in many cases are and more so, if there kid gets into trouble they turn on the injured party.

What could the school have possibly done to pre-empt this attack? How children behave is their parent's responsibility. It is the school's responsibility to get children to learn. This is impossible if the government straight-jackets teachers.

[overkill]

Have to say there was extremely very little bullying at the schools I attended.

Then you were lucky m8. It has been identified as being endemic in many schools as far back as the 60's. By the 70's it was commonplace, the difference being today, that it is identified as being a problem, and that the national press pick up on it.

sudden violent attacks in or out of lesson are almost impossible to stop, it's usually all over before a teacher gets there.
If you do get there in time, you can't touch either pupil or you are likely to be in trouble yourself.


The Teachers dilemma
Do I risk jail and maybe lose my career and employment prospects forever?
or do I let two kids, I don't really know, beat the living daylights out of each other (no risk to me)?

The Schools dilemma
Can we afford to pay the large bill, if we exclude them?
or do we just hope they don't do it again (no cost to the school)?
(schools have to pay penalties if they exclude a kid, until kid goes to new school)

The good news is PJ, that the new 'violent crime reduction bill', and the behaviour task force, have recommended that first, head teachers will be able to search without their consent pupils for weapons or stolen goods, and second the task force proposes giving back teachers the right to restrain, with reasonable force, misbehaving pupils on the spot. At last.

This is impossible if the government straight-jackets teachers.

Nothing to to with the govt of the day. Mrs T's govt also rejected Lord Eltons proposals that were along similair lines. It's the 'L' word that has caused 99% of our problems. Touch any child, of any age (teachers in my wifes teaching sector (reception) are being told to not even allow a child to hug them!), and a lawyer is on the schools doorstep faster than you can say 'litigation'.

Until we can eliminate the Lawyers ability to use unscruplous parents who sue schools as a quick way of making a few grand, this problem will not stop.

[neilneil]

Untill the parents are REALLY made accountable FOR THOSE IN THEIR CARE then the situation will not get any better. It is too late for those parents who didn't give a Sh$$ and now their kids are out of control.
We need a full 10 years of YOUR kids are YOUR responsibility and YOU will be accountable for their actions. Before we will see any benefit of a change in the law.


-Neil

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

What could the school have possibly done to pre-empt this attack? How children behave is their parent's responsibility. It is the school's responsibility to get children to learn. This is impossible if the government straight-jackets teachers.

Nothing the point was there is no way to discipline the children in classes any more. Once of a day you either sat still and did your lesson, or you got the cane.
Now kids are more likely to beat the teachers up.

Flaming bleeding hearts, if there had been more discipline in class this may never have happened, and maybe the kids parents who did the disturbing act may have grown up better themselves.

[overkill]

Flaming bleeding hearts, if there had been more discipline in class this may never have happened, and maybe the kids parents who did the disturbing act may have grown up better themselves.

It has nothing to do with 'bleeding hearts'. The problem is down to schools, local, and national authority, being terrified of being sued. Pure and simple. As with so many problems we have today, this is yet another US import. If teachers even touch children now there is an army of lawyers just itching to sue the schools. As a result the parents of very kids that cause problems have the local solicitors number as no.1 on their phone memory..........

Schools, on their current budgets really cannot afford for parents to be given the opportunity to do so. My wifes school has been hit twice in the last year for sums they could well have done without. In particular as the 'offences' were a joke. Hence the daft new rules I mentioned earlier.

Besides that, the old fashioned methods of discipline no longer work and haven't for decades. It was starting back in my day. The cane was no detterent and only enhanced status. Teachers were also already becoming the victims of their own bullying methods.

We know that the old style discipline worked because the majority of kids themselves felt education was worth it, and were willing to knuckle down once warned. Now a large number don't, so getting heavy with them is pointless.

But we've been down this road before, and frankly I'm wasting my time. So

[oxygenuk]

damn chavs, glad i went to school wen chavs wasnt around or there wasnt chavvish behaviour like nowadays lol.

she looks pretty bad ass with that scar on the right side of her face though

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by overkill

It has nothing to do with 'bleeding hearts'. The problem is down to schools, local, and national authority, being terrified of being sued. Pure and simple. As with so many problems we have today, this is yet another US import. If teachers even touch children now there is an army of lawyers just itching to sue the schools. As a result the parents of very kids that cause problems have the local solicitors number as no.1 on their phone memory.......... :

If the teachers had the power to discipline and had the government backing rather than listening to bleeding hearts and getting rid of corporal punishment the state of bullieing would not be as bad as it is now..
As you say a teacher only as to look at a pupil sideways and there on suspension.

The pendulum has swung and now the courts are there to protect the guilty and punish the innocent.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Neil Sumner

Untill the parents are REALLY made accountable FOR THOSE IN THEIR CARE then the situation will not get any better. It is too late for those parents who didn't give a Sh$$ and now their kids are out of control.
We need a full 10 years of YOUR kids are YOUR responsibility and YOU will be accountable for their actions. Before we will see any benefit of a change in the law.


-Neil

I agree, I think that's the only way. Kids have to be disciplined from the youngest age, it's not when they finally go to school that you can suddenly teach them respect.

[overkill]

If the teachers had the power to discipline and had the government backing rather than listening to bleeding hearts and getting rid of corporal punishment the state of bullieing would not be as bad as it is now..

As I said, and this proves it garret m8, your not reading my posts. Or just flatly ignoring them. I repeat 'Bleeding hearts' have nothing to do with the current situation. Litigation does.

Corporal punishment by almost universal agreement among the teaching profession and govt advisors would lead to more trouble in the modern era not less. Slap a kid now and you'll get a hefty beating - period. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Good teachers need only for the power to restrain pupils to be restored for problems to ease. Only a bad one needs to resort to the old fashioned physical methods. I had no respect for teachers who handed out a clout, and the whole school celebrated when one who did got a pasting - from a pupil.

I agree, I think that's the only way. Kids have to be disciplined from the youngest age, it's not when they finally go to school that you can suddenly teach them respect.

Agreed. But teachers, if given back some of the powers fear of being sued have taken way, could do more.

[vonhosen]

I'm sorry but teachers surely have the power under common law & under Sec 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force, if they decide to.

Under common law:

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

* self-defence; or
* defence of another; or
* defence of property; or
* prevention of crime; or
* lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

* was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
* was the force used excessive in the circumstances?



Under Sec 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."


These are any person powers , they exclude no-one.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by overkill

As I said, and this proves it garret m8, your not reading my posts. Or just flatly ignoring them. I repeat 'Bleeding hearts' have nothing to do with the current situation. Litigation does.

Corporal punishment by almost universal agreement among the teaching profession and govt advisors would lead to more trouble in the modern era not less. Slap a kid now and you'll get a hefty beating - period. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Good teachers need only for the power to restrain pupils to be restored for problems to ease. Only a bad one needs to resort to the old fashioned physical methods. I had no respect for teachers who handed out a clout, and the whole school celebrated when one who did got a pasting - from a pupil.

Agreed. But teachers, if given back some of the powers fear of being sued have taken way, could do more.

Sorry but it is you who’s not reading into it or reading something into it what I have not wrote.

There are some people that will not respond to anything only corporal punishment.
I can never remember so many cases of children being expelled, or should I say the more PC excluded.
Bad teachers are ones who deal out punishment un-necessary good one as a last resort.
Tell you what I rather have had six of the best unnecessary once a year than be driven to suicide or have had my face cut to bits like what goes on today.

Oh I was only reading in a paper today that unruliness in classes has gone up since CP was done away with.

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by overkill

Good teachers need only for the power to restrain pupils to be restored for problems to ease.

That wouldn't stop sudden attacks at all, what is needed is the ability to remove violent children from schools that normal children attend. Why should this sort of child be allowed to batter and bully everyone else.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by vonhosen

I'm sorry but teachers surely have the power under common law & under Sec 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 to use reasonable force, if they decide to.

Under common law:

A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

* self-defence; or
* defence of another; or
* defence of property; or
* prevention of crime; or
* lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

* was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
* was the force used excessive in the circumstances?



Under Sec 3 Criminal Law Act 1967:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."


These are any person powers , they exclude no-one.

That is very true, but reasonable force is just that. What constitutes reasonable? There should be no room left open to interpretation in these situations, especially when dealing with children. Teacher's shouldn't have to stop and think before dealing with a child endangering themselves with a bunsen burner, or other hazardous equipment.

As a science teacher, I realise that there are health and safety precautions, risk assessments to take into account, these are black and white, we know exactly what we should and should not do.

The law isn't clear enough, and while I disagree that corporal punishment and the like will solve anything (were kids better behaved when they had the cane? Short answer from people in the know, no.) there needs to be greater clarification in the law of what exactly people under pastoral care of minors can do in the instances you outlined above.

[vonhosen]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

That is very true, but reasonable force is just that. What constitutes reasonable? There should be no room left open to interpretation in these situations, especially when dealing with children. Teacher's shouldn't have to stop and think before dealing with a child endangering themselves with a bunsen burner, or other hazardous equipment.

As a science teacher, I realise that there are health and safety precautions, risk assessments to take into account, these are black and white, we know exactly what we should and should not do.

The law isn't clear enough, and while I disagree that corporal punishment and the like will solve anything (were kids better behaved when they had the cane? Short answer from people in the know, no.) there needs to be greater clarification in the law of what exactly people under pastoral care of minors can do in the instances you outlined above.

Well you are not likely to get much clarification on what is reasonable.

There is no easy definition of what force is reasonable: it is a matter to be decided in each individual case. In reality, it would be impossible to list all the circumstances in which the courts would regard force as reasonable. To that extent it is a subjective test, but one where it is recognsied that it is not easy to minutely measure your resposne against a perceived threat in the heat of the momment.

The Police have no more clarification on it when carrying out their duties, there is no such luxury. But where you act in good faith, with an honestly held belief of what was required that is not hugely disproportional to what would be generally regarded as reasonable action, you have nothing to fear.

It is can you justify your actions ?
The better you can do that under the wording of the legislation I gave, the clearer your articulation of the perceived threat, the easier it is to show as reasonable.

[neilios]

I agree with garrett on this one it is the fault of the bleeding hearts and the goverment bodies and in some small way the teachers themselves .

From my school days those teachers that tried to calm pupils through the softly ,softly approach were given the run around and abused .

On the other hand those teachers that were strict and had a tough exterior never had any problems .

And i know this because i was one of the little beggars who used to give teachers a hard time ,as well as being disruptive ,i had quite a few punch ups during lessons .
You were sent to the deputy heads office for a right rollocking and a caning ,and then depending on how good your side off the story was ,maybe a suspension for a week .

So for a pupil to know there,s no discipline and authority gives them a licence to do what they like ,and some kids always like to push it to the limit and beyond .

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by vonhosen

It is can you justify your actions ?
The better you can do that under the wording of the legislation I gave, the clearer your articulation of the perceived threat, the easier it is to show as reasonable.

In theory I would agree with you. Unfortunatley, teachers can no longer administer first aid to children under their supervision either. Good idea in principal, as first aiders will know more about medicine dosage etc. But I know of a case where a child almost died from an asthma attack because the teacher couldn't call over a first aider to administer an inhaler in time. The teacher had to give the child another child's inhaler, who was then reprimanded for giving drugs that weren't prescribed to them, even though it was the only way to save the child's life .

There is some crazy legislation around, and even crazier interpretation of it, just to circumvent legal action.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by neilios

And i know this because i was one of the little beggars who used to give teachers a hard time ,as well as being disruptive ,i had quite a few punch ups during lessons .
You were sent to the deputy heads office for a right rollocking and a caning ,and then depending on how good your side off the story was ,maybe a suspension for a week .

So for a pupil to know there,s no discipline and authority gives them a licence to do what they like ,and some kids always like to push it to the limit and beyond .

Why should children have the cane? As you say, it didn't stop you misbehaving. Adults that can defend themselves have protection under the law from ABH and GBH, so why shouldn't defenceless children be afforded the same or greater protection from being beaten up. At the end of the day, what you are condoning is child abuse and there is no excuse for it. By caning or punishing physically the child who slashed the other child is effectively condoning what the first child did.

Most children who behave anti-socially at school come from a home environment where they are beaten up or verbally abused by their parents, and shouting at these children is like water off a duck's back and is the worst possible way of dealing with them.

Suspending or excluding children is a much tougher alternative than caning them, as exclusion is only considered under extreme circumstances. I agree that the child who knifed the other child should be permenantly excluded and put into borstall for several years, but that is no way to address the problem.

Locking people up and throwing away the key never solves anything, and obviously isn't a deterrant. Parents bring children up to behave violently and anti-socially, directly or indirectly, and this should be addressed at the root.

[pjclark1]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

Locking people up and throwing away the key never solves anything, and obviously isn't a deterrant. Parents bring children up to behave violently and anti-socially, directly or indirectly, and this should be addressed at the root.

Yes it does, it stops them harming the non-violent. Who cares about a deterrant, lets just remove the problem and stop them from harming the innocent.