Victory for Common Sense
 

At last:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4361770.stm

How about passing this particular right back to parents as well??????????????

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

ER, I can restrain and punish my children :confused: I can't - and don't want - to beat them mind.

[Edit] (Neil)-No need to quote the post when you are the 1st person to reply. ;)

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Who said anything about beating them - I certainly didn't. I happy to hear that you don't want to beat them. :erm:

The term I have heard is reasonable force to restrain pupils. This is a great step forward as simply laying your hands on a pupil, or indeed on your child, can be deemed as assault.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Looks like the pendulum is starting to swing back....... :tu:

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

As can I. In fact, it's the only way I got him out of the house this morning, as there was a bar of Dairy Milk he'd nicked from the fridge that was occupying his attention. Removing Dairy Milk from child and child from house required a certain amount of restraint.

Actually, I see it like this - teachers are (legally) in loco parentis, so pretty much anything a parent can do a teacher should be able to do. There is a definite problem here, although knowing the Government's record they'll do the wrong thing again. All that's needed is a clear guideline that the teachers can feel safe by, the legal authorities agree is lawful and most importantly the pupils are aware of. That doesn't include flying board rubbers*, taping kids' mouths shut or other excesses of the past.

* Occasionally known at my alma mater. As were dropping of heavy weights on desks in metalwork and the chemistry teacher headbutting the wall to get our attention.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I fully agree Pierre. It all seems such common sense, but then a lot of common sense has been thrown out of the window. Maybe a little more discipline in schools will serve children well in later life?

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

A headteacher made the point this morning that the Govt may be trying to deflect the issue. He says the issue of class discipline is to a large degree one of strained resources.

Incidentally, my lads' schools seem very disciplined to me. BTW Pierre, do you have kids?

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Not yet, but what difference does that make. I have very many nephews and nieces.

I was once a child myself also.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I was just wondering about your experience of school discipline today, that was all.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

How about passing this particular right back to parents as well??????????????[/QUOTE]

How about them stopping re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and put more money into getting more teachers into schools which would reduce class sizes and *really* help children learn better?!

And I wasn't aware that parent's *weren't* allowed to restrain their children...!

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Apparently, not only do parents have the right to restrain their children, teachers do as well, when acting in loco parentis. Hence my suggestion to define teacher's *current* legal rights properly and not rely on rumours about 'teachers can't touch pupils' which aren't strictly true. Perhaps a lawyer in each school might be an idea, before heaping another load of duplicate legislation on everyone?

Actually, some of the 'treating kids with kid gloves' cases come from instructions and advice post-Soham, that children should always be believed in case you miss another Huntley, which means that teachers are extremely frightened of going to court if a child takes a dislike to them and makes something up.

Given the likelihood of children not actually telling the truth against the likelihood of another child murderer appearing this sounds logically dubious. Tabloid-driven, of course.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Define restrain.

If you "restrained" your 12yr old and for arguments sake left a bruise on their arm or leg. Then said 12 yr old went to the police and made a complaint that their father had assaulted them and they bruises to prove it.

You'd be straight down the nick.

In reality you are not allowed to lay your hands them.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

How about re-introducing 'chalk and talk' ?

Now that would be revolutionary. :erm:

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Is that an 80'S mobile tariff? :)

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Has this happened? Where?

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I don't have any documented cases, and I don't have to produce any either for this discussion.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

:tu:

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Kids are protected by assault laws just like anyone else. There's restraint and there's restraint. Some people's idea of discipline seems to rest solely with corporal punishment; there are other ways. I talki to mine, withold things that sort of caper. Done me all right so far (fingers crossed!)
__________________

Common assault. Same law to protect kids as anyone else.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Which was never properly tested in court because, having been banned from living at home for six months, the poor bloke pled guilty just to get the nightmare over with.

It would be remarkably easy for a single smack on the backside to cause a small child's feet to leave the ground. They don't weigh very much. And I think the fact that it was a *single* smack, and not a good thrashing, should not be overlooked.

Perhaps if bail conditions had not been so draconian, the man might have felt more able to plead his case. We will never know.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Exactly, is your definition the same as the courts. If you lay your hands on somebody, forcebly grip or grab them, causing harm - That is assault.

Now before we veer off on tangent.

My point was that Teachers will be given the power to use reasonable force to restrain a child in class. The level of restraint could be taken assault. But teachers wont be prosecuted for it.

However if a parent used the same level as force they could be.

Which was the meaning of that line in my opening post

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Cites?
__________________

ADDENDUM:

Ah. So it's an opinion.

Please don't present it as a fact then.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I have posted an example of a father being prosecuted for assault after smacking his child in public. Here's the link again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/4080293.stm

My concern is that he was effectively compelled to plead guilty as the bail conditions imposed on him were draconian.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Someone just made it a fact a few post above your's.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

And the charge was common assault. Is anyone suggesting children shouldn't be protected from assault in the same way that adults are? :confused:

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I restrain mine by removing their internet access. Simple and works like a dream ! :D

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Like your style! :D

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. I think anyone is suggesting that this may not have been common assault, that the case was never aired in court because the defendant pleaded guilty, and that he did so due to extreme bail conditions pursued by social services that were far in excess of the charge.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Sorry didn't realise I had to qualify all of my statements with IMO or :fact:

Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion

I note you'd rather address the issue of whether I was expressing opinion rather than fact (when I thought it was fairly obvious it was opinion) that address the that post or subsequent post.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I take on board your comments re bail conditions Chris but I guess it's difficult. If someone is charged with common assault is it a common bail condition for them to keep away from the person they are accused of assaulting? But given the circs you'd think this matter would have been brought before the courts sooner.
__________________

Just seen your latest Chris. I'm a bit confused by that reporting; how could Social Services impose bail conditions? They might advise the court but would presumably do so based on their knowledge of the family. But it's for the court alone to impose bail conditions.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

In court, the prosecution can press for bail to be denied, or granted only on certain conditions, and they can submit expert testimony to back up their demands. You never hear much about it in the media because reporting of bail arguments is largely prohibited by law. However, where the BBC says that "bail conditions imposed by the court and social services..." I take that to mean that Social Services were pushing for the conditions that were imposed, through the prosecution. Magistrates are not legal experts. They are advised on the law by the court clerk and then weigh up the arguments from the legal representatives in the same way a Jury does. I don't imagine many magistrates would stray far from advice from social services, not least because in my experience, a good number of magistrates are also local councillors (county, district or parish), so they know who the social services people are!

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Well my question would be why were Social Services pushing for such conditions? Having said that my partner has to work with out local SS and she's not in the least bit impressed, though that's more to do with there shirking of care responsibilities than, say, being overly cautious.

Magistrates for their part presumably assess the need, or otherwise, for such bail conditions, something for which they are trained.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Was there any injury to the child, does anyone know? Any bruising etc?

Common assault, for smacking a child once, seems a bit of an overstatement at first glance.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Not sure I want the right to lay hands on children these days as one is left wondering how many may have a knife secreted away somewhere.The most I'm prepared to do is step between two warring parties.


I did however wonder sometime ago whether they would have to adapt the no touch policy eventually.

Also what has annoyed me about the non corporal punishment rules is that I never actually got to vote about changing it.It was just introduced without much discussion in a sort of back door shuffle.I hate that phrase "it has been decided".

Yeah by whom and why wasn't I consulted? :rolleyes:

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Corporal punishment in state schools was stopped after an ECHR decision some 25 years ago. Smacking for parents hasn't actually been stopped, merely tightened up rather a lot, which was done by Parliament last year, so technically we did vote for it, though I'm unsure whether it was in the 2001 Labour manifesto.

Restraint/assault. If I grab my son to stop him running out in front of a car (which I've had to do recently) that's not assault at all. If I subsequently thumped him for it it would be (he's a bit younger than the lad in the original story, but I don't think that matters). The case Chris posted was slightly different to what we're discussing in that the charge was about the thumping rather than the restraint. I'd be very surprised if anyone had been prosecuted merely for physically restraining a child (tying up or locking up for a long time would be a different matter, however, and verges on child abuse). If you have a toddler around, you probably restrain them in some way every couple of minutes or so!

I have no problems at all with a child being forcibly restrained by a teacher for their safety, to stop them attacking someone else, to make them stay and listen to a telling off etc., indeed I'd applaud the teacher for so doing, since it's what I'd do myself. However, it clearly crosses a line if the teacher subsequently gives them a right-hander. In loco parentis being what it is, that applies to parents as well.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

But it doesn't ... reasonable chastisement still applies, does it not?

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Perhaps teachers should be taught proper restraint techniques like the police and prison officers. That way if the approved restraint is used there should be no come back on the teacher.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Hmmm... I shall have to re-read the story. I thought the child was smacked; you say "thumping"... that puts a different slant on things.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

We had a discussion about this in class today, and I was told a few things, Im afraid I don't have any proof to back anything up, but the people who told me have no reason to lie etc.

Apparently there was a fight between pupils, and a teacher broke it up, and in the process ended up hurting one of the pupils (not purposely) The child prosecuted, and the teacher was given 18months.

recently a girls face was slashed from her eyebrow to cheek, and there was nothing the teacher could do, as they knew intervention could get them into trouble.

Nothing like that happens at my school, but some teachers have taught elsewhere, and have said that at some schools, when teachers see a fight they just walk away, as they don't want to get into trouble by stopping it, but cannot stand by being seen to do nothing.

I'm all for teachers being allowed to restrain.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I have no problem at all with teachers restraining.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

I do not walk away from fights I just shoulder myself between the assailants and stand there resolutely.Being 20 stone helps...Besides they don't want to be the first to hit a female teacher. ;)

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

Fine, that's a fact, but when someone declares something and follows it with "I don't have any documented cases, and I don't have to produce any either for this discussion." why should I accept that as anything worth discussing?
__________________

See my reply just above.

Re: Victory for Common Sense
 

"There's no evidence for it, but it's scientific fact". Chris Morris was there before you, again.