Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

A story on the BBC about a school boy wearing a stab-vest to school:
Considering that the greatest risk IS stabbing AND he had been threatened, then I don't blame him.


But the next bit really made me do a double-take:
On what grounds?

They make the most bizarre decision...

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

The reasons are prolly two-fold - first by allowing him to wear the vest the school are admitting they have a problem, and we can't be having that can we?

Secondly the police are assuming that by wearing the vest, the boy might then be encouraging people to slash him, seeing as he can apparently 'protect' himself with it.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Yeah - I thought that too.

But while it may be more likely that someone might want to test the vest, if he's attacked when not wearing it, he's going to get stabbed.

That means that unless the school/police can somehow give some assurance to protect him, should they really be asking him to remove it?

If there were no knives in school, he could wear it with no risk. Hence if wearing it is a greater risk than not wearing it, then rather a lot of kids must be carrying knives in that school. :shocked:

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

We'll get all the usual BS of "the school takes a hard stance against bullying and violence" etc which we all know is useless and just covers their own backs.

Schools just don't need the bad publicity of having a pupil feeling like he has to wear body armour in order to stay alive on their premises, so of course they'll say they will provide assurances. They may even be extra vigilant for such violence. But not all the pupils can be watched all the time.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Well if every child starts wearing a stab vest where will we have the line drawn eventually?At the wrong place.If they don't make a stand then it will be normal for every child to wear one?Then we will be accepting that knives are permissable.

No knives, no stab vests.Our children don't need this crap.

I guess this means we will just have to have security staff in schools because I work in schools to educate not be policeman.I never want to have to be searching a child for weapons because then I've stepped over a line that shouldn't be there.It is not what I'm in education for...

So the question should be are we going to have to start to have really hard edged security in schools because of what might happen?Do we have to go the US route of armed guards in the corridors? :(

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Well, that would improve the chances of being able to stop someone getting killed.
I think it would be infinitely better to have 'hard edged security' and 'armed guards' rather than stab vests. :rolleyes:

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Incognitas as you are a teacher (i think) whats your stance on bullying. If you see it do you step in, or ignore it because of this line you dont want to cross.

Personally if he got threatened with a knife I think he should be allowed to wear it or be reallocated to another school.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Actually, I think however threatened him should be the one to be 'reallocated' - to a really good (i.e. approved) school.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Must admit I was a little surprised that he was ordered to remove the vest, since it's a non-violent means of self-defense and given the increasing number of people (children) carrying knives, a sensible one. I take the points that it would attract attention, and in a ideal world there'd be no need for such things.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

We don't really know very much about the background to this, do we?

For starters, we don't know if there was a real danger of someone attacking the boy with a knife, or whether he was simply making an unnecessary gesture.

We also don't know the reason he felt he might be attacked with a knife: he might be threatening others with a knife himself, and using the vest to give himself what many might feel to be an unfair advantage in this situation.

I'm not saying either of these scenarios are appropriate; simply that we don't know what the background to this actually is.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

I have no truck with bullying.That's a given.However things are not always what they seem on the surface and many a bully has used the tactic that they were the one's being bullied.Untangling the various stories can take time and with all due respect teachers although naturally of a suspicious mind,do not have the necessary skills(or time) to set up and follow a line of questioning as would the police.I note that the police had been involved in this case so maybe there is more to this story than meets the eye.

I'm just worried that each year we are getting nearer and nearer not only to permanently armed police but having police in our schools.I can't bear the thought of this.I think we really have to find a way to sort out bullying and gang culture BEFORE this becomes the norm.Which means we may have to get to grips with the social issues that lead to such gangs.

Not every school in the country has this problem and I suspect most never will..But bullying is something that must be sorted out not only in schools but on the streets,in the workplace,in the home.Bullying is endemic in our society.Leaving your school days behind does not mean that you will never be bullied again.

Perhaps we need to have more emphasis on respect for one another in areas of our society.Funny how much that word has been abused recently...

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Security personel in school is only useful for the time in school, so if it could be done that to make it impossible for an attack to happen in school it would just happen outside the gates or a little further away.

It is very true teachers dont have the time to see everything and because of this very often the victim is the one who is punnished, as a teacher will often see the retaliation and not the cause. I have had to write to my school recently because of this, and having suffered it myself to such an extent that all I could do was leave school several years early do not wish the same to happen to my sons. Its also true that if a child is a regular victim that does stand up for himself and often penalised for it they will get a great name in the staffroom and becomes the automatic defined perpetrator if in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Maybe its the laws on corporal punishment that fubared the system, i'm not saying that children should be slapped but when the threat was there,
the teachers had more respect from the kids, these day its f this and f that and "you cant touch me" :(
I know when i was at school, if a teacher said jump, you jumped.
Zero tolerance on bullies my ass, these days its the innocent kid that leaves the school (S.E.N will protect the guilty):mad:

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

We could always replace school uniforms with Redman Suits ;)

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

The children themselves shouldn't tolerate the bullies. Never mind all that wishy-washy liberal crap - it does no good for a bullying victim to tell a teacher and thus have the bully 'talked to' or 'counselled'. That does not solve the problem. If anything it'll make things worse because it won't take the bully long to figure out who ratted on him.

There is ultimately only one answer to a bully: stand up to him. Don't just stand there and take it - whack 'im one! Don't bother arguing with me; I know it works. At primary school I was being harassed (only verbally, but that didn't seem much consolation at the time) by some gort or other. My family knew about it, and kept telling me for years what to do. I didn't, because I prided myself on being more intelligent than that and didn't want to descend to his level. What I hadn't realised was that my principles were being wasted on this *******.

And then one day I snapped. I saw red, and the events of the next few seconds I got from witnesses since I have no clear memory of them, viz. I punched him so hard he went down, he didn't get up for over a minute, he had a shiner for nearly a week - and I got what would now be described as serious street cred in the playground. It solved the problem. After that, not only did this git never bother me again, I don't think he ever even spoke to me again. There were one or two other would-be bullies, but they made damn sure to leave me alone. NitroNutter mentioned 'a regular victim that does stand up for himself' - if he stands up for himself, he will no longer be a victim. Bullies are cowards, and won't bother with anyone who fights back.

All the counselling in the world won't stop a bully being a bully. Having his victim turn on him will. Admittedly, when we're talking about weapons being used it becomes an entirely different matter, but the way bullying in general is dealt with in schools today - i.e. not dealing with it - is totally wrong. Vulnerable kids, and kids who are singled out because they're a) unusually short, b) unusually tall, c) unusually intelligent or d) have some unusual physical characteristic, e.g. large birthmark, should be taught to stand up for themselves - because when they go out into what we laughingly call the real world, you can be bloody sure no-one else will stand up for them. Such lessons must be learned at school. Learning them as an adult is too damn late.

As for this lad, if he really feels he's in danger he should take a self-defence or martial arts course; protective clothing isn't the answer. And if I were a teacher who discovered this lad opening a large can o' whoop-ass on someone with a knife, for me there'd be no question as to who was the offender. An unarmed kid against one with a knife? Please. That's a no-brainer.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

I totally agree.

How would you implement your solution when someone is bullied by a group?

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Single out the ringleader..and whack him / her. ;)

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Anyway, interesting twist to this - In the Evening Standard I read about this case, and they mentioned that a boy had been specifically allowed to wear a stab vest to/from school, but not in school - the school they mentioned was the same one.

Whatever the true circumstances, it points to things going to the dogs.

---------- Post added at 08:52 ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 ----------

And then the ringleader, this time with 5 of his/her mates to back them up, jump you on the way to/from school or wherever and beat the living daylights out of you.

BTW - I also agree with you, but it's very tough to believe the advice if you're the one on the receiving end of the bullying.

The problem is that they're just too soft on bullying. If/when a bully is caught - and we know how rare that is - then they ought to come down on them like a ton of bricks. No 2nd chances.

There was an interview on the radio the other day. Someone from USA (musician) who spent a lot of his youth moving around from place to place due to his father's occupation. As the interviewer noted, this meant he was always the 'new boy' in school. So he asked him if that caused him trouble - but it appeared that it wasn't - the guy said he'd just get his head down and keep a low profile. The interviewer then noted that here (i.e. the UK) he'd probably have been bullied everywhere.

The matter-of-fact way he said that made me realise that bullying is almost accepted by too many people and I suspect that a large proportion of them actually have no idea what it is like to be on the receiving end.
No amount of anti-bullying policy is going to make the problem go away. It requires dealing with the perpetrators - to ensure they aren't just sorry to get caught, but to make sure they won't do it again.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Exactly what power does a policeman have to tell him not to wear one. I would have just ignored him, last I heard it wasn't a crime to wear such a thing.

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Or take the entire group out, most of the time standing up for yourself is the only way, but as I said its all to often the end is whats seen by the teacher not the begining and then its kangaroo court time because they dont have the time and resources and some perhaps the inclination to fully go into the incident(s).

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Anonymouse is correct, bullying has to be dealt with early and by the person been bullied. If a teacher sees a person smacking someone who knows its because they been bullied they shouldnt jump in and treat the bully as the victim but instead explain to the parents they had it coming.

If someone is been bullied by a group I think at that stage it is too late and the bullying has matured, and might be better to change schools. hitting the ringleader may work but I would guess it would result in a group of kids beating the victim up.

Bullying always starts with one person picking someone out and the longer it goes on for others then start to join in and the victim then has a reputation and becomes a easy target

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

Mmm, it might. Good point. OTOH, given the premise that bullies are cowards - and if not, why do they need backup? - sort out the leader and the others are more likely to leave you alone. That isn't certain, I admit, but more likely. And it does seem that the rules have changed in the last 20 years; I never heard of any bully using any sort of weapon when I was that age...probably because such behaviour would have been promptly dealt with, not by the school, but by the police. They didn't have political correctness and all that crap to deal with then. That may be the problem.
Very true. In fact, my bully had a cohort, but he was such a wuss he was easier to ignore. If I'd hit him, he'd have snapped in half, most likely. :)

Come to think of it, do we have any police officers, active or retired, on this forum? If so: if we (by some incredible miracle) got a government that decided to do away with all the wishy-washy liberal nonsense that's ruined our entire society over the last 30 years, and put things back more or less the way they were in the 60s, what would you do about, e.g., school bullies?

Re: Schoolboy not allowed to protect himself?
 

The people backing up the bully are also often doing it so they dont get bullied themselves, funny how this issue is supposedbly been worked on for years and the advice they giving out is still way of the mark. They might get more accurate data if they start asking people who were bullied in childhood.