Smacking ban in schools loophole

Originally Posted by Gary L

What?

What?

You mentioned the word Muslims. I said if 'I' had done that I would be accused of making clear my stance to everyone. just like the way you just did.

i think Kymmy is trying to say that you have dug a reeeeeely big hole for yourself Gary , bet you want to go back to bed and start again later now

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

hmm so now people want to stop parents being able to give those they leave their kids with the right to punish their child in the ay they believe is right and lawful ?

Who's they? the parents or the teachers?

not in favour of abuse myself but smacking isn't automatically abuse in law or in real life

In the article there are instances of abuse. smacking was further up. you have to do what martyh did, and read the whole article

---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

i think Kymmy is trying to say that you have dug a reeeeeely big hole for yourself Gary , bet you want to go back to bed and start again later now

I'll explain. if I just said what Kymmy had said and nothing else. I would be accused of being biased/prejudiced for not mentioning anything else in the whole article. because I pointed out the thing about the Muslims and nothing else.

It was like 'actually it is about the Muslims. reading the article through the quoted muslim incidents isn't smacking, but instead blatant physical assualt'

Who's going to watch the dinner if I go back to bed?

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Who's they? the parents or the teachers?
[/COLOR]


In the article there are instances of abuse. smacking was further up. you have to do what martyh did, and read the whole article

---------- Post added at 13:22 ---------- Previous post was at 13:19 ----------



I'll explain. if I just said what Kymmy had said and nothing else. I would be accused of being biased/prejudiced for not mentioning anything else in the whole article. because I pointed out the thing about the Muslims and nothing else.

Who's going to watch the dinner if I go back to bed?

a the parents ( i know my sentences are often confusing to me too lol )

b yep will give you i didnt really cover anything any real abuse a school / babysitter may be doing but then that doesn't need a change in the law does it

already if any of those schools or babysitters that the parents have left in charge of their children break the law in regards to abusing rather than just chastising within the law then they are subject to the full force of child abuse law already

if the paper has documented evidence of that sort of abuse they should notify the appropriate authorities rather than just publishing an article which is more about raising tensions than reporting news

Question?Does anyone connected with these schools have to have to have a CRB certificate or it's equivalent?

Originally Posted by rogermevans

a the parents ( i know my sentences are often confusing to me too lol )

b yep will give you i didnt really cover anything any real abuse a school / babysitter may be doing but then that doesn't need a change in the law does it

already if any of those schools or babysitters that the parents have left in charge of their children break the law in regards to abusing rather than just chastising within the law then they are subject to the full force of child abuse law already

if the paper has documented evidence of that sort of abuse they should notify the appropriate authorities rather than just publishing an article which is more about raising tensions than reporting news

well said that man a better story would have been about child abuse in after school clubs/sunday schools/mosque schools ect if it genuinely exists and there have been rumours for a number of years, but i can't recall any real investigation by a paper backed up with prosecutions .If the Mail are really concerened then they should do all of society a service and conduct a proper investigation backed up with facts/photos and a few prosecutions reguardless of race/religion and if it turns out that muslim schools are the biggest offenders then so be it ,at least they would have proven facts to offset any charge of racial bias

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Question?Does anyone connected with these schools have to have to have a CRB certificate or it's equivalent?

i should imagine they do if they charge for the service but if its free then most likely not

remember the furore the other way when it was suggested that those looking after other peoples kids needed them

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i should imagine they do if they charge for the service but if its free then most likely not

remember the furore the other way when it was suggested that those looking after other peoples kids needed them

Well I thought it was cases like this that were supposed to be the ones that the new form of CRB was supposed to cover(not people's child care arrangements for job sharing or grandparents caring for their own grandchildren).

Looking at the DM article, I thought I would do a little digging.

It would appear the quotes from the main players are from a number of years ago

a) can't find anything for David Laws, the LibDem MP, on his or the Lib Dems website (or by googling "David Laws" & "madrasah" (except the DM article and blogs discussing it)).
b) as a) searching for "Ed Balls" & "madrasa"
c) Ann Cryer's comments are paraphrased from March 2006, when she was commenting on (and supporting) a report produced by Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui (also quoted in the DM report)
c) Irfan Chishti's comments were from December 2008 Times article

So, is there any foundation in this DM story, or is is just rehashing old stuff?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Looking at the DM article, I thought I would do a little digging.

It would appear the quotes from the main players are from a number of years ago

a) can't find anything for David Laws, the LibDem MP, on his or the Lib Dems website (or by googling "David Laws" & "madrasah" (except the DM article and blogs discussing it)).
b) as a) searching for "Ed Balls" & "madrasa"
c) Ann Cryer's comments are paraphrased from March 2006, when she was commenting on (and supporting) a report produced by Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui (also quoted in the DM report)
c) Irfan Chishti's comments were from December 2008 Times article

So, is there any foundation in this DM story, or is is just rehashing old stuff?

yeah ,i hinted at that earlier it does seem to be a space filler in the abcense of any new muslim related stories

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Looking at the DM article, I thought I would do a little digging.
So, is there any foundation in this DM story, or is is just rehashing old stuff?

Here are the clues we need to focus on.

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole

and

Lib Dem schools spokesman David Laws, who is spearheading the campaign to close the smacking loophole

We can take that as David Laws urged Mr Balls last week to close the loophole.

I'll help you out when I have time

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole

well i think that is harder to do than first appears because it would mean removing grans /aunts /uncles and anybody incuding some types of schools from being granted loco parentis status .Admittedly it wouldn't be imposible but would require a great deal of carefull thought

[rogerdraig]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Well I thought it was cases like this that were supposed to be the ones that the new form of CRB was supposed to cover(not people's child care arrangements for job sharing or grandparents caring for their own grandchildren).

i think ( looking through the ton of papers they sent out on this lol ) from the way i read it if its part of say a charity run service then they would need to be but if the school bit be it sunday school or other faith based school is run for less than the stated 12.5 hours it comes under the same rules as other parents looking after your kids for no reward

personally even though i don't support the stop smacking campaign i would still insist on the people running those things being CRBed but then again maybe the parents know the person running the school personally

and although my faith doesn't run these sort of schools we do sometimes run bible studies at a members home for younger ones and there we wouldn't CRB but we do have rules on there being at least two adults present and it mostly wouldn't be one to one tuition

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

Here are the clues we need to focus on.

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole

and

Lib Dem schools spokesman David Laws, who is spearheading the campaign to close the smacking loophole

We can take that as David Laws urged Mr Balls last week to close the loophole.

I'll help you out when I have time

so again its really about this anti smacking campaign and not about any particular faith groups who are acting with in law as it stands

and one a lot of us wont want changed to try and erode our parental authority in law even further

Originally Posted by Gary L

Here are the clues we need to focus on.

Mr Balls was last week urged to close a legal loophole

and

Lib Dem schools spokesman David Laws, who is spearheading the campaign to close the smacking loophole

We can take that as David Laws urged Mr Balls last week to close the loophole.

I'll help you out when I have time

Thank you, Gary, for trying to help in your own inimitable way (you're so special).

However, there are no references in the Schools Department, on David Laws or the Lib Dems websites (or, as previously stated, if you search the internet using those parameters) for supporting evidence that this stuff actually happened, and I can't find any info about this so-called campaign (but willing to be pointed in the right direction if anyone else can find it)>

Just because the Daily Mail says so, doesn't mean it actually happened.

[Mr Angry]

David Laws seems to be unaware that he's "spearheading" this particular campaign.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

David Laws seems to be unaware that he's "spearheading" this particular campaign.

maybe someone should tell him