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.

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Chris T

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!

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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.

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?

[BBKing]

Yeah by whom and why wasn't I consulted?

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.

Originally Posted by BBKing

In loco parentis being what it is, that applies to parents as well.

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

[Shaun]

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

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.

[Kliro]

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.

Originally Posted by Kliro

I'm all for teachers being allowed to restrain.

I have no problem at all with teachers restraining.

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.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I have posted an example of a father being prosecuted for assault after smacking his child in public.

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?
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion

See my reply just above.

[BBKing]

why should I accept that as anything worth discussing?

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