Forums

/ Lifestyle / Opinion

lovelylouboutins:

So why was it OK for this pupil to assault you but not the other???? If you think being assaulted in a classroom is a matter for the police (which it most certainly is) then why not apply this to all stu

Context is important. If a child is genuinely upset by something and pushes you away, it is an assault, but it is viewed (by me anyway) as different to someone who simply thumps you because they can and they feel like it.

I was once assaulted in college by one of my pre-16s because I physically grabbed him to prevent him slamming another boy,s head in the door in my class , and I mean in the door not against it. My LS rushed to phone for help, the boy thumped me hard on the chest and then ran away. By the time my line manager arrived 25 minutes later I was told it was my fault for having  a) intervened in the argument and b) for not having prevented the fight in the first place. No action was taken against the boy and I ended up bruised and badly shaken.

Middlemarch:

Because it isn't, is the only response.  And if you want evidence, here it is:

I permanently excluded a pupil for bringing a weapon into school and using it.  The police prosecuted and he was taken to court for pssession of a weapon in a public place.

Oh, I see. It was a genuine question - schools appear to be an obvious definition of a public place. Obviously not.

Middlemarch:

what did the head do with this pupil when it swore previously

The head doesn't know about the situation. The incident has been reported to an assistant head who is in charge of behaviour. Also, we have a behaviour manager who has children (really naughty kids) "attached" to him. He is aware of the incident. The head of year reported the incident to both people but nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done up to now. I get regular updates from the staffroom.

Middlemarch:

what is it that the teacher who has been sworn at again thinks should have happened on that occasion?

I think the teacher would be happy with a verbal apology during some restorative practice.

Middlemarch:

What has been the head's response to the report of this subsequent occasion?

Nil. The head does not know about this. She is far too important to deal with minor incidents like this.

MeanAverageJoe:

FWIW The current legislation re knives and other offensive weapons applies to public places and , explicity, schools.

FWIW, legal precedent has defined a school as not a public place in the case I mentioned.  The government's 'legislation' has no weight if a judge rules otherwise.

Middlemarch:

FWIW, legal precedent has defined a school as not a public place in the case I mentioned.

My point, perhaps unclear, is that legislation re weapons applies to public places and schools, Not schools because they are public places but because they are schools. You can't have a knife or gun in school (unless you are supposed to have one).

1988 Criminal Justice Act Section 139A (in 1996?) extended the scope to public places and schools.

Blah Blah

“139A Offence of having article with blade or point (or offensive weapon) on school premises.

(1)Any person who has an article to which section 139 of this Act applies with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)Any person who has an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the M1Prevention of Crime Act 1953 with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.

Blah Blah