Forums

A child regularly swearing at a teacher - telephone the police?

Last post 24/12/10 at 11:21 by dinx67, 253 replies
Post started by MissedOpportunity on 13/12/10 at 19:16

Rate this topic

Select colour:
  • Offline
    41
    Posted by: Lilyofthefield 14/12/2010 at 18:40
    Joined on 19/09/2001
    Posts 14,034

    Tell you what, Police:  sort out all the rape, pillage, robbery, kidnapping and drug killing, and if you've a moment between not being allowed to firmly Police a bunch of professional protesters at recent events, maybe you could do something about a child who swears at me.

    In the words of Big Jim: catch yourself on.

  • Online
    42
    Posted by: existentialtyke 14/12/2010 at 18:41
    Joined on 02/03/2005
    Posts 6,153

    Gary,

    I should add that I was giving an objective opinion. Subjectively, I am appalled by the conditions under which too many teachers work.

    ET

  • Offline
    43
    Posted by: garyconyers 14/12/2010 at 18:45
    Joined on 28/09/2006
    Posts 2,345

    existentialtyke:

    Gary,

    I should add that I was giving an objective opinion. Subjectively, I am appalled by the conditions under which too many teachers work.

    ET

    As am I, as I thought my first post suggested.

  • Online
    44
    Posted by: existentialtyke 14/12/2010 at 18:49
    Joined on 02/03/2005
    Posts 6,153

    Indeed it did Gary. I should have been more explicit in agreeing with you.

    Too many SLTs are hopeless at protecting the rights of their staff, as too many unions seem unable to force such rights.

  • Offline
    45
    Posted by: florian gassmann 14/12/2010 at 19:12
    Joined on 12/04/2005
    Posts 1,895

    Middlemarch:

    His brief got the case dismissed on the grounds - agreed by the judge - that a school is not a public place.

    You can - as we did - argue all you like that it is, but the law says it is not.

     

    I don't know why you would want to argue that a school is a public place. If it were so (and there is legal precedent going back to the 19th centgury that a school is not a public place), you and the GB would have little or no control over who came in or out. Members of the public could wander in and take photos, the police would not need permission (let alone a warrant) to come in whenever they wish and so on.

    Even places that habitually allow access to members of the public, such as railway stations and shops, are not legally public places.

  • Offline
    46
    Posted by: curlygirly 14/12/2010 at 19:19
    Joined on 06/02/2004
    Posts 4,709
    I suspect it was the cps who were using the argument, not the school.
  • Offline
    47
    Posted by: weebecka 14/12/2010 at 21:00
    Joined on 15/09/2010
    Posts 823
    existentialtyke:
    Too many SLTs are hopeless at protecting the rights of their staff, as too many unions seem unable to force such rights.
    The violent assaults on staff to which I refer were caused by HMI shutting down the appropriate provision for the students concerned with no alternative available, not to SLT or the unions. The unions were dealing with hundreds and hundreds of staff in Cumbria who were being brutalised by inappropriate interventions at the time. They were effective but slow due to being grossly overstretched. The executive head who was brought in (small part time) was grossly misinformed as to the issues in the school (by HMI). It took her a while to get her bearings but the solutions which was finally reached (whereby I continued to teach all classes but one) was what I wanted, it worked well and I am very grateful to all involved who made it possible. HMI WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ASSAULTS. What should happen - should the staff be failed or should the students get criminal records?
  • Offline
    48
    Posted by: airy 14/12/2010 at 21:06
    Joined on 18/11/2009
    Posts 29,467
    weebecka:
    HMI WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ASSAULTS
    No. The kids who assaulted the staff were responsible. Assault is not an acceptable response to being failed by a school or teacher.
  • Offline
    49
    Posted by: lurk_much 14/12/2010 at 21:14
    Joined on 05/07/2008
    Posts 4,667

    airy:
    The kids who assaulted the staff were responsible.
     

    I thought that.

    Martyrdom is beyond the call of duty.

  • Offline
    50
    Posted by: BigFrankEM 14/12/2010 at 21:23
    Joined on 26/11/2007
    Posts 3,254

    Middlemarch:

    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.

     

    Methinks the cart and the horse are completely the wrong way around in this particular analysis.

     

    Without a law enacted in parliament, English judges can and do make it up as they go along; the (common) law, that is.

     

    But when "the Queen in Parliament" legislates, the common law takes a back seat.

     

Back to top

Sign up – it’s free!

  • Don’t miss out on the latest jobs
  • Connect and share with friends
  • Download thousands of resources
  • Chat in the forums