Science teacher Peter Harvey arrested over 'attempted murder' of schoolboy

Victoria · Post by **Victoria** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:26 am

I saw on the news last night the support this man has recieved from other students.

They were saying what a good teacher he was and how they thought he was a good man who deserved thier support.

It really does seem that there is more to this story than first meets the eye.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 3:38 am

oscar;1215913 wrote: You can link all the facts and cut and paste to your hearts desire. I do not believe for one moment that you have the upper hand on life experience over anyone else. It is actually quite insulting the way you seem to think you know everything there is to know about everything.

LMAO :yh_rotfl pot.....kettle :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:55 am

Bill Sikes;1215350 wrote: Teacher questioned on suspicion of attempted murder - Telegraph

"He would talk to himself a lot but I never thought he would do this."

:-2

Yes, I'm guessing there is a lot more to this story

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:57 am

Rapunzel;1215987 wrote: LMAO :yh_rotfl pot.....kettle :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Maybe Rap. However, if i am wrong, i will have the balls to admit it. I have even posted a thread especially for one member weeks later when i got more imfo, to tell him i had been wrong.

I sat here last night for some hours googling and reading what i had said about 'If an allegation of assault is made to the police, it is usually the way to arrest first and question later. I found so many sites on this, i didn't know where to start to post some up. I also found that it is because of this principle that the PCC recieve so many allegations of false arrest and Malicious arrest against police officers. Many are released without charge after questioning which proves my point. If i had found i had been totally wrong and 'totally' is the key word there, i would have quite happily admited to it as i have done many times in the past.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:36 am

Good for you Oscar. Spot also admits he is unsure, even wrong, sometimes. :wah:

If i had found i had been totally wrong and 'totally' is the key word there

Not so keen on the word 'totally' here though. Totally means an absolute and absolute's are damn near impossible to find. We have statistics. We can say 'generally speaking', but, in general, nothing is 'absolute'. Example: 99.999% recurring of the world's population would say that Hitler was a megalomaniac, yet a formula one manager was praising old Adolf last week and saying he had the right idea!

If you only admit to being wrong when you have been 'totally and absolutely' proved to be wrong then that will probably also be the day that hell freezes over, won't it? :yh_rotfl

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:40 am

Rapunzel;1216081 wrote: Good for you Oscar. Spot also admits he is unsure, even wrong, sometimes. :wah:

Not so keen on the word 'totally' here though. Totally means an absolute and absolute's are damn near impossible to find. We have statistics. We can say 'generally speaking', but, in general, nothing is 'absolute'. Example: 99.999% recurring of the world's population would say that Hitler was a megalomaniac, yet a formula one manager was praising old Adolf last week and saying he had the right idea!

If you only admit to being wrong when you have been 'totally and absolutely' proved to be wrong then that will probably also be the day that hell freezes over, won't it? :yh_rotfl There is a world of difference between telling some-one you think they are wrong and providing counter links to prove your point and being downright insulting. It hardly encourages new posters.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:43 am

flopstock;1216066 wrote: "He would talk to himself a lot but I never thought he would do this."

:-2

Yes, I'm guessing there is a lot more to this story

Getting back to topic........ yes, i read that he had also been recovering from a stroke. We won't know until the details come out in his trial exactly what he was going through.

I also read that the boy has said to the teacher '*uc* off and have another stroke'. I sympathise for the poor man. These kids can say what the hell they like to teachers and then there is shock and horror if one snaps.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:48 am

oscar;1216084 wrote: There is a world of difference between telling some-one you think they are wrong and providing counter links to prove your point and being downright insulting. It hardly encourages new posters.

I think you're both getting fired up about your own points of view. I haven't seen anything insulting and tbh a good argument brings in posters old and new as it livens the place up a bit. :wah::wah::wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:56 am

Rapunzel;1216087 wrote: I think you're both getting fired up about your own points of view. I haven't seen anything insulting and tbh a good argument brings in posters old and new as it livens the place up a bit. :wah::wah::wah: Then i suggest that you look back through the posts. On another thread about Ian Brady, i pointed out that if you have ever had to bury a child as my husband, myself and my brother have had the misfortune of doing, then knowing from an autopsy exactly how they died, why and where they are buried, is closure. I was told this was 'emotional claptrap. I find that deeply insulting. How can the death of a four year old little boy from terminal cancer and the death of two baby girls be 'emotional claptrap'? And who the hell is anyone to tell me that the death of Pete's four year old son, my baby and my brothers baby is 'claptrap'?

Anyway back to topic.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:09 am

oscar;1216068 wrote: I sat here last night for some hours googling and reading what i had said about 'If an allegation of assault is made to the police, it is usually the way to arrest first and question later. I found so many sites on this, i didn't know where to start to post some up. I also found that it is because of this principle that the PCC recieve so many allegations of false arrest and Malicious arrest against police officers. Many are released without charge after questioning which proves my point. If i had found i had been totally wrong and 'totally' is the key word there, i would have quite happily admited to it as i have done many times in the past.

What you actually wrote, which I challenged, was "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later". I described that as unadulterated bullshit and I'm perfectly correct in doing so.

Quoting bits from Blackstone's Criminal Practice, the restrictions on police as regards arresting anyone without a warrant from the judiciary are(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c) to prevent the person in questionâ€”(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) suffering physical injury;

(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary for any of the reasons set out in s. 24(5) (s. 24(4)). PACE Code G notes that arrest 'represents an obvious and significant interference' with the right to liberty (para. 1.2). A person must not be arrested simply because the power is available. The decision to arrest must be fully justified and the officer must consider whether the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means.

Where the suspect gives their name and/or address, the officer must have reasonable grounds for doubting the name or address given for arrest to be necessary.

Section 24(5)(e) permits arrest in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question. It is difficult to see how an arrest could be justified by reference to a need to investigate the conduct of the person unless that involves investigation of the offence of which he is suspected. Code G, para 2.9, gives examples of the circumstances in which this condition may be satisfied, including where there is a need to enter and search property, search the person, or take fingerprints, photographs, etc. Particular attention should be paid to whether this condition is satisfied where the suspect indicates his willingness to co-operate with a police investigation by, e.g., attending voluntarily at a police station, permitting his fingerprints to be taken or allowing a search to be conducted.

In relation to s. 24(5)(f), Code G, para 2.9, states that the condition may be satisfied if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will fail to attend court if not arrested, or if the grant of bail under the PACE 1984, s. 30A, would not be enough to deter him from trying to evade prosecution. Given the reasonable belief requirement in s. 24(4), there should be some objective basis for arrest on the basis of this condition. Mere suspicion that the person may not turn up in court should not be sufficient.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:10 am

I've been dubious about entering this thread as I do feel quite strongly about it. I have to say that imo Spot and Barman are absolutely wrong in this case. The school I work in has a LOT of special needs children and we have a whole special team to deal with them when they kick off (which is a daily occurrence!) The staff are also incredibly supportive of each other, something which visitors to the school frequently remark on.

Staff who have worked in other schools have horror stories of being attacked, physically and verbally, by teenagers who know they have 'rights' and cannot be touched. One female teacher was told to 'let it go or it would go on her file that she was a troublemaker' which would probably have been the end of her career! There are a LOT of stories like this, too many to say that every single one is 'made up' or 'wrong'. Teenage children, when they get into gangs can be absolutely horrendous. And unstoppable. The police and the schools have no jurisdiction over them. Why do you think so many kids commit suicide when constantly and continually harassed by a gang? Don't you think teachers also face that self-same harassment?

Some of our children are total thugs. They come from appalling backgrounds. They are well-known to the police and social services. They get more help than other children in the school even though they're not statemented. You just KNOW that they will get worse at secondary school because they're bigger, stronger and their hormones are kicking in which makes them a hell of a lot stroppier! You also KNOW (or are as sure as you can be) that they will end up in prison within a few years of leaving school because they are simply untameable. You cannot appeal to their sense of empathy or sympathy or common-sense. They are pure egotists. They do what they want, when they want and they are damn near impossible to stop. And at the moment they are aged between 5 and 11. What will they be like when they're 14, 15, 16?

I am damn sure this teacher put up with too much for too long with a total lack of support from his school. No wonder teachers are leaving teaching in droves. What will happen when there are no more teachers left? These kids will be roaming the streets like pack animals, going in for the kill. Although, isn't that exactly what they're doing now? Except that for now they're confined to cages, called classrooms.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:15 am

Rapunzel;1216103 wrote: The police and the schools have no jurisdiction over them.You have to be kidding. Every school in the country has an official contact to the local police. Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual. Some of those have gone into youth detention programs as a result. Where on earth do you get "no jurisdiction" from? It makes no sense at all, of course the police have jurisdiction within schools.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:19 am

spot;1216102 wrote: What you actually wrote, which I challenged, was "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later". I described that as unadulterated bullshit and I'm perfectly correct in doing so.

Quoting bits from Blackstone's Criminal Practice, the restrictions on police as regards arresting anyone without a warrant from the judiciary are(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b) correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c) to prevent the person in questionâ€”(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii) suffering physical injury;

(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv) committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary for any of the reasons set out in s. 24(5) (s. 24(4)). PACE Code G notes that arrest 'represents an obvious and significant interference' with the right to liberty (para. 1.2). A person must not be arrested simply because the power is available. The decision to arrest must be fully justified and the officer must consider whether the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means.

Where the suspect gives their name and/or address, the officer must have reasonable grounds for doubting the name or address given for arrest to be necessary.

Section 24(5)(e) permits arrest in order to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question. It is difficult to see how an arrest could be justified by reference to a need to investigate the conduct of the person unless that involves investigation of the offence of which he is suspected. Code G, para 2.9, gives examples of the circumstances in which this condition may be satisfied, including where there is a need to enter and search property, search the person, or take fingerprints, photographs, etc. Particular attention should be paid to whether this condition is satisfied where the suspect indicates his willingness to co-operate with a police investigation by, e.g., attending voluntarily at a police station, permitting his fingerprints to be taken or allowing a search to be conducted.

In relation to s. 24(5)(f), Code G, para 2.9, states that the condition may be satisfied if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person will fail to attend court if not arrested, or if the grant of bail under the PACE 1984, s. 30A, would not be enough to deter him from trying to evade prosecution. Given the reasonable belief requirement in s. 24(4), there should be some objective basis for arrest on the basis of this condition. Mere suspicion that the person may not turn up in court should not be sufficient. You can quote what you like at me. The mere fact that there are so many cases of 'false arrest and 'malicious arrest' proves that it depends on the mindset of the individual officer or local superiors.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:20 am

flopstock;1215935 wrote: The only slap my kids ever got was to a hand if they reached for something dangerous. My kids got spankings if they reached past the point where they had been told that if they didn't listen, they were being spanked. Also, if they were told that the next time they did something, they would be spanked. The consequence fit the crime and escalated if ignored. By time they were in school they knew what was tolerated and what wasn't.

But my kids didn't have tantrums in the store after the first one. I stopped what I was doing and spanked their ass rather then try and cajole them with a treat or hugs. Happens once and they all learn the lesson. mom means it.

My kids knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if I got called from school, they'd have some explaining to do. and they knew that the harshest sentence was not for what you did, but for lying about it.

I didn't have many of the normal family rules with my kids. Respect each other and absolutely anyone in charge of you at the moment, no stealing from family or non family and no tortmenting each other for entertainment purposes.. and whatever else you may have done, don't ever make the mistake of compounding it by trying to BS mom. Probably a handful at most per kid. But they then knew, that if I said it, I meant it.

This sounds like I could have written it flops!!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:21 am

Rapunzel;1216103 wrote: I've been dubious about entering this thread as I do feel quite strongly about it. I have to say that imo Spot and Barman are absolutely wrong in this case. The school I work in has a LOT of special needs children and we have a whole special team to deal with them when they kick off (which is a daily occurrence!) The staff are also incredibly supportive of each other, something which visitors to the school frequently remark on.

Staff who have worked in other schools have horror stories of being attacked, physically and verbally, by teenagers who know they have 'rights' and cannot be touched. One female teacher was told to 'let it go or it would go on her file that she was a troublemaker' which would probably have been the end of her career! There are a LOT of stories like this, too many to say that every single one is 'made up' or 'wrong'. Teenage children, when they get into gangs can be absolutely horrendous. And unstoppable. The police and the schools have no jurisdiction over them. Why do you think so many kids commit suicide when constantly and continually harassed by a gang? Don't you think teachers also face that self-same harassment?

Some of our children are total thugs. They come from appalling backgrounds. They are well-known to the police and social services. They get more help than other children in the school even though they're not statemented. You just KNOW that they will get worse at secondary school because they're bigger, stronger and their hormones are kicking in which makes them a hell of a lot stroppier! You also KNOW (or are as sure as you can be) that they will end up in prison within a few years of leaving school because they are simply untameable. You cannot appeal to their sense of empathy or sympathy or common-sense. They are pure egotists. They do what they want, when they want and they are damn near impossible to stop. And at the moment they are aged between 5 and 11. What will they be like when they're 14, 15, 16?

I am damn sure this teacher put up with too much for too long with a total lack of support from his school. No wonder teachers are leaving teaching in droves. What will happen when there are no more teachers left? These kids will be roaming the streets like pack animals, going in for the kill. Although, isn't that exactly what they're doing now? Except that for now they're confined to cages, called classrooms.
Thankyou Rap...... my points exactly. Then of course, even if 'the little darling' is removed from the school by police, there are the counter allegations of assault by the kid and very often the parents as well.

When the head teacher in the school next door to me was left battered with a broken arm and wrist, the child was too young to prosecute. We know her very very well and she later told us that had she of persued the case, knowing the parents, she was in no doubt that there would be a counter allegation of assault against her. She was not willing to risk her career.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:22 am

Rapunzel;1216103 wrote: I've been dubious about entering this thread as I do feel quite strongly about it. I have to say that imo Spot and Barman are absolutely wrong in this case. The school I work in has a LOT of special needs children and we have a whole special team to deal with them when they kick off (which is a daily occurrence!) The staff are also incredibly supportive of each other, something which visitors to the school frequently remark on.

Staff who have worked in other schools have horror stories of being attacked, physically and verbally, by teenagers who know they have 'rights' and cannot be touched. One female teacher was told to 'let it go or it would go on her file that she was a troublemaker' which would probably have been the end of her career! There are a LOT of stories like this, too many to say that every single one is 'made up' or 'wrong'. Teenage children, when they get into gangs can be absolutely horrendous. And unstoppable. The police and the schools have no jurisdiction over them. Why do you think so many kids commit suicide when constantly and continually harassed by a gang? Don't you think teachers also face that self-same harassment?

Some of our children are total thugs. They come from appalling backgrounds. They are well-known to the police and social services. They get more help than other children in the school even though they're not statemented. You just KNOW that they will get worse at secondary school because they're bigger, stronger and their hormones are kicking in which makes them a hell of a lot stroppier! You also KNOW (or are as sure as you can be) that they will end up in prison within a few years of leaving school because they are simply untameable. You cannot appeal to their sense of empathy or sympathy or common-sense. They are pure egotists. They do what they want, when they want and they are damn near impossible to stop. And at the moment they are aged between 5 and 11. What will they be like when they're 14, 15, 16?

I am damn sure this teacher put up with too much for too long with a total lack of support from his school. No wonder teachers are leaving teaching in droves. What will happen when there are no more teachers left? These kids will be roaming the streets like pack animals, going in for the kill. Although, isn't that exactly what they're doing now? Except that for now they're confined to cages, called classrooms.

WOW !!!!! That says it all Rap. It does beg the question 'What the hell do we do to address this terrible and most urgent problem?'

I expect some smartar$e will come back with some diatribe to explain just how these young savages have become what they are, and a super quickfix solution.

:-5 :-5 :-5 :-5

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:25 am

oscar;1216114 wrote: You can quote what you like at me. The mere fact that there are so many cases of 'false arrest and 'malicious arrest' proves that it depends on the mindset of the individual officer or local superiors.

What you actually wrote, which I challenged, was "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later".

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:27 am

spot;1216109 wrote: You have to be kidding. Every school in the country has an official contact to the local police. Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual. Some of those have gone into youth detention programs as a result. Where on earth do you get "no jurisdiction" from? It makes no sense at all, of course the police have jurisdiction within schools.

Am I right in saying that the establishment (in this case the school) has to call in the police (invite them onto their premises), in order to sort a problem which needs police attention ? Perhaps somebody can clarify this point for me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:28 am

G#Gill;1216119 wrote: WOW !!!!! That says it all Rap. It does beg the question 'What the hell do we do to address this terrible and most urgent problem?'

I expect some smartar$e will come back with some diatribe to explain just how these young savages have become what they are, and a super quickfix solution.

:-5 :-5 :-5 :-5 Of course some smartarsse will come back with some diatribe :wah: There are mumblings by the Opposition that if they get into power, the education system could be taken out of the hands of Whitehall and placed firmly back into the hands of teachers, heads and govenors. This tells me that the government is very aware that this is a heck of a problem in our schools. I remember when talking to the head at our local school, he said it is almost as if these kids go to some special school to learn 'Their rights' and boy, are they quick to spout them when in the wrong.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:30 am

spot;1216123 wrote: What you actually wrote, which I challenged, was "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later".
So your trying to tell me that you know for fact that in every case of an allegation of assault, the officer has not arrested first?

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:32 am

G#Gill;1216124 wrote: Am I right in saying that the establishment (in this case the school) has to call in the police (invite them onto their premises), in order to sort a problem which needs police attention ? Perhaps somebody can clarify this point for me.

As far as I'm aware, yes that's the way it works. I'm by no means sure that "has to" is correct but it's how problems arise and how they're solved, problems tending to be immediate flare-ups that the school staff become aware of before the police do. I'm sure in extreme circumstances the police could initiate their presence on school grounds but it seems unlikely they'd not liaise with the school staff first unless it was members of staff they were investigating and they wanted evidence before it was destroyed - in which case they'd invariably have a warrant beforehand for their proposed action.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:35 am

oscar;1216127 wrote: So your trying to tell me that you know for fact that in every case of an allegation of assault, the officer has not arrested first?

Of course I'm not, just read my words and you'll see what I'm saying. I'm saying "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" is total bullshit. Just that. Nothing more, nothing less. What's more you must be fully aware that your sentence is unsupportable, I don't know why you're harping on about it. "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" is simply not true.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:42 am

spot;1216131 wrote: Of course I'm not, just read my words and you'll see what I'm saying. I'm saying "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" is total bullshit. Just that. Nothing more, nothing less. What's more you must be fully aware that your sentence is unsupportable, I don't know why you're harping on about it. "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" is simply not true.
You are contradicting yourself. You say 'of course not' to the question that you know for fact that every officer does not arrest first and question later, yet you say my statement is untrue. So what is it? That you don't know for fact that evry officer does not arrest first and question later? If so, you are in no position to tell anyone that their statements are bullshit.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:45 am

oscar;1216134 wrote: You are contradicting yourself. You say 'of course not' to the question that you know for fact that every officer does not arrest first and question later, yet you say my statement is untrue. So what is it? That you don't know for fact that evry officer does not arrest first and question later? If so, you are in no position to tell anyone that their statements are bullshit.

We'll just have to leave it at that then. Some people can manage simple logic and the meaning of plain English, others never quite made the grade. We're back to letting third parties untangle the thread and make what they can of it.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:46 am

I can only comment on how my school handles problems between teachers and children.

We have a good relationship with our police force. They are in our school a few times a week teaching self-esteen through the DARE program (Drug abuse resistance education). They also visit our school at lunchtime to say hello to the kidlets.

I have our police # on speed dial on my cell phone. If we call them they are in our school within minutes. They would first speak with the administrators, teachers and children involved and try to sort out the problem. If the problem cannot be sorted out within the school, all parties would be escorted to the police station for further investigation.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:48 am

spot;1216136 wrote: We'll just have to leave it at that then. Some people can manage simple logic and the meaning of plain English, others never quite made the grade. We're back to letting third parties untangle the thread and make what they can of it. I take from this that you can not explain your contradiction so resort to further insults that 'some people can not understand logic and plain English.' If you can not explain your contradiction, why not just admit it.

I agree........ back to topic.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:50 am

oscar;1216139 wrote: I take from this that you can not explain your contradiction so resort to further insults that 'some people can not understand logic and plain English.' If you can not explain your contradiction, why not just admit it.

How does "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" equate to whether there's ever been an instance of the police having arrested first and questioned later?

I do wish you'd stop using quote marks and then paraphrasing me within them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:53 am

G#Gill;1216124 wrote: Am I right in saying that the establishment (in this case the school) has to call in the police (invite them onto their premises), in order to sort a problem which needs police attention ? Perhaps somebody can clarify this point for me. The situation sounds all to easy to say 'just bring the police in'. However, we then go into another minefield of schools not willing to do this for fear it will damage their OFSTED report.

I remember when Mr O got a knife off a young lad around 14 yrs ol one night at the war memorial. There was a police investigation and although Mr O could definately identify the boy as a pupil of that school, the Head was very upset that this would damage his OFSTED report. It is why so many schools are very very reluctant to bring in police or even to expel their pupils. In a later off the record conversation with the head, he told Mr O that he should not have contacted the police but come to him first. That says a lot.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:55 am

spot;1216140 wrote: How does "Police procedure is to arrest first and question later" equate to whether there's ever been an instance of the police having arrested first and questioned later?

I do wish you'd stop using quote marks and then paraphrasing me within them.

I am leaving this here. This must be boring the arsse off other members.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:00 am

oscar;1216143 wrote: I am leaving this here. This must be boring the arsse off other members.
I agree

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:04 am

Kathy Ellen;1216138 wrote: I can only comment on how my school handles problems between teachers and children.

We have a good relationship with our police force. They are in our school a few times a week teaching self-esteen through the DARE program (Drug abuse resistance education). They also visit our school at lunchtime to say hello to the kidlets.

I have our police # on speed dial on my cell phone. If we call them they are in our school within minutes. They would first speak with the administrators, teachers and children involved and try to sort out the problem. If the problem cannot be sorted out within the school, all parties would be escorted to the police station for further investigation.
Our local police are also pretty good Kathy. We had an officer called round for a cup of coffee and a chat last week as he was visiting the school next door to our house. The purpose of his visit was to talk to the kids about respect for the neighbourhood and it's residents. They have also done the same with the upper school but as police have told me themselves, out of 1,000 kids, you will always have the 30 or so that will go on to be trouble.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:08 am

oscar;1216142 wrote: The situation sounds all to easy to say 'just bring the police in'. However, we then go into another minefield of schools not willing to do this for fear it will damage their OFSTED report.

Here's a useful summary. As it says, effective programmes of joint working between schools, local police and partnership agencies are a matter for local protocols - that's at a local authority level, not a school level. I'd be surprised if you could find web links to rational accounts of any "schools not willing to do this for fear it will damage their OFSTED report" but by all means add some to the mix, they'd be a constructive contribution. There's far too much personal unsubstantiated opinion being thrown around and far too few examples.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:11 am

spot;1216155 wrote: Here's a useful summary. As it says, effective programmes of joint working between schools, local police and partnership agencies are a matter for local protocols - that's at a local authority level, not a school level. I'd be surprised if you could find rational web links to accounts of any "schools not willing to do this for fear it will damage their OFSTED report" but by all means throw some into the mix, they'd be a constructive contribution. There's far too much personal unsubstantiated opinion being thrown around and far too few examples. Here we go again

!!! I will not enter this as it is again diverting the thread. I merely pointed out that there is another piece to the jigsaw when it comes to OFSTED and how some schools will protect their report.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:13 am

oscar;1216157 wrote: Here we go again

!!! I will not enter this as it is again diverting the thread. I merely pointed out that there is another piece to the jigsaw when it comes to OFSTED and how some schools will protect their report.

And, as usual, it's gibbering froth off the top of your head rather than useful substantial information. Yes you have opinions. No they're not anything more than that. You have a perverse view of reality which doesn't stand up to the evidence unless you have some to bolster your point of view.

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:19 am

oscar;1216149 wrote: Our local police are also pretty good Kathy. We had an officer called round for a cup of coffee and a chat last week as he was visiting the school next door to our house. The purpose of his visit was to talk to the kids about respect for the neighbourhood and it's residents. They have also done the same with the upper school but as police have told me themselves, out of 1,000 kids, you will always have the 30 or so that will go on to be trouble.

Oscar, I teach in a small community school that now only has a population of 600 kidlets and it's a lovely, wee school. The older 6th graders who are 12 yrs. old are no longer in our school. They now belong to the intermediate school which are 12 yrs. old to 15 yrs. old, and that's where all the problems arise..

When the 12 yr. olds were part of our school, they wreaked havoc all the time...fighting, cursing, threatening everyone. Police had to be called sometimes when they threatened someone.

When I taught the older kids in an inner city, we had 2 police officers on each floor and one at the main door. They had to walk you to your car, which was in a gated area, when you left school. You were never allowed to be in the school alone.

One boy threatened to throw me down the stair and kick the s$it out of me if I spoke to him one more time about his behavior. Luckily I left that school....very scary indeed to be around those children.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:25 am

spot;1216159 wrote: And, as usual, it's gibbering froth off the top of your head rather than useful substantial information. Yes you have opinions. No they're not anything more than that. You have a perverse view of reality which doesn't stand up to the evidence unless you have some to bolster your point of view.

This report by the Teaching Union is the real world.

Nine out of 10 school attacks go unreported - News - TES Connect

There is a mass of recorded evidence on the web to back this report that some schools will let pupil violence go unreported to protect their OFSTED report. How about you do some research for a change instead of spouting insulting claptrap?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:28 am

Kathy Ellen;1216164 wrote: Oscar, I teach in a small community school that now only has a population of 600 kidlets and it's a lovely, wee school. The older 6th graders who are 12 yrs. old are no longer in our school. They now belong to the intermediate school which are 12 yrs. old to 15 yrs. old, and that's where all the problems arise..

When the 12 yr. olds were part of our school, they wreaked havoc all the time...fighting, cursing, threatening everyone. Police had to be called sometimes when they threatened someone.

When I taught the older kids in an inner city, we had 2 police officers on each floor and one at the main door. They had to walk you to your car, which was in a gated area, when you left school. You were never allowed to be in the school alone.

One boy threatened to throw me down the stair and kick the s$it out of me if I spoke to him one more time about his behavior. Luckily I left that school....very scary indeed to be around those children. God, Kathy, that's dreadful. I agree with you as in all the years i have lived next door to the primary school and the kids using my lane as a short cut to and fro school, i have never had so much as a chip wrapper thrown over my fence. It's when they get to the upper school at around 11 to 12 yrs old, the problems start. This is why our local police visit the primary schools now, to try to eduacte them early.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:51 am

spot;1215540 wrote: The thing is I don't believe what you're saying. My daughter's a teacher and she says it's not even slightly true.

spot;1216109 wrote: You have to be kidding. Every school in the country has an official contact to the local police. Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual. Some of those have gone into youth detention programs as a result. Where on earth do you get "no jurisdiction" from? It makes no sense at all, of course the police have jurisdiction within schools.

What I meant, by teachers and police having no jurisdiction over children, is that they cannot do anything to stop their appalling behaviour. Children can be suspended or even eventually expelled but it takes a lonnng time for this to happen and it doesn't solve the problem, it merely admits that that school has no solution and can no longer cope with that child.

I have never seen police coming into school and removing a child by force. But even then they can't do anything, they can't arrest the child, merely caution him. Therefore no jurisdiction, the problem cannot be solved! Yes they can go into youth detention programs but before that happened they would have to have a massively long string of offenses racked up against them and probably an equally long string of unproven offenses. They will have spent years causing havoc and despair before they implemented this as a final solution.

I'm interested in your statement's that say your 'daughter's a teacher and she says it's not even slightly true.' and then 'Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual.' How do the 2 statements compare? How can there be no classroom violence if police are regularly removing children? What are they removing them for? It would have to be pretty dreadful to need to call in the police! These two statements are paradoxical and need clarification please.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 11:56 am

Rapunzel;1216179 wrote: What I meant, by teachers and police having no jurisdiction over children, is that they cannot do anything to stop their appalling behaviour. Children can be suspended or even eventually expelled but it takes a lonnng time for this to happen and it doesn't solve the problem, it merely admits that that school has no solution and can no longer cope with that child.

I have never seen police coming into school and removing a child by force. But even then they can't do anything, they can't arrest the child, merely caution him. Therefore no jurisdiction, the problem cannot be solved! Yes they can go into youth detention programs but before that happened they would have to have a massively long string of offenses racked up against them and probably an equally long string of unproven offenses. They will have spent years causing havoc and despair before they implemented this as a final solution.

I'm interested in your statement's that say your 'daughter's a teacher and she says it's not even slightly true.' and then 'Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual.' How do the 2 statements compare? How can there be no classroom violence if police are regularly removing children? What are they removing them for? It would have to be pretty dreadful to need to call in the police! These two statements are paradoxical and need clarification please. Very well said Rap. Again you have highlighted Spot's contradictions. I totally agree with you. The child has to have a very long khistory of disruption and before action can be taken. IF the police do come in, it's in cases where it is far too late in the day and a violent act has taken place. There is not enought to deter the child in the first place and the behaviour goes unchecked until it escalates into a violent act.

As in the article of the man charged with the attempted murder, it is said that the kid told him to '*uc* off and have another stroke. In my day, i would have been thrown out of the school on my ear for speaking to a teacher in that manner and why i stand by my statement that i believe New Labour has systematically destroyed the education system here over the past ten years.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:14 pm

Rapunzel;1216179 wrote: I'm interested in your statement's that say your 'daughter's a teacher and she says it's not even slightly true.' and then 'Citing just my daughter's experience, the police get called into school and take children off-site sufficiently often for it not to be considered unusual.' How do the 2 statements compare? How can there be no classroom violence if police are regularly removing children? What are they removing them for? It would have to be pretty dreadful to need to call in the police! These two statements are paradoxical and need clarification please.

My comment was in response to "New Labour have systematically destroyed the rights of teachers to protect themselves over the past ten years. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for a child to attack a member of staff with no conseqence for their actions yet if the teacher raises a hand in self defence, they are charged by the police?."

A police response to a child attacking a member of staff shows that there's a consequence for the child's actions. The other two statements in what Oscar said I equally don't believe and also gave citations to show otherwise.

It's not so much clarification that's needed as following the thread trail back carefully.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:19 pm

oscar;1216171 wrote: This report by the Teaching Union is the real world.

Nine out of 10 school attacks go unreported - News - TES Connect

There is a mass of recorded evidence on the web to back this report that some schools will let pupil violence go unreported to protect their OFSTED report. How about you do some research for a change instead of spouting insulting claptrap?

What you have there is one single feedback comment that mentions OFSTED inspections and nothing in the article itself that even brings it up as a possibility. Nothing in the article itself that discusses "some schools will let pupil violence go unreported" either - just that 9 out of 10 incidents go unreported to the local authority. You're comparing lemons with oranges again.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:32 pm

oscar;1216118 wrote: Thankyou Rap...... my points exactly. Then of course, even if 'the little darling' is removed from the school by police, there are the counter allegations of assault by the kid and very often the parents as well.

When the head teacher in the school next door to me was left battered with a broken arm and wrist, the child was too young to prosecute. We know her very very well and she later told us that had she of persued the case, knowing the parents, she was in no doubt that there would be a counter allegation of assault against her. She was not willing to risk her career.

Sadly, this is true. Our school is in quite a deprived area and both parents and children are quite backward in social skills and knowledge. However, they're very streetwise! Most parents are divorced, remarried, divorced and with new partners. Lots and LOTS of our kids have half and step siblings with different parents/ partners, it gets very confusing. But however backward they are in knowledge, they're very streetwise and they KNOW how to play the game. Thats why most parents don't have jobs but they have new MPV's. A lot of them do a lot of selling on Ebay. And although they don't work they know how to play the benefits system. Some of these parents will care for their own kids but not for the step-kids. Divorced parents play mind-games with their kids. No wonder the kids are screwed up. But if the school complains about behaviour the parents close ranks and threaten assault. One child was suspended for 3 days for smashing up a classroom. The parent complained about the suspension and the kid was back next day with no further penalties. It's a screwed up system. :-5

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:46 pm

G#Gill;1216119 wrote: WOW !!!!! That says it all Rap. It does beg the question 'What the hell do we do to address this terrible and most urgent problem?'

I expect some smartar$e will come back with some diatribe to explain just how these young savages have become what they are, and a super quickfix solution.

:-5 :-5 :-5 :-5

Their is a Children's Bill of Rights and the sprogs KNOW they have rights. What they should have, imo, is a Bill of Rights AND Responsibilities. Yes they have rights but they should also be responsible for their own behaviour and act in a manner which is acceptable to society. If they abuse that responibility then they should forfeit their rights also. We have given them a weapon but we can't take it back. It should be a balance - they are treated with respect if they treat us with respect. If they bully or harass or harm then they should face penalties.

There is a super quickfix solution Gill - it's called Ritalin! The doctors prescribe it for ADHD kids. We have twin boys in year 6 who are the worst in the school. Both are on Ritalin. When they stay with Mum she gives them their daily ritalin in the morning so they behave for school. In reality it makes them glassy-eyed and dopey. They can't learn or pay attention, they just sit there like zombies. It's not a good or useful drug it just shuts them up but it's a waste of a school day because they learn nothing. When they stay with Dad he gives them their daily ritalin in the evening so they behave when they're with him, they just zone out and do nothing, but when he brings them to school the next day, the Ritalin has worn off and so they're hyper all day!

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 1:58 pm

oscar;1216157 wrote: I merely pointed out that there is another piece to the jigsaw when it comes to OFSTED and how some schools will protect their report.

I don't want to add to the friction but I do agree that schools will protect their OFSTED report. On my very first and second day at this school we had the OFSTED inspectors in. I was rushed from the classroom just before they arrived and given very rapid instructions of what I should say and do if questioned. OFSTED were also told it was my first day and that I wasn't yet fully conversant with all of this school's policies. OFSTED do tend to leave NQT's (Newly Qualified Teachers) alone in their first year and we had 5 last year which meant the senior teachers were grilled more whilst we were pretty much left alone.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:03 pm

oscar;1216181 wrote: and why i stand by my statement that i believe New Labour has systematically destroyed the education system here over the past ten years.

Again, I don't want to cause friction but ..... does this mean your love affair with Gordon Brown is over??? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:09 pm

What is OFSTED?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:11 pm

spot;1216190 wrote: What you have there is one single feedback comment that mentions OFSTED inspections and nothing in the article itself that even brings it up as a possibility. Nothing in the article itself that discusses "some schools will let pupil violence go unreported" either - just that 9 out of 10 incidents go unreported to the local authority. You're comparing lemons with oranges again. One single feedback comment? It happened to be one of many reports. As i said...... Do some research. It is simple for you to dismiss it as one single feedback report to once again impose your own self importance and egotistical opinion on everyone else. When a link is added to back a statement and you don't like it, you dismiss it as one single feedback. Yet, you add a link and treat it as set in stone. It is absolutely pointless anyone debating with you because you are obviouslet totally incapable of seeing anyone else's point of view in your self imposed superior little world.

A day in the life of an ordinary school: drugs, violence and intimidation - Telegraph

As i said before..... this is the real world.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:15 pm

Kathy Ellen;1216199 wrote: What is OFSTED?
Hope this helps Kathy:

(Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills) is a government department that inspects and regulates institutions in England providing education to learners of all ages and providers of care for children and young people.

Ofsted inspect or regulate the following services:

Childminders

Full and sessional daycare providers

Out of school care

CrÃ¨ches

All state maintained schools

Some independent schools

The overall level of services for children in local authority areas (these are called Joint Area Reviews).

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:16 pm

Found it...thanks...

OFSTED......Office for Standards in Education (British)

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:18 pm

Rapunzel;1216196 wrote: Again, I don't want to cause friction but ..... does this mean your love affair with Gordon Brown is over??? :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl Never :wah: