Last night I watched the TV prog called "Classroom Chaos" about a supply teacher who covertly filmed the anarchic & animalistic behaviour of school age children accross Britain.
Where the kids ruled& the teachers (who were left) trod on eggshells.

So I was gonna do a 'did you see' type thread on it...

Then I've just been looking at the Times online & read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1588791,00.html
shocking article

which prompted me to search the SF for 'teenage mothers'

where I scanned through these threads:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=484451&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

I now feel thoroughly fed up that the UK is in a downward spiral & becoming out of controll.

Anyone agree? :(

Hey Don,

I read about this alledged rise of 'Daisy Chaining' in this morning's Metro. It all sounds a bit too much like the fantasy of a middle aged man to me. I am constantly surprised by the maturity and intelligence of kids that I meet these days.

In fact, it is the elder generation that pose a greater threat to the UK. Not by their actions but purely due to their demographic existence.

M

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
...which prompted me to search the SF for 'teenage mothers'

where I scanned through these threads:
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=484451&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

I now feel thoroughly fed up that the UK is in a downward spiral & becoming out of controll.

Anyone agree? :(
There's another thread on "Teen pregnancies" which I started last Friday, unfortunately because people couldn't hold a sensible debate together the thread was hidden to allow the mod's time to prune it and return it to the forum.

Hopefully it will be back soon, and we will be able to keep a sensible conversation going this time...

...any idea how it's going mod's?

Anyway, when it does come back, you should find some of the opinions which were expressed interesting, keep an eye out for it. :)

Don, schools do not exist in isolation, but are obviously, part of society in general. They reflect what is happening outside school pretty acurately.

Therefore it is not surprising that standards of behaviour are in a downward spiral. With ever increasing crime, drug taking, sexually transmitted deseases and a general lack of individual discipline it is not at all surprising.

Many parents don't give their kids discipline, schools aren't allowed to discipline, police are scoffed at so we have a breed of louts coming through who are behaving like savages. Nobody challenges them, they do just as they like. Can you imagine the sort of upbringing their poor unfortunate children will have. God help us. Sterilisation at birth is an option
;)

It's all down to upbringing and discipline.

The do- good brigade banned the Cane at school, now the teachers and society in general will have to suffer the loutish behaviour.

PS AND bring back the birch

I dont know about the maturity of teenagers surprising me up on this estate. What surprises me is the level of violent, thick knife carrying louts who rule the roost outside every shop, intimidating locals and passers by.
I have seen drunken gangs of 14/16 year olds beat up grown men simply because they have been asked to keep the noise down and even then return later that night with their older brothers and fathers to finish their victim off for calling the police.
I have seen a 14 year old lad flashing a stun gun on Hartley Brook shops...unbelievable.
My daughters school is a nightmare too. Bullying is rife, but not just any old bullying, oh no this bullying involves knives and air pistols smuggled into a school full of 9 year olds. One kid was apparently shot in the eye and nearly blinded.
The general theme at school nowadays is the worse you behave, the more you get looked after. Jumped up little bags of turds who appear to be continuously on the rampage all the way through the school day, walking all over teachers(who are scared of having to deal with ruffian dumb parents) and pupils alike seem to get better treatment.
And before the "masses of the caring" start harping on about "they aint all like that" I am not on about all of them, just most;)

Don,

I agree with you - the UK is out of control, and only getting worse. I'm only 27, but I have quite old-fashioned views.

I believe in smacking children; I was smacked as a child myself and I'm grateful for it. Look at the youth of today who were never disciplined, and quake in fear over what THEIR children will be like.

I believe that teachers should have physical authority over children, not to the extent that they can get away with beating them (which is very wrong) but at least so the kids know they can't get the teacher arrested for hitting back.

I believe that the Compensation Culture we live in is ridiculous, and should never have been allowed to develop. As bad as the public demands to find someone to blame for every crime or disaster, because heaven forbid anyone take any responsibility for themselves.

In short, I think we're doomed.

I watched Classroom Chaos last night and found it a sad illustration of how the education system has collapsed in places, aided and abetted by politicians and bureaucrats who want to claim standards are improving.

Well , Mattski , you'd also have to assume that the doctors and nurses were all in a gigantic conspiracy , and have been for years , to lie about the sexual disease statistics. We are discussing a national trend here and not a few teenagers we happen to have met and who happen to be o.k.
A lot of people on S.F. have agreed that life in Britain , particularly amongst young people is spinning out of control. Lots of reasons have been put forward and many posters disagreed with them. I feel that we ought to get to the "nitty gritty ' and I think it's this :-
For about 200-300 years there has been a school of thought that puts forward the idea that children are unspoilt little angels , who only need kindness and understanding in order to turn into almost perfect adults.
Another school of thought , however , maintains that children are at birth , utterly egotistical and that through pretty tough parenting and discipline in schools , they learn , gradually , that they can't have whatever they want.In Britain , in the last 30 years , the "Children are Angels "group has gained the upper hand in our schools ' teacher-training colleges , homes ......etc.......We are now experiencing the sad results.
You would have thought , actually , that the "penny would have dropped " , long before now but if your career depends on maintaining the status quo , you are unlikely to admit that the liberal approach has been a disaster.A child of 10 , could have told these "philosophers "of education that adolescents need control and if adult control , censure and punishment is not there-----who fills the gap ? The bullies of course. ! Who stops the bullies ? Nobody.

Mo crime is down according to both government and independant research.
Viking - discipline doesn't have to involve assaulting a child, all that teaches them is that the person who is biggest or strongest is right.

There are some problems, teachers feeling like they can't defend themselves from violent pupils and the apparent inability to police the minority who cause these problems.

And Rich - there is always someone to blame for crime, it doesn't commit itself.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
I dont know about the maturity of teenagers surprising me up on this estate. What surprises me is the level of violent, thick knife carrying louts who rule the roost outside every shop, intimidating locals and passers by.
I have seen drunken gangs of 14/16 year olds beat up grown men simply because they have been asked to keep the noise down and even then return later that night with their older brothers and fathers to finish their victim off for calling the police.
I have seen a 14 year old lad flashing a stun gun on Hartley Brook shops...unbelievable.
My daughters school is a nightmare too. Bullying is rife, but not just any old bullying, oh no this bullying involves knives and air pistols smuggled into a school full of 9 year olds. One kid was apparently shot in the eye and nearly blinded.
The general theme at school nowadays is the worse you behave, the more you get looked after. Jumped up little bags of turds who appear to be continuously on the rampage all the way through the school day, walking all over teachers(who are scared of having to deal with ruffian dumb parents) and pupils alike seem to get better treatment.
And before the "masses of the caring" start harping on about "they aint all like that" I am not on about all of them, just most;)
now this is getting scarey i actually agree with every word you have written here AJ :suspect: and i have to agree with viking about it been the fault of the do gooders taking away the cane, i was having this same discussion with my hubby the other night i really do think we need to bring back the cane to get respect and morals back into kids

Originally posted by Cyclone
Mo crime is down according to both government and independant research.


Well we all know that statistics can be massaged to suit the argument, so I tend to base my opinions on what I see/experience, what I read/see in the press and on the opinions and experiences of friends/colleagues and neighbours. From this I have to say that crime and the nature of crime ie violence is getting worse.

Victims often do not report crimes these days.

I dont beleive any of the statistics that the authorities are portraying.
We all see the reality day to day and society IS slowly breaking down.
With businesses and government concerned with words like efficiency and value for money, people will lose out, big style.

"Quality of life" should be the new buzz words and kick out all this liberalism.

Fareast,

The rise of STDs is not associated with school children, as the Times article implies.

And in fact, my opinions have been formed after extensive work with teenage parents in education.

It is a complete fallacy that children have been viewed as little angels for the last 300 years. Victorian England was not known for good treatment of children. And Freud was not the first to suggest that children pursue the Pleasure Principle.

However, your argument seems a little confused. You suggest that children are inherently egotistical and need strict discipline. And yet, you go on to assert that if only we asked these little egotistical devils what they want from school they will tell us 'more discipline'. Following your line of reason this seems unlikely.

There are numerous and complex reasons why society is shaped as it is. I just think there is some perverse interest that is paid to children's sexuality by middle aged policy makers and journalists. They should concentrate their efforts on exposing inequaliy in our economic and educational system.

M

With regards this "daisy chaining" it seems obvious that sex education is failing. It currently concentrates on teaching kids how to have sex, handing out free condoms as required (even to kids under 16) and then telling them not to have sex. This is plain stupid. There is also no mention of morals and standards of behaviour. It is obvious that society will decline when sex is taught and treated in such a way.

I agree that it's ill discipline that's at fault and this has something to with the liberal ethos that's prevailed and also to do with mothers having to raise children without fathers.
I also think that if you did more intersting stuff at school, kids would concentrate and not mess around. If they could learn motorbike mechanics or hairdressing instead of algebra, they might be better behaved.

Originally posted by Mattski
...And in fact, my opinions have been formed after extensive work with teenage parents in education...
Aar, it might be like that in yer fancy high ferlutin west London, but it's different ooop north tha noz. ;)

Originally posted by t020
With regards this "daisy chaining" it seems obvious that sex education is failing. It currently concentrates on teaching kids how to have sex, handing out free condoms as required (even to kids under 16) and then telling them not to have sex. This is plain stupid. There is also no mention of morals and standards of behaviour. It is obvious that society will decline when sex is taught and treated in such a way.

so obvious when you look at the dutch example.

More sex education than us, starting at a younger age than we do.

Result - lowest rates of teen pregnancy in europe.

what a disaster.

Mo - fine, if you're going to believe whatever you want too then there's absolutely no point in discussing it as facts make no difference.
You'll notice that I also quoted an independant study as I suspected that people would mistrust the government.
The independant study works by contacting a cross section of the population, 40k people and asking them about their experience. So the numbers of crimes that are reported or not is irrelevant.

What it does show is that although crime overall has fallen, violent crime has increased.

I fail to see how beating a child in school with a stick teaches them anything except that they can get their way if they have the biggest stick. And it's been well documented and proven that negative reinforcement is not as effective at teaching as positive reinforcement.

Foo Fighter,

My work involved FE Colleges and schools throughout England. High Ferlutin West London? Have you ever been to Southall?!

M

Originally posted by meer
I agree that it's ill discipline that's at fault and this has something to with the liberal ethos that's prevailed and also to do with mothers having to raise children without fathers.
I also think that if you did more intersting stuff at school, kids would concentrate and not mess around. If they could learn motorbike mechanics or hairdressing instead of algebra, they might be better behaved.

better behaved but badly undereducated.

Originally posted by Mattski
Foo Fighter,

My work involved FE Colleges and schools throughout England. High Ferlutin West London? Have you ever been to Southall?!

M

Yes, I did my final teaching practice there.

Mo,

Southall London or Southall Sheffield?

M

Originally posted by Cyclone

Mo - fine, if you're going to believe whatever you want too then there's absolutely no point in discussing it as facts make no difference.
You'll notice that I also quoted an independant study as I suspected that people would mistrust the government.
The independant study works by contacting a cross section of the population, 40k people and asking them about their experience. So the numbers of crimes that are reported or not is irrelevant.



I believe what I experience or see/hear with my own eyes/ears.
As I said, part of the reason why crime may be showing a decrease is not that there is less of it, but that people are not reporting many instances when it happens. Crime not reported does not show in statistics.


Originally posted by Cyclone

What it does show is that although crime overall has fallen, violent crime has increased.



Oh you agree with me on something then
;)

Originally posted by t020
With regards this "daisy chaining" it seems obvious that sex education is failing. It currently concentrates on teaching kids how to have sex, handing out free condoms as required (even to kids under 16) and then telling them not to have sex.

I think most kids know whats what long before they get sex education, and quite a few will have put that knowledge into practice.

Its just part of normal growing-up to experiment.

Originally posted by Mattski
Foo Fighter,

My work involved FE Colleges and schools throughout England. High Ferlutin West London? Have you ever been to Southall?!

M
Yes I have been to Southall (London), I even found that some of the people there had a sense of humour. ;)


PS The one in Sheffield is "Sothall"

Yes I have been to Southall (London), I even found that some of the people there had a sense of humour.

Obviously I wasn't one of those people. Sarky git!

M

Originally posted by Mo
I believe what I experience or see/hear with my own eyes/ears.
As I said, part of the reason why crime may be showing a decrease is not that there is less of it, but that people are not reporting many instances when it happens. Crime not reported does not show in statistics.




Oh you agree with me on something then
;)

The independant study works by contacting a cross section of the population, 40k people and asking them about their experience. So the numbers of crimes that are reported or not is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Cyclone
And Rich - there is always someone to blame for crime, it doesn't commit itself.
This is true. But what I mean is that it isn't always clear-cut. It's not always 100% one person's fault and 0% the other. Crime wasn't quite the right word for me to use. I'm talking mainly about incidents in which one party ends up seriously injured or dead. There is a thirst in society for one party to be 'strung up by the balls' and held accountable for the event in its entirety. Sometimes it could have been avoided if the 'victim' had taken reasonable sensible steps to stay out of harm's way. For example, if the pedestrian had looked before running out into the busy road. I'm not saying the driver who hit them is blameless, just that it isn't always black-and-white.

Also, (comment aimed generally, not at you Cyclone) with regard to the increasing sexual activity - it seems that the liberal approach is to say "Sex education isn't working - we have to give them MORE sex education." The message should have sunk in by now. Let's STOP the sex education and let children be children for a change. We're forcing them into adult roles that they're not ready for, then acting all surprised when they don't treat the subject matter with maturity and common sense.

Originally posted by RichD
This is true. But what I mean is that it isn't always clear-cut. It's not always 100% one person's fault and 0% the other. Crime wasn't quite the right word for me to use. I'm talking mainly about incidents in which one party ends up seriously injured or dead. There is a thirst in society for one party to be 'strung up by the balls' and held accountable for the event in its entirety. Sometimes it could have been avoided if the 'victim' had taken reasonable sensible steps to stay out of harm's way. For example, if the pedestrian had looked before running out into the busy road. I'm not saying the driver who hit them is blameless, just that it isn't always black-and-white.

Also, (comment aimed generally, not at you Cyclone) with regard to the increasing sexual activity - it seems that the liberal approach is to say "Sex education isn't working - we have to give them MORE sex education." The message should have sunk in by now. Let's STOP the sex education and let children be children for a change. We're forcing them into adult roles that they're not ready for, then acting all surprised when they don't treat the subject matter with maturity and common sense.

Well in that case I agree. The compensation culture that is increasing is something we don't want. Not every accident or incident must have someone to blame. And people should take responsability for themselves sometimes.

Ermm, I'm afraid that the lack of any decent sex education in this country is to blame, not increased levels of it. There's a clear relationship between sex education and teen sex/pregnancy. The more of the former, the less of the latter.
It's easily studied by looking at the different countries in europe and their differing levels of both factors.

Originally posted by Cyclone Ermm, I'm afraid that the lack of any decent sex education in this country is to blame, not increased levels of it. There's a clear relationship between sex education and teen sex/pregnancy. The more of the former, the less of the latter.
It's easily studied by looking at the different countries in europe and their differing levels of both factors. [/B]
Thing is, I don't think you can judge what's good for Britain so readily on what's good for other countries. Those countries have radically different attitudes to sex among the adult populace, and children have been brought up in a culture where it's not such a 'big thing' to be seen to be having sex as it is over here.

When I was at school, sex education was only just beginning. We had about 3 lessons of it, ever. And only about half a dozen of those in my year (about 130 people) were sexually active by the age of 16.

Or maybe it's because we were at a grammar school, where by selection the children there are more intelligent to begin with.

Originally posted by RichD
Thing is, I don't think you can judge what's good for Britain so readily on what's good for other countries. Those countries have radically different attitudes to sex among the adult populace, and children have been brought up in a culture where it's not such a 'big thing' to be seen to be having sex as it is over here.

When I was at school, sex education was only just beginning. We had about 3 lessons of it, ever. And only about half a dozen of those in my year (about 130 people) were sexually active by the age of 16.

Or maybe it's because we were at a grammar school, where by selection the children there are more intelligent to begin with.

I don't think we are that different.
But imagine little or no sex education. Do you really imagine that teenagers will be unaware of it, or less inclined to experiment? What they will be unaware of are STD's the risk of pregnancy and how to use contraception and prevent the spread of infection.
Net result, more pregnant and/or STD carrying teens.

Out of interest, how long ago was it that you were at school?

On 22 bus last Sunday, by mistake,. went through Firth Park. WHAT A FILTHY SINK. Filth park. Sorry for all the decent people that live there.

Originally posted by Cyclone
The independant study works by contacting a cross section of the population, 40k people and asking them about their experience. So the numbers of crimes that are reported or not is irrelevant.




This idependent survey (which is incidently run by the Home Office) cannot claim to be representative of what is happening in the country when it omits to consider these crimes;

What the BCS doesn't cover

The BCS surveys people in private households, and therefore doesn't cover certain types of crime, including:

Crimes against businesses
Crimes where there is no direct victim (such as drug dealing)
Crimes against victims younger than 16 (it is considered inappropriate to survey child victims of crime in a general household survey)
Crimes that have involved deaths, like homicide (as the victims cannot be interviewed)


Reliable? Representative?

fine, so your limited view of the world is more represenantive than both an independant survey and the police statistics.

Why don't they save money and just ask you every year whether crime is on the rise or fall?

Originally posted by Cyclone
fine, so your limited view of the world is more represenantive than both an independant survey and the police statistics.

Why don't they save money and just ask you every year whether crime is on the rise or fall?


Is an insult the best you can offer?

How can a crime survey be accurate if the respondants are told which crimes they can include and which they must exclude?

Such an unbalanced survey has to give unbalanced results.

I actually live on a real everyday rough council estate and all I see is a massive surge in crime, specially in violent crime. I can qoute violent crimes within a 2 minute walk of this house from as little as 3 days ago.The majority of this crime is perpetuated by the young.
The last place I lived at (lower Shiregreen) was so bad even Fallujah refused to be twinned with it.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I don't think we are that different.
But imagine little or no sex education. Do you really imagine that teenagers will be unaware of it, or less inclined to experiment? What they will be unaware of are STD's the risk of pregnancy and how to use contraception and prevent the spread of infection.
Net result, more pregnant and/or STD carrying teens.

Out of interest, how long ago was it that you were at school?
I'm 27, so did my GCSEs in 1994.

My point is that if we don't teach sex education in schools, we're not bringing sex deliberately to the front of the children's minds. Sure, they'll get there, and they'll need information when they start to think about it - and by all means we should make that information available.

But it's the way in which we make it available that I think we're getting wrong. The more we labour the points, the less the kids will listen. All they'll hear is "blah blah, don't do this, blah blah." And we all know how teenagers tend to respond to that. Some will 'rebel' against the advice, and others, like sheep, will follow their lead. I think we need to spend more time teaching children how to think for themselves and resist peer pressure, and less time preaching about sex and its dangers.

EDIT: I don't know for sure, maybe the nature of sex ed has changed in the last 5 years (as from what Ive heard from younger friends theirs was pretty much the same as mine), but ours was pretty ineffective.

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
I actually live on a real everyday rough council estate and all I see is a massive surge in crime, specially in violent crime. I can qoute violent crimes within a 2 minute walk of this house from as little as 3 days ago.The majority of this crime is perpetuated by the young.
The last place I lived at (lower Shiregreen) was so bad even Fallujah refused to be twinned with it.


But AJ the independant survey would probably disregard all your incidents. You may well find yourself living in a virtually crime free area ;)

You wouldn't be able to report anything involving children.

Your local shops been trashed wouldn't count.

All the druggies wouldn't exist.


Get your house up for sale AJ, you'll make a bomb living in such a desirable area :hihi:

It is ridiculous to think that not teaching sex education will prevent children being aware of sex. Have you not seen a Bratz doll, watched music videos or seen Hollyoaks.
Sex education (when taught effectively) is about having sex in committed, loving relationships and how to form those relationships. It is also about empowering children to say no and giving them enough information so that they can make informed choices.

Originally posted by Mo
Is an insult the best you can offer?

How can a crime survey be accurate if the respondants are told which crimes they can include and which they must exclude?

Such an unbalanced survey has to give unbalanced results.

it wasn't an insult. I'm just bemused as to how I can possibly argue a point when the only data you'll accept is your own. So I give up arguing it with you, think whatever you like.

Rich - same age as me. And sex education was pretty poor to non existant when I was at school. But i don't think increased sex education is causing teens to have more sex, I think it's a general change in our society and sex education is combating it.
Any teen with internet access can find out everything they would want to know with a few clicks. But the things that they aren't likely to find out about are pregnancy, std's and prevention of both.

I live in a real everyday Walkley, and I can report a massive non change in crime, in that I previously saw very little and still see very little.

Originally posted by Cyclone
fine, so your limited view of the world is more represenantive than both an independant survey and the police statistics.

Why don't they save money and just ask you every year whether crime is on the rise or fall?
Without appearing to be pedantic I think you will find the correct spelling is in actual fact representative (touche)
Facts and figures mean nothing as far as the grass roots level is concerned. Pick almost any house on this estate and ask them if crime has been reduced under labour.
There seems to be a predisposition towards violence in todays youth, propagated by the media through television, music and computer games. I hate to use such a pretentious word as blase, but thats how attitudes appear to be with regards to violence.

mmmm am I just turning into a grumpy old man :confused:

I always thought sex education was about the "nuts & bolts" of sex and the associated risks, the moral bit was down to your parents to teach you.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I'm just bemused as to how I can possibly argue a point when the only data you'll accept is your own.

That is very anoying isn't it :)

Well , Mattski , you didn't make it plain that you worked extensively with teenagers , only the ones ,you'd , "come across "---bit vague.
I think going on what a lot of people post on here and reading the papers.....etc....you've been very fortunate in the teenagers you've come across. Sexual diseases seem to be on the increase and seem to involve mainly teenagers and young adults i.e. those who have been ,"educated" in our schools for the past 30 years.
I didn't say the liberal regime had had its way in education in the last 300years If you read it again , I said there'd been ,"a school of thought " on the subject for the past 300 years. Specifically , I was thinking of Rousseau and the American educationist , John Dewey.I said that their way of thinking about children had gained power over the past 30 years.
Of my experience , as a teacher , I can only say that , to me , children feel happier with fixed , fair rules , with an atmosphere of humour and learning inside those rules. Most children hate bullies and would much rather be ruled by a strict teacher than a bully. If children have been disciplined at home , as they should be , they instinctively realise that happiness doesn't lie in everyone fighting to get their own way.

My sister is a Public Health Educator. She's fighting a losing battle as far as irresponsible teen sex goes.

A lot of the kids she sees don't need more/better sex education, they just need better parenting. They need someone to listen to their everyday problems.

When asked some of them have told her that they are deliberately engaging in risky sexual behaviour because they feel its the only way to get the attention of their parents. "My mum will take more notice of my if I have a baby.", etc.

Others have revealed that they are doing it almost as a form of self harm - they want to hurt themselves for something that they can't express in words. They feel worthless and want something to feel bad about - they think they deserve to.

Many of them aren't doing this stuff because they enjoy it. I suppose that means thay will be pretty screwed up about sex when they get older.

I think these stories are very sad. I have no idea where we should begin to sort it out though.

Originally posted by Cyclone
[BI live in a real everyday Walkley, and I can report a massive non change in crime, in that I previously saw very little and still see very little. [/B]

But we can't cite our own experiences now can we Cyclone, that would be biased and blinkered and not take into account the Independent Crime Survey? ;)

p.s. Seem to remember that from the government statistics that volent crime had gone up by 10% , although , overall , crime had gone down. If the statistics don't include , "children " what good are they ?
This topic is about young people particularly and on their sexual behaviour , some of which may be criminal.

Has anybody reading this ever been interviewed with regard to the British Crime Survey?

no but i had to fill a survay in about operation delimit on the manor does that count ?:D

Originally posted by Fareast
Of my experience , as a teacher , I can only say that , to me , children feel happier with fixed , fair rules , with an atmosphere of humour and learning inside those rules. Most children hate bullies and would much rather be ruled by a strict teacher than a bully.

Well I agree completely with you here. Children do need to have clear boundaries, as do adults. And there needs to be clear, consistent rules on behaviour.

Perhaps consistency has been lost with the constant raft of initiatives being pushed through by various governments wishing to leave their indeleble mark on our country's education.

However, this has more to do with the nature of government than an inherent badness in children that needs to be beaten out.

M

Got number 22, by mistake, on sunday affternoon, went to Firth, filth, Park. What an appaling sink. NEVER WILL I GO THERE AGAIN. Pity the good people that live there.

Mattski
I didn't say that children had to have badness beaten out of them. [You didn't used to work with Alistair Campbell , did you ?]
I said that children , according to one school of thought , were born completely egotistical ,i.e. they and they only are at the centre of their world. Gradually as they interact with parents , relatives , their peer group , they should begin to realise or MADE to see that they are NOT the centre of the world.
I went on to imply that I thought this theory about children was a lot more valid than the other , much more liberal one , whose rallying cry was , "child centred education ".
Because children have been regarded as little tin Gods , via this approach , they have been able , if they so wish , to run riot in school and the teachers now have no physical or moral authority to stop them.To even think about restrainig an oafish lout or using corporal punishment on a thug , brings the Do-Gooders out in hives. You are not ,"beating out evil " but you may be preventing certain types of evil behaviour.

Ah, the old 'carrot or stick' conundrum in regard to what children respond to. Having lived with 2 teachers as parents my whole life, I know that it is a topic they are subjected to time and time again by non-teacher friends and neighbours.

Mum (a primary school teacher for 20-odd years) and Dad (a high school teacher for the same period of time) have pretty much seen it all, first as students themselves in the 60s and now as teachers. Oh wait, just remembered our schools in Aus are slightly different to yours, basically primary schools are for 5 - 11 year olds and high school is for 12 - 18 year olds. Anyway, having had numerous discussions with them both about this, they are in steadfast agreement that there is one common factor when it comes to badly behaved children, and it's already been mentioned in this thread...

LACK OF ATTENTION FROM PARENTS.

Mum has taught in the roughest of rough areas to the richest of rich areas, and its in the latter that she sees it as a bigger problem. Parents are forced to work incredibly long hours in high pressure jobs to be able to afford to live there, the result being that children are put in child care from 7am to 7pm with school in between. She's had children fling themselves at her and wrap their arms around her for a hug, and the difference she sees in behaviour from just calling them 'sweetie' or 'darling' once or twice is amazing.

And before anyone starts with the 'but its the teenagers thats the problem', Dad's worked with them for over 20 years and from both his reports and those of his colleagues, has never had to yell, shout, whatever, let alone use physical force, to get by in his classroom. Treat them as adults, they respect that, and respond as adults.

Saying that, he's had friends leave the profession because of threats of physical violence, but all of these cases were in the early 80s, so I can hardly say it's a problem exclusive to the early 21st century.

Ooh this post is becoming rather long....but to finish off, I finished school in 2002 so was subjected to the 'boom' of sex education and the lessons were that graphic and scientific that it really wasn't subject matter that made you want to go find a shag!! :)

Originally posted by Mo
But we can't cite our own experiences now can we Cyclone, that would be biased and blinkered and not take into account the Independent Crime Survey? ;)

finally, you see what i'm getting at. We all have different anecdotal experience, and we can't all be right (on a national scale). Obviously we can right locally, but that's not what you said.

Originally posted by Cyclone
finally, you see what i'm getting at. We all have different anecdotal experience, and we can't all be right (on a national scale). Obviously we can right locally, but that's not what you said.

And similarly, do you not yet accept Cyclone that a crime survey that excludes so many types of crime cannot in any way be representative of the true situation?

While we all sit here and bemoan that children(and by this I mean anyone up to the age of 16) have an immature attitude to sex(who would have thought :roll: ),shouldnt we all,as a society,take some,if not all,of the responsability for this.After all,the British attitude towards sex has changed beyond all recognition in the last thirty or so years.Arent kids mearly reflecting a more sexually permissive society?

Originally posted by Annoni_mouse
While we all sit here and bemoan that children(and by this I mean anyone up to the age of 16) have an immature attitude to sex(who would have thought :roll: ),shouldnt we all,as a society,take some,if not all,of the responsability for this.After all,the British attitude towards sex has changed beyond all recognition in the last thirty or so years.Arent kids mearly reflecting a more sexually permissive society?

Too true. When you find parents buying thongs for girls as young as 6 you soon begin to see the reasons why all this is happening.

Originally posted by Mo
When you find parents buying thongs for girls as young as 6 you soon begin to see the reasons why all this is happening.

Youre not wrong.A few years ago I was in Devon(the county,not the pornstar-thats another story :heyhey: )And I saw a girl of no-more than 10 wearing a shirt with the legend"Youve been a naughty boy-go to my room!" on the front.What kind of parent thinks that this is suitable clothing for a kid:loopy:

I didn't see the tv programe, although I read a review of it in the paper today. Seems they employed a teacher, who had been out of education for 30 years, to produce it.

I've worked with children in the care system. I recall young mothers, (the youngest being aged 11), some of whom, despite having babies, hadn't a clue how they even got pregnant. Also young kids who cut themselves, so desperate were they for affection and attention - which they never received at home.
Kids who had never known anything other than a beating at home.

I'm not recounting events of 2005, but 1975. So, maybe we need to get a little perspective into this debate. These types of problems are not a modern phenomena.

There is, in my opinion, a need to further develop and improve sex education lessons and material, and to start at a much younger age. There is also a need to address the issue of poor parenting skills. At least the government has made a start with parenting skills classes.

I agree with redrobbo - there isn't an awful lot new about all this. I think people tend to have rose-tinted glasses when they look back on 'their' day.

I also think there should be a general recognition that theres a limit to how much a prime minister can do about 'societal decline' - there is no magic wand. There are several factors way out of his control - increased urbanisation, for example, or the effect of the massive expansion of the pornography industry, onto the net and on tv.

The same people going on about the decline of society, are in my experience the same ones going on about the nanny state all the time. Can't have it both ways.

(Obviously wasn't referring to any of you lovely people, just those ignorant non-forumers :) )

Originally posted by meer
I agree that it's ill discipline that's at fault and this has something to with the liberal ethos that's prevailed and also to do with mothers having to raise children without fathers.
I also think that if you did more intersting stuff at school, kids would concentrate and not mess around. If they could learn motorbike mechanics or hairdressing instead of algebra, they might be better behaved.

that is giving in to them though! Why should we have to bribe them to behave?

Originally posted by AJ sheffield
I actually live on a real everyday rough council estate and all I see is a massive surge in crime, specially in violent crime. I can qoute violent crimes within a 2 minute walk of this house from as little as 3 days ago.The majority of this crime is perpetuated by the young.
The last place I lived at (lower Shiregreen) was so bad even Fallujah refused to be twinned with it.

yes, but the majority of the population does not live on your estate so to extrapolate to the entire country is not neccessarily correct. It is entirely possible crime has risen in certain areas (your estate) whilst generally over the whole country it has declined.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I fail to see how beating a child in school with a stick teaches them anything except that they can get their way if they have the biggest stick. And it's been well documented and proven that negative reinforcement is not as effective at teaching as positive reinforcement.

To me (age 39) it appeared to work up untill it was outlawed and replaced by positive reinforcement...
Now we are reaping the whirlwind of Liberalism.

You don't necessarily have to beat the child, just the threat that the cane as a very real consequence of bad & antisocial behaviour is really enough.

IMO :)

Interestingly, the jist of feelings I glean from this so far is that the breakdown of traditional family values & structure are primarily at the epicentre of the problem.

Compounded by, as stated by others, and in my opinion, the Liberalism of and toward attitudes & bad-behavioural acceptance over the past 30 years or so.

I accept there are many other (slightly less) significant factors too; media, disposable income, drug prevalence, Governmental restrictions on teachers, compensation culture... to name a couple.

May I, without inviting a tirade of insults, offer another earlier link to the primary cause (breakdown of family....) ?
It's that of the position of Mother, Mum, Mummy not being at home for the kids.
From desperately going back to work after maternity leave & dumping baby in child care or (at best) with grandparents, to not being there for them in their early teens when they become latchkey kids.

Once upon a time :roll: Father, Dad, Daddy would earn enough money to provide for his family,
however...
With early Liberalism & the demand of some women to go into employment for reasons of equality (or whatever) began the thinnest ever end of a wedge driving the wage down so, eventually, 100 years or so later, BOTH parents HAVE to go out to work to maintain the lifestyle they see every day on TV.

As I say, this is not an invite for insults, it's a point of discussion :) and it's IMO :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick

You don't necessarily have to beat the child, just the threat that the cane as a very real consequence of bad & antisocial behaviour is really enough.

IMO :)

Your argument is illogical Don_Kiddick.

If you threaten a child with a sanction (in your example, the cane), and they continue to misbehave, then you should impose the sanction. Not to do so allows the child to recognise that your threats are nothing but empty gestures, and they will continue to misbehave with impunity. A sanction should be precisely what you claim it to be, i.e., "a very real consequence of bad & antisocial behaviour", or it is just a waste of breath.

I am not personally advocating physical punishment of a child, (as there are other more effective forms of sanctions that can be imposed than the cane). But if you do not follow through the threat of a sanction with a child that continues to misbehave, you end up with an ill-disciplined child - and of your own making!

Exactly Redrobbo :)

You do not HAVE to cane the child but it IS there as a consequence.

Use it where needed.
Some people (and children are people) will never ever respond to anything other than an ultimate punishment, be it corporal, capital or imprisonment.

I was showed the cane in my Junior School once because I was a little-Sh|t. That was enough.
The HUMILITY of the roasting was enough.

It worked. Little-sh|t attitude cured.
For the rest of my educational years.


Just as an anecdotal point of view.

:)

society is a mess.

No social control anmore:

no respect for authoristy, bad parenting, Decline of religion, global media shattering illusions.

What is there anymore?

In the past we could live of the magic and ethos or the unknown and foreign countries. Now everything is at your disposal via the net.

its also dificult to get kids to learn when they can clearly see what lays in store for them in adult life.

Is society really "going down hill"?
Sure it is changing but isn't that a natural process in the development of any society - what about:
the rise in real incomes across society, improvements in healthcare available to all, rising standards in education and access to further education, legislative efforts to reduce prejudice against and discrimination of women, ethnic minorities and the disabled.....I could go on. Those are all changes in the last 15 years that we all can be proud of, can't we?
If people didn't want the teenagers of today to be self-centred, status obsessed mini adults with no regard for their neighbours or communities then they shouldn't have voted for Thatcher.
ONE of the problems I see is that the youth have a very confused identity - treated as untrusted kids on the one hand and adult consumers on the other, often with no power to effect social and economic change around them. That frustration does sometimes boil over into Anti-social behaviour.
As a final aside, do you think that Kids who carry guns and knives in to school will really mend their ways with the threat of the cane?

Thatcher was long gone while today's yoof were barely pheotus'

How can she get the blame?

Rising standards in education? You mean trying to get the kids to sit & face the teacher, all at once simultaneously?

Legislative changes over the past 15 yrs to be proud of?
It's Liberalised legislative changes over the past 15 years which has given all the power & authority TO the kids & taken it AWAY from adults.

Surely?

As for kids who carry weapons to school. A nice long custodial sentance should sort them out. Maybe in a new build prison on a nice chilly Hebridean island :rant:

Originally posted by Mo
And similarly, do you not yet accept Cyclone that a crime survey that excludes so many types of crime cannot in any way be representative of the true situation?

yes and no.
let me explain.
Whilst the final figures might not be properly representative (that's me agreeing with you), the trends from year to year will be, unless they change the way they measure it each year, which would be stupid.

So if it says crime is going down, then it's safe to say that for all the types of crime it measures the overall rate has fallen.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary it makes sense to assume that the unmeasured types move broadly inline with the measured types, thus the survey fulfills it's purpose.

DK - The idea that 'Dad' used to be able to earn a higher equivalent (adjusted for inflation and all that) wage in yesteryear is simply wrong. People have on average now higher real wages than they used too.
Women go to work because that's what they want to do, they don't want to stay at home and look after children, not because they can't afford to eat if they don't.

The threat of corporal punishment at school I suspect would be fairly irrelevant now anyway. The difference is that parents used to enforce discipline at home and teach children to respect teachers. Now the parents are probably only 25 themselves when 10 year jonny is behaving badly at school and the 25 year old single mother (don't take this personally if you are 25 and a single mum, i'm sure you're not like this) tell jonny that he doesn't have to listen to the teachers because they never did her any good (probably liberally intersperced with swearing and vulgarity).
It's a viscous cycle of stupidity.

Originally posted by Cyclone

Women go to work because that's what they want to do, they don't want to stay at home and look after children, not because they can't afford to eat if they don't.


Wooaaaaahhh there, careful!

Personally, I intend to stay at home and raise our children rather than go to work and miss them growing up/turning into little scrotes.

This is one of the reasons why I have put off having children until we are earning enough to live on one salary (or two part time ones) without having to live in a cardboard box in Fallujah eating Netto beans.

Originally posted by Cyclone


The threat of corporal punishment at school I suspect would be fairly irrelevant now anyway. The difference is that parents used to enforce discipline at home and teach children to respect teachers. Now the parents are probably only 25 themselves when 10 year jonny is behaving badly at school and the 25 year old single mother (don't take this personally if you are 25 and a single mum, i'm sure you're not like this) tell jonny that he doesn't have to listen to the teachers because they never did her any good (probably liberally intersperced with swearing and vulgarity).
It's a viscous cycle of stupidity.
That's kind of what I thought I was saying here...

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Interestingly, the jist of feelings I glean from this so far is that the breakdown of traditional family values & structure are primarily at the epicentre of the problem.

Compounded by, as stated by others, and in my opinion, the Liberalism of and toward attitudes & bad-behavioural acceptance over the past 30 years or so.

Originally posted by pussycat
Wooaaaaahhh there, careful!

Personally, I intend to stay at home and raise our children rather than go to work and miss them growing up/turning into little scrotes.

This is one of the reasons why I have put off having children until we are earning enough to live on one salary (or two part time ones) without having to live in a cardboard box in Fallujah eating Netto beans.

the ones that want too I meant, not all women and not that they should have too.

DK - I think we agree on part of this, the bit about family structure and parenting. I disagree on corporal punishment though, there is no evidence to suggest that it's effective and I suspect that anecdotes from years ago are attributing discipline to the cane when it should be attributed to better parenting.

Would you meet me in the middle & agree on a combination theory?

DK - are you suggesting to us that women going to work are to blame for low wages and yob culture? I'm a little confused by what you mean. I will go to work, and I will not be supported my whole life, because I want to have my own money, and my independence. I don't want you telling me I'm responisble for the state of societal decline because I don't want to be in some domestic prison.

Originally posted by kathythebean
DK - are you suggesting to us that women going to work are to blame for low wages and yob culture? I'm a little confused by what you mean. I will go to work, and I will not be supported my whole life, because I want to have my own money, and my independence. I don't want you telling me I'm responisble for the state of societal decline because I don't want to be in some domestic prison.

don't worry, women working hasn't driven down anyones wage. There's not a finite pot of money for pay to come from, pay depends on how much we produce. And women working obviously produce something (goods or service) for the company they work for.
I'm sure the lack of a full time parent does have an impact on a child, but that argument applies equally to men, there's no reason a man can't give up his job and stay at home, or both partners work out some sort of part time schedule...

I wasn't worried at all. I was just disagreeing with dear old DK. Sorry if my post sounded a little harsh, btw, DK. I'm in the middle of writing an essay about feminism :)

Originally posted by kathythebean
I will go to work, and I will not be supported my whole life, because I want to have my own money, and my independence. I don't want you telling me I'm responisble for the state of societal decline because I don't want to be in some domestic prison.

I think it's sad that todays woman views staying at home to rear their children in this way ie domestic prison.

I decided that nurturer/homemaker was going to be my job until my children were old enough not to need me around so much. I consider my job to be of equal value to your job or that of any other woman.

I make sure that all my chores are done and a nutrious meal is on the table every day. No convenience foods for us. No 'go away I'm busy' when my children come home from school and want me to play. I consider the time that I spend on my family to be an investment in their future, in the type of person they are likely to become and the type of life they choose to lead.

There are sacrificies in terms of income and we go without material things but I would prefer that anyday to putting my children second to a job.

Of course, Mo, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I certainly do not view your life as a prison, or my future life as a prison, if I chose to stay at home and look after children. I think I phrased my opinion in a bad way.

All I mean is that choice is the operative word here. You are happy with your life and that is good. But you know that if you wanted to, you could go out and get a job, or do pretty much whatever you wanted to, so you are not in the domestic prison I described so badly! I your husband became abusive, or refused to give you money to feed your children, then you know you have the option to leave him, get a job of your own, and keep your children safe. Prison is when you do not have the option to leave, as women before us have not had. Which is why I take offence if someone blames womens right to work for societal decline.

Once again, I apologise profusely if it seems I was looking down on you or dismissing your lifestyle as wrong, as that was definitely not my intention :) I will read my posts more carefully in future.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Of course, Mo, and I'm sorry if I offended you. I certainly do not view your life as a prison, or my future life as a prison, if I chose to stay at home and look after children. I think I phrased my opinion in a bad way.

All I mean is that choice is the operative word here. You are happy with your life and that is good. But you know that if you wanted to, you could go out and get a job, or do pretty much whatever you wanted to, so you are not in the domestic prison I described so badly! I your husband became abusive, or refused to give you money to feed your children, then you know you have the option to leave him, get a job of your own, and keep your children safe. Prison is when you do not have the option to leave, as women before us have not had. Which is why I take offence if someone blames womens right to work for societal decline.

Once again, I apologise profusely if it seems I was looking down on you or dismissing your lifestyle as wrong, as that was definitely not my intention :) I will read my posts more carefully in future.

No offence taken Kathy I :thumbsup:

I agree that a woman is only truly liberated when she has a choice.

Of course you are right in what you say above, I don't see how anybody could argue with that.

Kathy, didn't mean to rattle you :) . Cyclone answered for me really & said what I'd have replied.

I did chuckle at your hot-head post followed by your admission of reading feminism for an essay :D


I thought ... tchoh! :roll: typical militant feminist retort...



:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :wink: tee hee please don't bite!

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Kathy, didn't mean to rattle you :) .
I did chuckle at your hot-head post followed by your admission of reading feminism for an essay :D
I thought ... tchoh! :roll: typical militant feminist retort...
:hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :wink: tee hee please don't bite!

hot head? admission? donki hon, give it a rest. Kathy does at least post sense. I suppose we could say that most of your postings have been typical militant male chauvinist pig rantings anyway, and therefore totally irrelevant - no offence, donki - so don't bite back :P

Kathy, best of luck with the essay ... it's a very eye opening subject ...

I really find it objectional when people say that one parent (female) families are to blame for today's society. I'm afraid that bad parenting to the greater and bad schooling to the lesser degree is to blame and also the authorities turning a blind eye to anti-social behaviour.

I read just the other day that a man hanged himself as he was due to go to court for facing up to school children who had been tormenting him and his workmates for weeks. Then there was the teacher who was jailed for shooting at her tormentors with an air rifle. What happened to the children in all this? Got away scot free I suppose, thinking that they'd done nothing wrong? And their parents probably getting a big laugh out of it in front of them too.

No-one wants to go back to the bad old days ... but something has to be done with these out of control youngsters, someone is going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later. And IMO it has to start in the home.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
I suppose we could say that most of your postings have been typical militant male chauvinist pig rantings anyway, and therefore totally irrelevant - no offence, donki - so don't bite back :P
:o cheeky monkey! where - which - when? :D

Originally posted by rubydazzler
hot head? admission? donki hon, give it a rest. Kathy does at least post sense. I suppose we could say that most of your postings have been typical militant male chauvinist pig rantings anyway, and therefore totally irrelevant - no offence, donki - so don't bite back :P

Kathy, best of luck with the essay ... it's a very eye opening subject ...

I really find it objectional when people say that one parent (female) families are to blame for today's society. I'm afraid that bad parenting to the greater and bad schooling to the lesser degree is to blame and also the authorities turning a blind eye to anti-social behaviour.

I read just the other day that a man hanged himself as he was due to go to court for facing up to school children who had been tormenting him and his workmates for weeks. Then there was the teacher who was jailed for shooting at her tormentors with an air rifle. What happened to the children in all this? Got away scot free I suppose, thinking that they'd done nothing wrong? And their parents probably getting a big laugh out of it in front of them too.

No-one wants to go back to the bad old days ... but something has to be done with these out of control youngsters, someone is going to have to bite the bullet sooner or later. And IMO it has to start in the home.

She did kind-of blow her lid a little. Ranting on the phone to the 999 operator and then firing an air rifle (at the floor admitidly). And to top it all off she only suspected the two youths involved, she hadn't actually seen them do any damage.
I was surprised though that she got a custodial sentence.

I wouldn't be surprised if one parent families do tend to do a worse job of parenting. It's bound to be harder with no one to share the burden. And it just so happens that at the moment in this country most single parent families are with the mother, but that's all down to court bias.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I wouldn't be surprised if one parent families do tend to do a worse job of parenting.

Do you consider that the ones YOU know do a worse job? You seem to have decided opinions about everything, so have you ever thought of offering them any help or advice to assist them do it better? As a single parent myself I think I did a top notch job of parenting. But of course I would say that wouldn't I? :)

So, as a forum do we consider that all these rampaging kids are from single (mother) parent families? The fathers that are going into classrooms and threatening teachers are figments of someone's imaginations? The fathers we've read about that go round later and beat up people who complain about their kids behaviour, who are they? The parents who give in to their children's every demand and talk about teachers, police, neighbours in a derogatory way in front of their children ... they're not all single parents are they? The vast majority of families are still two parent - and their children are just as badly behaved as any other.

:rant: over (for now) :cool:

offering who help? I was making a prediction based on the obvious difference between 2 and 1 parents in a family, if you don't agree, then fine, I don't really care.
I'm sure you're a good parent, but what difference does that make, you're not the same as every single parent, and possibly not even representative.
I also didn't say that 2 parent families were automatically better, i just think that they have a better chance and probably turn out better on average.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
Do you consider that the ones YOU know do a worse job? You seem to have decided opinions about everything, so have you ever thought of offering them any help or advice to assist them do it better? As a single parent myself I think I did a top notch job of parenting. But of course I would say that wouldn't I? :)

So, as a forum do we consider that all these rampaging kids are from single (mother) parent families? The fathers that are going into classrooms and threatening teachers are figments of someone's imaginations? The fathers we've read about that go round later and beat up people who complain about their kids behaviour, who are they? The parents who give in to their children's every demand and talk about teachers, police, neighbours in a derogatory way in front of their children ... they're not all single parents are they? The vast majority of families are still two parent - and their children are just as badly behaved as any other.

:rant: over (for now) :cool:

Originally posted by Cyclone
offering who help?
offering help to the single parent families you know who do such a poor job and who need a male figure in their lives
Originally posted by Cyclone
I was making a prediction based on the obvious difference between 2 and 1 parents in a family
obvious differences? obvious to whom? As, according to the figures, the vast majority of fathers spend about 20 minutes or less per day on parenting and most consider any input they have into the household, other than actually going out to work, as "helping" I don't know how you feel you can make such a "prediction".
I was asking you whether you found the children of the single parents you know to be better or worse than the children from the two parent families you know. You didn't answer that part of the question at all.
Originally posted by Cyclone
if you don't agree, then fine, I don't really care.

This is a lame rejoinder. Why enter into debate at all if this is the best you can do when challenged? if you don't care - why make sweeping unsubstantiated comments in first place?

I'm with Ruby on this one....but I can't say anymore about it because some of the anti-single parent comments have really angered and upset me, and I'm frightened of what I might say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rant:

Originally posted by Cyclone
offering who help? I was making a prediction based on the obvious difference between 2 and 1 parents in a family, if you don't agree, then fine, I don't really care.
I'm sure you're a good parent, but what difference does that make, you're not the same as every single parent, and possibly not even representative.
I also didn't say that 2 parent families were automatically better, i just think that they have a better chance and probably turn out better on average.


I agree with you. Infact I remember reading a study involving the success of people from 2 parent Vs 1 parent families, where success was measured by their salaries as adults (OK, only 1 measure of success, but it does give a small indication of surrounding issues too such as how successful they were at school/uni). The ones from 2 parent families achieved much more highly.

Oh RubyD, you do bite so! :hihi:
At the risk of sounding like Michael Winner; "Calm Down Dear" :o :wink: :P (tongue-in-cheek-smiley)

To clarify, my original post was a suggestion not a Gospel according to Don...
May I, without inviting a tirade of insults, offer another earlier link to the primary cause (breakdown of family....) ?

Originally posted by rubydazzler
So, as a forum do we consider that all these rampaging kids are from single (mother) parent families? The fathers that are going into classrooms and threatening teachers are figments of someone's imaginations? The fathers we've read about that go round later and beat up people who complain about their kids behaviour, who are they? The parents who give in to their children's every demand and talk about teachers, police, neighbours in a derogatory way in front of their children ... they're not all single parents are they? The vast majority of families are still two parent - and their children are just as badly behaved as any other.
But, while I 'don' the cloak of cheauvanism...
May I also suggest that the 'rampaging sorts' that you rant about in your above post are simply witless products of a Matriarchal family line where the role of Father as head-of-the-house was eroded years ago... ?
You know, sort of like blokes being silenced by feminists screeching Cheauvanist... Over time...
Leaving the plebs you see now who have no idea whatsoever of how to behave or comminicate?

Just rising to the bait :thumbsup:

Originally posted by rubydazzler
offering help to the single parent families you know who do such a poor job and who need a male figure in their lives
why would I do that? I've got my own life thanks and i'll spend my time and energy improving that, not someone elses'.

obvious differences? obvious to whom?
me obviously. And if you can't see any obvious difference between a 1 and 2 parent family then you have blinkers on.

As, according to the figures, the vast majority of fathers spend about 20 minutes or less per day on parenting and most consider any input they have into the household, other than actually going out to work, as "helping" I don't know how you feel you can make such a "prediction".

You clearly have an axe to grind here and some sort of anti man agenda. I specifically avoided talking about single mothers and talked about single parents, this isn't about a man/woman thing, it's about 1 or 2 adults looking after a child.

I was asking you whether you found the children of the single parents you know to be better or worse than the children from the two parent families you know. You didn't answer that part of the question at all.
that would be because i have no personal experience to draw on to answer it. But I don't like talking anecdotes anyway, they just cloud the issue.

This is a lame rejoinder. Why enter into debate at all if this is the best you can do when challenged? if you don't care - why make sweeping unsubstantiated comments in first place?
It wasn't unsubstantiated, it was reasoned. The fact that you dismiss my reasoning and made your reply into a men vs woman issue made me not want to discuss the issue with you as you are using emotion rather than logic as the fuel to your arguments. It doesn't matter what I say, you won't change your mind, and you don't actually have a rational argument to put to me, so no reason for me to change mine.

Just to be clear, are you trying to argue that single parent families are on average just as effective at raising a child as 2 parent families? (Please don't answer with an anecdote, i'm asking about on average).

Just to be clear, are you trying to argue that single parent families are on average just as effective at raising a child as 2 parent families? (Please don't answer with an anecdote, i'm asking about on average).

I'll answer that....yes I do think that a single parent can be just as effective a two parents. From first hand experience of being a single parent of a severely disabled child, whose father was frightened to go near him in case he hurt him ~ he rarely even gave him a kiss....if we had been together as a couple bringing up our son, I am sure that our son may have suffered. As it was, me being on my own meant I could give him a lot more attention. I'll give his dad his due, he helped out in emergencies, but that was about it really.

I'm really surprised that there doesn't seem to be any single dads joining in this debate....to me, it seems to have been more anti-single mothers than anti-single parents....my father was a single dad bringing up three girls, and I think my sisters and I have turned out ok....funny thing is, we're doing better than my two half sisters who stayed with my mother and their father...that's a two parent family in case you haven't worked it out.

Originally posted by Ann_x
I'll answer that....yes I do think that a single parent can be just as effective a two parents. From first hand experience of being a single parent of a severely disabled child, whose father was frightened to go near him in case he hurt him ~ he rarely even gave him a kiss....if we had been together as a couple bringing up our son, I am sure that our son may have suffered. As it was, me being on my own meant I could give him a lot more attention. I'll give his dad his due, he helped out in emergencies, but that was about it really.
.

You're not answering it though. Cyclone specified "on average" and you're citing just one case - yours.

No one person can give an "average" opinion on this particular subject, but can only state what they know. If you want statistics you would have to go to the department that deals with it.

In fact I cited two cases, my own and my dad's.

I know of other single parent families (mothers and fathers), and in most of those cases, that parent is more vigilant with their children because they don't want to let them down, and, of those children who have already grown into adulthood, quite a few have decided to go to university. Whereas I know of some children who have come from two parent families who didn't do well at school because they were rude, disruptive, and in some cases violent, and have ended up in trouble with the police.

I'm wish some single fathers would join in this thread ~ there must be one or two in Sheffield!

Originally posted by Ann_x


I'm wish some single fathers would join in this thread ~ there must be one or two in Sheffield!
No chance Ann, the courts always favour the woman.
Besides all the bad bad men will be in the boozer squandering the family allowance :hihi:

Most single fathers I know are in that position because the mother has left the family for one reason or another (and that includes situations where the mother has died).

As for the Courts always favouring the mother, I think you'll find that these days, with the involvement of social services and other child agencies, it's what is best for the child that is decided in Court, and the child is often asked who they want to live with, and that the Courts do not "always" favour the mother.

Originally posted by Ann_x
Most single fathers I know are in that position because the mother has left the family for one reason or another (and that includes situations where the mother has died).

As for the Courts always favouring the mother, I think you'll find that these days, with the involvement of social services and other child agencies, it's what is best for the child that is decided in Court, and the child is often asked who they want to live with, and that the Courts do not "always" favour the mother.



which is why Mothers for justice were on top of the crucible.

Oops, no, it's because the courts favour the women and so unless the man can prove that she's some sort of psycho she'll get the kids.

I specifically asked not to be answered with anecdotes. If you are incapable of forming an opinion using reason and logic rather than a few examples then you can't contribute to the discussion. I'm not arguing with your examples, of course there are good single parents, just as there are bad 2 parents families. That's not my point.

Maybe you'll go so far as to agree with me that it is harder for a single parent to raise a child than for two parents...
If you can bring yourself to admit that then extrapolate from there without reference to your own examples.

leave it Ann_x, leave it - s/he's not worf it ... :D

Better get back on topic anyway or the mods will be after us! One-parent families is really a side issue here

I'd pulled pages of statistics, but hardly worth posting them really. People with selective reading skills and such a tenacious grip on their own version of "logic" and "emotion" and no personal experience can only see their own POV :rolleyes:

a java programmer from Walkley, knows no one-parent familes, and considers their own birthday N/A ... says it all really!:P

Going out into the sunshine now ... have a lovely day everyone :clap:

I'll say this, and then leave Cyclone to go out and try to get to know some single parents, who might change her/his bigoted point of view, but I doubt it....if single parents (mums or dads) do find it more difficult than a two-parent family, then it is usually for financial reasons.

For myself, I think it was easier than if his father and I had been a couple....I do realise that that isn't the case for everybody.

I shan't be posting on this thread anymore as it's a pointless exercise, because it's not worth wasting my time if people won't read things properly, and only see what they want to see!!!!!

Originally posted by Cyclone
Women go to work because that's what they want to do, they don't want to stay at home and look after children, not because they can't afford to eat if they don't.

i am returning to work in 2 weeks from maternity and its not becasue i want to, its because I HAVE TO, i am a single parent and due to having a mortgage (which government dont pay) i have to return to work, i am only goin back part time but if i did not return i would have to sell my home and try to get council accomodation which would be paid for, i do not want to go on benefits and have to scrimp and scrape to give my child everything she needs ..
would you rather i went back to work 3 days a week and paid my own way through life or would you rather i gave up work and my house and scrounged every penny i could get out of the social system???
yes some women are returning to work to avoid looking after the kids but i would love to be able to afford to stay home and spend every moment i could watching her grow up.

Originally posted by Ann_x
No one person can give an "average" opinion on this particular subject, but can only state what they know. If you want statistics you would have to go to the department that deals with it.

In fact I cited two cases, my own and my dad's.

I know of other single parent families (mothers and fathers), and in most of those cases, that parent is more vigilant with their children because they don't want to let them down, and, of those children who have already grown into adulthood, quite a few have decided to go to university. Whereas I know of some children who have come from two parent families who didn't do well at school because they were rude, disruptive, and in some cases violent, and have ended up in trouble with the police.

I'm wish some single fathers would join in this thread ~ there must be one or two in Sheffield!


Statistics show that 2 parent families are more successful. I think that's what Cyclone was getting at, rather than asking you to cite 2 personal (and arguably heavily biased) examples.

Originally posted by t020
Statistics show that 2 parent families are more successful. I think that's what Cyclone was getting at, rather than asking you to cite 2 personal (and arguably heavily biased) examples.

i am a single parent but my daughters father plays an active role in her life, does this count as a 2 parent family?

Originally posted by savbaby
i am a single parent but my daughters father plays an active role in her life, does this count as a 2 parent family?

I don't know, I don't write the definitions of terms. Probably not I'd think.

statistics? t020 - if you're going to insist on bringing statistics into the debate, we might as well all go home now .... :P

i know these people say 2 parent families are more sucessful but i was brought up by my dad in a one parent family and ihave done ok for myself, i do not go out and cause trouble like some of these people,

i do not think it makes much difference how many parents are involved in the childs upbringing i think its how they choose to raise thier child. i also think that some 2 parent families are worse off than a single parent family because i have seen children who play one parent off another and get away with it making the children spoilt and thinking they are exempt from rules

hear, hear, savbaby and Ann_x ... don't let people demoralise you with their tales of doom and gloom about one-parent families. One good parent is worth more than two indifferent parents anyday. I'd be quite surprised to find that the acquaintances of people like t020 and Cyclone who are from one-parent families have done any worse than they have in life. May even have done better in fact, a lot depends on their intelligence anyway.

As they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics ... you can make statistics say anything you like, as t020 as a trainee accountant will know quite well. The figures show that about 85% of one-parent families are headed by the mother, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I'd bet it isn't anything like 85% of the total coming from one-parent families.

You have to remember that one-parent families are from all walks of life and from different causes, death of a partner, divorce, desertion as well as the stereotypical young single mother so beloved of the gutter press. Parenting and social skills vary too - but financial pressure is the most affecting factor in social deprivation amongst one-parent families.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
The figures show that about 85% of one-parent families are headed by the mother, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I'd bet it isn't anything like 85% of the total coming from one-parent families.


That is of course utter nonsense. 85% relates to the percentage of SINGLE parent families headed by the mother, not the proportion of ALL families that are single parented. You can't then go on to compare that figure with the proportion of antisocial behaviour. What you can do is compare the total percentage of families that are single parented and then compare that to the percentage of, say, ASBOs slapped on kids from single parented families. I'd predict that the proportion of ASBOs placed on kids from single parent backgrounds was much higher than the proportion of kids from single parent backgrounds.

You can bend statistics to suit any argument. It's as simple as this - bad parents = bad kids. It really doesn't matter if they have been raised in a 2 or 1 parent family. And I would argue that there are just as many hooligan kids on the streets from 2 parent families as there are from 1 parent families. And NO I am not going to look for any stats to back this up I'm basing it on what I see around me. And NO I am not quoting it as gospel it is my opinion.

Yeah you can argue and stick to the stereotypes about it all being 1 parent young gymslip mums to blame. Thugs/hooligans come from homes with a mum and dad too!!!

You can argue that 1 parent families are worse off because they will suffer financially - what about 1 parent families in the higher income bracket. Earning more than a 2 parent family on minimum wage etc.

As rubydazzler said 1 parent families come from all walks of life. And where financial constrains definitely do impact in social deprivation among many families - not just single parent ones - the biggest negative factor is kids being raised by adults that have absolutely no parenting skills and very little social skills.

The problems are caused by a distinct lack of discipline and respect in the home. And it's a respect that should go both ways. These kids have no role models, they get treated with no respect at home, they are dragged up not brought up - so is it any wonder they behave the way they do outside of the home.

I think it's utter nonsense to say that kids from single parent families are more likely to behave badly or have ASBOs slapped on on them. And again I am not going to waste time looking for stats to prove or disprove this. 2 parents without the capabilities or sense needed to raise a kid can make just as much of a mess (if not bigger) than 1 parent that is lacking the skills.

t020 - do you want to take another look at your last posting and see if you can edit it so that it makes some sense?

Of course 85% relates to the number of single parent families headed by the mother, that is what I said. Conversely, if you prefer, 15% are headed by the father. You just repeated what I posted and then added some gibberish about proportions.

"I'd predict that the proportion of ASBOs placed on kids from single parent backgrounds was much higher than the proportion of kids from single parent backgrounds" huh??

I also don't accept you premise that the number of ASBOs will be greater on members of one-parent families. Find me some figures to back up that assertion.

If you want to discuss this further I think you should start a thread as this thread is NOT about one-parent families. It's about the decline in society in general. In which people like youself play a part.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
t020 - do you want to take another look at your last posting and see if you can edit it so that it makes some sense?

Of course 85% relates to the number of single parent families headed by the mother, that is what I said. Conversely, if you prefer, 15% are headed by the father. You just repeated what I posted and then added some gibberish about proportions.

"I'd predict that the proportion of ASBOs placed on kids from single parent backgrounds was much higher than the proportion of kids from single parent backgrounds" huh??



It's simple really - you somehow projected a figure of 85% of all single parent families being headed by a woman and related that to the overall proportion of crime committed by kids from single parent families being less than 85%. Surely you realise this is nonsense? If you were saying 85% of kids come from single parent families but less than 85% of antisocial behaviour is committed by kids from single parent families then yes, it would be a valid link to make. But that isn't what you said (and incidentally, 24% of children in 2004 were born into single parent families).

Just to remind you of what you said originally:
Originally posted by rubydazzler

The figures show that about 85% of one-parent families are headed by the mother, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I'd bet it isn't anything like 85% of the total coming from one-parent families.

Can't you see that's a nonsense link?

What would make sense would be: The figures show 24% of all families are headed by single parents, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I bet it is way above 24% of the total being committed by kids coming from one parent families.


As for my prediction which you seem unable to understand - perhaps I could illustrate it with some figures? 24% of children single parent families.... say if 40% of crimes were committed by children from said families, then it is clear that those from single parent families are proportionally more likely to commit a crime. Comprendé?

your last posting made even less sense than the other, t020.

You're just making figures up out of thin air now ... if you cant do better than that just give it up. Thank god you aren't keeping my books!

And why have you suddenly started speaking in tongues? comprendé? why not just type "do you understand" Neither of us are spanish or mexican! However, I don't think anyone could understand such specious reasoning as you've employed on this thread.

I'm not going to answer you anymore, you have no experience of the things you're trying to discuss and I'm not prepared to indulge you any further.

In trying so hard to prove others wrong, you're just making yourself look foolish.

you win the most points for quoting out of context. Well done.

to show what i actually said and what it was in response too;

DK
With early Liberalism & the demand of some women to go into employment for reasons of equality (or whatever)
Me
DK - The idea that 'Dad' used to be able to earn a higher equivalent (adjusted for inflation and all that) wage in yesteryear is simply wrong. People have on average now higher real wages than they used too.
Women go to work because that's what they want to do, they don't want to stay at home and look after children, not because they can't afford to eat if they don't.

in Italics the section you decided to quote

Originally posted by savbaby
i am returning to work in 2 weeks from maternity and its not becasue i want to, its because I HAVE TO, i am a single parent and due to having a mortgage (which government dont pay) i have to return to work, i am only goin back part time but if i did not return i would have to sell my home and try to get council accomodation which would be paid for, i do not want to go on benefits and have to scrimp and scrape to give my child everything she needs ..
would you rather i went back to work 3 days a week and paid my own way through life or would you rather i gave up work and my house and scrounged every penny i could get out of the social system???
yes some women are returning to work to avoid looking after the kids but i would love to be able to afford to stay home and spend every moment i could watching her grow up.

and you win the prize for most tenacious. I give up, you're right, single parent families are clearly more likely to bring up well adjusted kids. Someone tell the government, afterall they keep harping on about the family unit and changes in society causing problems. It's all bolderdash, in fact if they make it compulsory for families to split up all our problems will be solved in a stroke as kids from single parent families are on average better behaved in your world.

just look at my crazy logic, 2 adults = a family with a higher income and more adult to child time than 1 adult. What a stupid idea that somehow having more attention would make for better bringing up of a child. Less contact must be the way forward. Hay, how about the 0 parent family, it's the wave of the future! :loopy:

ps - did it make you feel clever when you looked at my profile. Did it upset you that I choose not to share my birthday with you all, you'll get over it i'm sure.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
hear, hear, savbaby and Ann_x ... don't let people demoralise you with their tales of doom and gloom about one-parent families. One good parent is worth more than two indifferent parents anyday. I'd be quite surprised to find that the acquaintances of people like t020 and Cyclone who are from one-parent families have done any worse than they have in life. May even have done better in fact, a lot depends on their intelligence anyway.

As they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics ... you can make statistics say anything you like, as t020 as a trainee accountant will know quite well. The figures show that about 85% of one-parent families are headed by the mother, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I'd bet it isn't anything like 85% of the total coming from one-parent families.

You have to remember that one-parent families are from all walks of life and from different causes, death of a partner, divorce, desertion as well as the stereotypical young single mother so beloved of the gutter press. Parenting and social skills vary too - but financial pressure is the most affecting factor in social deprivation amongst one-parent families.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you win the most points for quoting out of context. Well done.

how have i quoted out of context????? you were saying that mothers were returning to work because they wanted to avoid looking after the children! and that it was nothing to do with financial situations..
you were making out that by mothers going back to work they were somehow depriving thier children of a stable family home. i was simply stating that i would love to stay home and give my child every minute i could to ensure she gets what she needs in attentiion and discipline but due to circumstances i cannot.

Originally posted by savbaby
how have i quoted out of context????? you were saying that mothers were returning to work because they wanted to avoid looking after the children! and that it was nothing to do with financial situations..
you were making out that by mothers going back to work they were somehow depriving thier children of a stable family home. i was simply stating that i would love to stay home and give my child every minute i could to ensure she gets what she needs in attentiion and discipline but due to circumstances i cannot.

No, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick, and I can only presume on purpose.
I was saying that women did not go back to work because of 'liberalism' and some crazy desire to be considered equal, which was what DK implied. Nor did I say that it was because they didn't want to look after children. I intended to say that it was their choice and rightly so.
Neither did I say that women working somehow deprived children of a stable family, that is in fact what DK said and what I was arguing against. If you can't be bothered to actually read what's been written then we can't actually have a sensible discussion.

I do feel that the several single mums and single mum supporters posting here have taken this all very personally, which is not a good position to argue a point from.

You have helped to reinforce my point that 2 parent families have an advantage straight away over 1 (the bit of your quote in bold).

Originally posted by Cyclone
No, you have got completely the wrong end of the stick, and I can only presume on purpose.
I was saying that women did not go back to work because of 'liberalism' and some crazy desire to be considered equal, which was what DK implied. Nor did I say that it was because they didn't want to look after children. I intended to say that it was their choice and rightly so.
Neither did I say that women working somehow deprived children of a stable family, that is in fact what DK said and what I was arguing against. If you can't be bothered to actually read what's been written then we can't actually have a sensible discussion.

I do feel that the several single mums and single mum supporters posting here have taken this all very personally, which is not a good position to argue a point from.

You have helped to reinforce my point that 2 parent families have an advantage straight away over 1 (the bit of your quote in bold).
i have read back again and again what you said about women going back to work and now you have explained it i can see you were saying it is thier rights, but initially looking at it you did not make this very clear. I have read it back to my housemate and he agrees it could be taken way i took it ,,,
even though i am going back to work and will be spending 24 hours away from my daughter she will still have a well balanced disciplined life and i will ensure that she has all attention in the home she needs. I fully understand what the point is but i thought you were attacking women for going back to work just cause they wanted to.
i think parenting is a major key in the trouble youths of today but i do not think that it makes much difference if its one parent or two.

well, fair enough, I like people to be clear, so I should do my best to be clear myself.
I just think that being a single parent makes the job harder (not impossible) and so there are more 'failed' single parents than failed double parents (although there are still examples of these).
Most of it is probably down to attitude though and you and the other mums on here seem to have the right attitude. To be honest I wouldn't really expect the type of bad parent (single or both) who produce anti-social monsters to frequent any sort of forum.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
your last posting made even less sense than the other, t020.

You're just making figures up out of thin air now ... if you cant do better than that just give it up. Thank god you aren't keeping my books!

And why have you suddenly started speaking in tongues? comprendé? why not just type "do you understand" Neither of us are spanish or mexican! However, I don't think anyone could understand such specious reasoning as you've employed on this thread.

I'm not going to answer you anymore, you have no experience of the things you're trying to discuss and I'm not prepared to indulge you any further.

In trying so hard to prove others wrong, you're just making yourself look foolish.


What is so hard to grasp?! :loopy:


Re-read what you said:

Originally posted by rubydazzler

The figures show that about 85% of one-parent families are headed by the mother, I can't find any stats for anti-social behaviour but I'd bet it isn't anything like 85% of the total coming from one-parent families.

Can you honestly not see what is wrong with that?!

Everybody can argue about parenting till they are blue in the face. My wife is from S.E. Asia and we have two kids. Lets compare the U.K. with somewhere like Singapore. Spotlessly clean, safe, hardly any crime. This comes about because all the bad guys are in jail. No need for social workers, they don't care about rehabilitation either. The authorities acknowledge that 98% of society is law abiding and they are sure as hell going to remove the 2% that spoil the lives of others. Is that a police state? Maybe so. Give me safety and security over the rampaging yob culture that is spiralling out of control in the U.K.

For those that want to tell me to move out there (I am a U.K. citizen) ,,,,, it's in our future plans.

Originally posted by martin1print
Lets compare the U.K. with somewhere like Singapore. Spotlessly clean, safe, hardly any crime. This comes about because all the bad guys are in jail. No need for social workers, they don't care about rehabilitation either. The authorities acknowledge that 98% of society is law abiding and they are sure as hell going to remove the 2% that spoil the lives of others.

OK, but comparing Singapore to the UK is comparing apples to oranges (yes, I have many friends from S E Asia too). Over there, respect for authority is drilled into the population from a young age.

Over here, if all the bad guys were in jail and off the streets, you'd have to build hundreds more prisons :!:

Originally posted by martin1print
For those that want to tell me to move out there (I am a U.K. citizen) ,,,,, it's in our future plans.

I gather you can now obtain licences to chew gum.....without which of course it is illegal.

I think it would be fair to call the Singaporean model 'illiberal' at least.

You can reduce crime and unemployment to 0 if you execute all criminals and the unemployed/unemployable. Doesn't mean that it is a good idea though.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I gather you can now obtain licences to chew gum.....without which of course it is illegal.

I doubt that would put people off migrating.

Oh Abdul, don't be defeatest!
Lets build more jails, there's lots of freezing cold remote islands around Northern Britain to site them!

Did anyone see the news from the 4th May?
re the pupil who raped the teacher in school?
This is from Times Online


QUOTE]

May 04, 2005

Teacher is raped and threatened with death by pupil, 15
By Steve Bird and Alexandra Blair

A TEACHER who was raped in a classroom by a 15-year-old pupil on her second day at a new school has been so traumatised by the attack that she has been unable to return to work for the past eight months.

The woman, 28, was marking exercise books after lessons when she was singled out by a well-built boy who had been prowling the corridors of the Inner London school.

During a 12-minute attack the teacher was headbutted, bitten, punched and told that she would be killed unless she gave into his demands.

After the full details of the rape were revealed at the Old Bailey yesterday, one teaching union called for panic buttons to be fitted in all classrooms in an effort to protect school staff from dangerous pupils.

The attacker, now aged 16, admitted raping the woman at the secondary school in September last year. Two other charges of sexual assault were ordered to remain on file. Neither the boy nor the school can be named for legal reasons.

Brendan Kelly, for the prosecution, told how the boy, from southeast London, subjected the woman to a “sustained and violent sexual attack” after he found her alone in her classroom at around 4pm.

The teacher, who had never taught her attacker, felt a “strong” arm around her neck, but initially thought it was a pupil playing a practical joke.

The boy, who is 5ft 11in tall, dragged her across the classroom and tightened his grip around her windpipe.

In the struggle the teacher stabbed him with a ballpoint pen and hurled furniture at him. The youth ripped off her clothing and bit one of her breasts before punching her face and repeatedly threatened to kill her. He headbutted her and forced her to perform an obscene oral act, the basis of the rape charge.

Half-naked, the woman ran to the headmaster’s office. Her face was covered in so much blood that at first the other teachers did not realise she was the new recruit.

The teenager, who was captured on CCTV running from the building, was arrested the next day. His trousers contained traces of his victim’s blood. A sample of his DNA matched semen retrieved after the attack. Adjourning sentencing until psychiatric reports are prepared, Judge Goddard, QC, said that because of the seriousness of the crime only a custodial sentence would be considered.

After the hearing a spokesman for the local education authority said: “We will continue to offer full support and guidance to the teacher, the head teacher and all other school staff.”

A statement issued by the teacher read: “It has been a gruelling wait for me and my family to see that justice has been done and this individual is prevented from harming anyone else.”

The woman, who had worked for four years at another London school, said that she had always considered her job a vocation.

The youth has a previous conviction for carrying a knife and had been placed on a community punishment order last year.




A few months before the attack he was accused of threatening a woman in her twenties in South London. It is also understood that the youth, who was brought up by his single mother, had been expelled from two other schools.



The boy spoke only to say “Yes miss” when asked his name by the court clerk, and showed no emotion.

David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, called for panic buttons to be installed in secondary school classrooms.

“I hope this pupil gets the severest sentence for this crime to send out the message that such horrific violence against teachers cannot be tolerated,” he said.

“If schools believe teachers are in any way at risk, they should seriously consider panic buttons in every classroom.”

However, John Dunford, the general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association, disagreed. “Schools will want to consider more protection, but a one-off incident like this can happen anywhere, on a school’s premises or in a street alleyway,” he said.

“I think there is a fine line between proper protection of teachers and pupils and not turning schools into fortresses." Detective Chief Inspector Andy Rowell, who led the investigation, said that security had been stepped up at the school with improved CCTV, security staff at entrances and a police liaison officer appointed to work with schools in the area.

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Oh Abdul, don't be defeatest!
Lets build more jails, there's lots of freezing cold remote islands around Northern Britain to site them!

That's fine, as long as they're not built in my backyard.

Yes, I did read of the attack. I was shocked that a pupil who had been expelled from other schools and was known for his violent conduct was allowed to walk the streets.

And from the May 05, 2005

School ignorant of boy rapist’s violent history
By Steve Bird

AN INVESTIGATION began yesterday into how a 15-year-old pupil who was known to police as a potential danger to women was free to rape a teacher at his school.

The boy’s sexually aggressive behaviour came to the attention of the authorities at least five years before the assault, but his history was never relayed to staff at the Inner London school he attended.

This week, the boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted raping, headbutting and biting a 28-year-old teacher as she marked books in her classroom in September last year.

In March last year he was accused of threatening a 12-year-old pupil with rape at a railway station, bringing him to the attention of the British Transport Police. He was not charged.

He was later arrested in connection with attempting to rape a 24-year-old woman in Kennington Park, southeast London. Again, no charges were made, owing to a lack of evidence. A few months before the teacher was raped a cleaner at the school was attacked, but her assailant, believed to be the teenager, backed off when told that she was pregnant. The boy was also charged with possessing a knife last year.

At the age of 10, he was excluded from school after being accused of bullying and violence and was banned from another school for bad behaviour.

The boy, from southeast London, will be sentenced next month.

Was going to start a new thread but found this one and it seems it is on the same lines as my thoughts..

I was watching a programme earlier about the war and it showed communities in Britain all helping each other and battling on despite the hardship and it made me think about all the current headlines about the recession and all the doom and gloom about how we have no money to go on holidays, pay our bills or go out for a meal any more.

In the 1940s I guess that only the rich really did all these things anyway and working class people went to work and did a hard days work, put food on the table, paid their bills , clothed their kids(usually by making them by hand), and saved up for a holiday at the seaside once a year.
Kids looked forward to Christmas as being the only time apart from birthdays that they got any presents and they helped out if their parents asked them to, helping go shopping ,setting the table or clearing away the pots.

Thinking about today, so much has changed and I know it sounds a little nostalgic but I really do wish those times were back.Maybe it is my age(47), but it seems to me that those values were very important in my childhood and I do miss that community and family spirit that seems to have disappeared from our society and wonder if it will ever be the same again?

Aaaargh, god protect us from the good old days. Deaths of our brave boys fighting overseas were numbered in their dozens every day, now each and every death is notable, and rightly so. No central heating or double glazing so we used to freeze while performing our ablutions then a quick dash down to the only warm house in the room at that time of day - the kitchen.

Holidays were the tent thrown in the boot and off to some exotic location - not. Christmas started early in our house with the turkey hanging over the bath dripping blood into your bath water when the bowl slipped.

You could leave your doors open only because there was nothing worth stealing.

No, I was born in the 50's and don't miss any of the intervening decades. This decade is the best and the next will probably be better.

PS No rickets or Hitler in this decade either.

Aaaargh, god protect us from the good old days. Deaths of our brave boys fighting overseas were numbered in their dozens every day, now each and every death is notable, and rightly so. No central heating or double glazing so we used to freeze while performing our ablutions then a quick dash down to the only warm house in the room at that time of day - the kitchen.

Holidays were the tent thrown in the boot and off to some exotic location - not. Christmas started early in our house with the turkey hanging over the bath dripping blood into your bath water when the bowl slipped.

You could leave your doors open only because there was nothing worth stealing.

No, I was born in the 50's and don't miss any of the intervening decades. This decade is the best and the next will probably be better.

PS No rickets or Hitler in this decade either.
Well I was born in 1961 and remember it as being a happy time