Justin12

Corporal Punishment remained lawful in State Schools until 1987 - I have no dispute regarding that . Nevertheless its application had to be 'reasonable'. My point is that if a pupil was beaten to the point where he was made to bleed, he had not been punished - but physically abused. The master responsible would have committed the serious criminal offence of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and faced action in the Courts. Some of the incidents I am referring to are as recent as the mid to late 1970s.

What I am about to describe does not relate to a Sheffield School , but I would be grateful for the views of contributors to this thread! I am aware of a Boys Grammar School where during the period 1958 - 1978 the Headmaster caned boys so severely that they were made to bleed. On one occasion he was obliged to apologise after the parents took the matter to the national press - early 1962 I believe. A boy who attended the school from 1972 - 1977 states that he was caned on 80 occasions and in total received more than 400 strokes. He often bled , and has said that his mother was apoplectic in her reaction but that his father - being from an Army background - took the view that he should 'not have got himself into trouble!' I have expressed the view that the Headmaster was guilty of Physical Child Abuse and should have been taken to the Courts. Any opinions?

But although that incident was to your advantage it actually shows the master concerned in a very poor light. Favouritism of that kind was highly unprofessional and the incident you refer to highlights how corrupt any system of corporal punishment could be in practice.

I wouldn't have done that - though might have written to my MP!

I agree with you. I am not arguing at all that corporal punishment was wrong - but rather that those who abused their positions of authority should have been apprehended and made to account for their misdemeanours.

I am actually only a decade younger than you - born in 1954 and left grammar school in 1973.

I have already made my comments on this, but on reflection would add that it strikes me as highly unlikely that a boy would face expulsion for having responded to a criminal attack - and that certainly describes what happened to you. It was hardly the kind of matter that the school would have wanted made public with almost certain detrimental consequences for the master concerned.

I don't for a second wish to suggest that you made that up - far from it! It does remain a fact,however, that many boys of 15/16 of that era -and indeed earlier - did physically retaliate on schoolmasters. An uncle has advised me of such incidents at his secondary modern school in the mid-1950s. With regard to your own incident - which at one level you still clearly feel strongly about - I am just intrigued as to why Grammar School boys, being more academic and more likely to be well informed as to the legality of such action, were so disinclined from going down the route of taking formal legal action against such a bully. You were perfectly entitled to go to the local police station and or the LEA to make a formal complaint about his behaviour - and indeed to seek a hearing at the local Magistrates Court. Had you or anyone else done that , it would almost certainly have had a detrimental effect on his career - at the very least.Having a word with the local Press would have been another option. Given the law re-age of majority at the time, I appreciate that firm parental support for such action might have been necessary, but even in the absence of that you could have chosen to have revisited the issue 5 or 6 years later and then had the pleasure of hauling him up before the Courts. I am probably more vengeful than you, but had it been me I would have gone after him - no matter how long it took - with the same zeal that some people are still pursuing Nazi Concentration Camp guards!

Not quite - even if it might seem a bit like that! I do have something of an obsession with people who have abused their positions of authority - whether politicians - policemen - judiciary - the military - clergy - schoolteachers. My main point here is that schoolmasters in the past did abuse their positions by applying unauthorised forms of punishment - eg throwing board rubbers and cuffing pupils around the head or ear etc. I strongly feel that it was very hypocritical for such people to have been punishing pupils for what were often minor misdemeanours - and then proceed to break the law of the land themselves! It rather raises the question as to who was most in need of correction.

Bringing back the cane would no longer work because attitudes to authority are so different.The deference has gone and boys beyond -say - 15 would refuse to submit to it and be likely to physically retaliate - or even start peddling malicious rumours about teachers re-sexual abuse etc.

You said you were 15 at the time of the incident. Surely when boys get to their mid-teens they were close to their physical and athletic prime and usually capable of standing their ground against schoolmasters already into middle age.Many lads of that age would have physically resisted or retaliated.I doubt that he could have done very much as the facts would not have shown him in a favourable light. Did you try to persuade your parents to take the matter to the police? Failing that you could have returned to the incident yourself and embarked on proceedings once you reached the age of majority - which was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1970. That is certainly what I would have done - 'revenge is a dish best served cold'.

I was born in the mid-1950s and remember the era very well! My criticism does not relate to corporal punishment per se but rather to the assaults via throwing of board rubbers/chalk/books which was never authorised as a form of discipline and,therefore, unlawful. Moreover many teachers from the 70s and 80s are still alive - if mostly retired. I might add that I am aware of incidents dating back to before World War 2 where boys were severely hit about the ear by irate schoolmasters as a result of which fathers went into school the following day and proceeded to give the master concerned a good hiding!

I am surprised that your parents did not take the matter up with the police and the LEA. Such a person was clearly not fit to be entrusted with the welfare of pupils - much better suited to being a concentration camp guard. He should have been sacked and given a sentence by the Magistrates.

Corporal punishment in state schools has been unlawful since September 1987. What most people do not realise is that much of the unofficial discipline that went on years before that was also unlawful. Whilst getting the cane or the slipper was ok if carried out within reason , it was never lawful to hit pupils with board rubbers/chalk etc - or to cuff them on the head or ear. The latter was never 'authorised corporal punishment' and when it happened it fell under the legal heading of 'assault'.Even back in the 1950s a pupil hit across the head by a board rubber or teachers hand could have walked into a police station and reported the incident with a view to taking proceedings. Alas most pupils and parents were ignorant of the law, and teachers invariably relied on that to get away with effectively abusing their positions! We have been appalled in recent years to read the stories of sexual abuse by celebrities such as Jimmy Saville- Rolf Harris - Stuart Hall and others relating to incidents dating back several decades. Now when schoolteachers went beyond the law - throwing board rubbers for example - they were guilty of physical abuse.. Such an offence is much less serious than sexual abuse but ,nevertheless, I would point out that the possibility of seeking legal redress is still there - particularly if a group of ex-pupils can get together to amass evidence. Should a conviction be obtained the sentence imposed would obviously reflect the less serious nature of the offence as compared with Messrs Saville and Harris. If some of you still feel a strong sense of injustice - I would! - why not seek to expose these people and shock the living daylights out of them? Remember the saying 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'.