Who remembers being caned at school?

[Justin12 10]

True, he should have been. But, they were different times. I remember being proud of my dad for daring to go to the school and discuss it with the headmaster.

 

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'.

[ptrA 10]

Prior to the do-gudders taking over, children had respect. They respected authority and their parents. When someone does something wrong they should expect to be punished. I don't mean whipped or birched. Myself and a friend asked permission to for the afternoon off school. A big no to that. We went to watch Yorkshire play the Australians at cricket. The following day we were challenged about our absence. The headmaster gave us five on each hand. Then he said tell me about the two best batsmen in the world. Len Hutton & Don Bradman. We were wrong and we were punished. I met the headmaster in pub a few years later, we laughed about the incident and he bought me a pint. Most kids are good. Just what can they do with the bad ones. Can't cane e'm, cant keep e'm back after school, can't give e'm lines. Expel yes and pass them on to another school to start again. I feel for the teachers, I feel for the majority of children. I don't feel for those who know they are not going to be punished. I know they wont, but bring back the cane.

[Justin12 10]

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.

[TORONTONY 10]

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.

 

'" attitudes to authority are so different", no kidding, there lies the problem , no respect for anyone, except celebrities, these days. You seem obsessed with retribution for long gone happenings. You must work for social services or you are a lawyer, trying to drum up a little business.

[Justin12 10]

'" attitudes to authority are so different", no kidding, there lies the problem , no respect for anyone, except celebrities, these days. You seem obsessed with retribution for long gone happenings. You must work for social services or you are a lawyer, trying to drum up a little business.

 

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.

[Phanerothyme 12]

The age of deference is dead. This is a mixed blessing, but it has been a long time coming.

[TORONTONY 10]

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.

 

So who do you run to when a Bobby cuffs your earhole?This happened to me a couple of times and to a lot of my friends in the50's, but only because we had been caught doing something we shouldn't have been. Relax man, I am over it, so is everybody else.

Edited September 2, 2015 by TORONTONY

[Jon26 10]

The cane and slipper were used at my school, although it don't recall it being used daily. At junior school there was an old teacher with studs in his collar who used to throw the board rubber, more to get attention. It worked.

 

Last night I watched the TV programme "educating cardiff". To my mind whats missing is the teachers sometimes need to really shout at the kids to instil a bit of respect into them. I'm sure when we were mis behaving a teacher screaming "you boy..." followed by some home truths perhaps coupled with a red face and slamming the desk lid got attention. I hope they do still do this when away from the cameras.

[Dun working 10]

When i was about thirteen years old I was caught playing truant by my Mother ,the following day i was taken to school by my mother who reported me to the headmaster who asked me if i had ever played truant before, i like an idiot said yes i had played truant once before, i had three strokes of the cane to my right hand for the first truancy and three strokes on my left hand for the second offence,

Lesson learned , never tell the truth .

[soft ayperth 11]

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'm afraid you don't understand just what it was like then. First, I was not a physically well built lad, while the gym teacher was a very strong man. Second, schoolkids, even muscular ones, would not have challenged authority. Hitting a teacher would likely have got you expelled from school. It was a much more authoritarian style of education than people are accustomed to nowadays. He did cross the line even by standards then. You doubt that "he could have done very much?" I was punched in the face and got a black eye. I'll be the best one to judge on that score. I'll always remember it. Why would I make this up?

Edited September 4, 2015 by soft ayperth

[Justin12 10]

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!

[TORONTONY 10]

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!

 

I am so glad I never pee'd in your corn flakes, I would be hunted down , however long it took:(, assuming I had access to your cereal bowl, of course.

Edited September 5, 2015 by TORONTONY