Knifing in a Birmingham primary school.

[arc]

The two boys involved have been suspended for a day, as there is too much paperwork to expell someone. One other boy pulled a knife but didn't use it, so he was let off

The parents didnt care either. One is more annoyed as the kid took his knife without asking.

how can they 'let him off' because he only pulled a knife and didn't use it? The little scrot should be punished.

And as for the parents? They should be punished, or have their kids taken off them for being utterly useless.

More and more evidence that people should have licences to have kids. It would solve so many problems.

So if you get caught speeding you would be happy to be assaulted with a weapon and not fined?

The correct punishment for these kids is to be permanently removed from the school and taught in a Pupil Referral Unit until they are fit to be back in a different mainstream school.

i would much prefer that to being fined, yes.

My bosses wife worked with 'problem' kids. They get to go on days out, for things like having not sworn at the teacher for a week, or not punch another pupil. I never punched a teacher, and never got a fun trip out.

 

[jug]

Once above 6 years old you (as long as they've been brought up with morals and discipline) you can then use reasoning to explain why they've done something wrong.

personally i dont believe reasonsing works. there is a big difference between knowing you have done wrong and fearing the consequences of doing something wrong. reasoning will only work if the child does not want to do wrong simply because it is wrong, and there are very few children like that, even the good ones.

similarly the law is there to create consequences for adults when they break the law. it is not enough to simply teach someone what the law is and why they should obey it, you must also back that up with consequences if the law is broken. without consequences many more of us would be serious criminals, including me. i'm sure children aged 6+ are no different.

almost every time i have done something wrong i knew it was wrong at the time, but that didnt stop me, if anything it made it more fun. the things i have not done i only did not do because i was afraid of the consequences, whether that be prison, death, ill health or even pregnancy, consequence is the main driver in our decision making.

 

[johnw]

From a scientific view point, physical punishment is actually the best course of action for children up to around 5 - 6 years old. The reason for this is that the human brain isn't developed enough to understand reasoning until over this age range. Thus below 5 - 6 years old, to make a child understand they are doing something wrong they have to punished in a way that registers. A smack is going to be far more effective than saying "don't do that, it's not nice".

Let me be sure I understand this.
Young children can't reason sufficiently to understand a telling off.
So don't explain just assault.
Young child will have sufficent reasoning to understand that the pain came because of the behaviour.

However, a smack on the legs/ bum/ hand never did my generation any harm and at least we grew up knowing the difference between right and wrong.

And just took more care not to be caught.

 

[MiG]

A 9 year old girl's throat was cut because she couldn't get out the way fast enough. My girlfriend was told not to go near them till they were finished as the parents can sue if the teacher tries to stop them killing eachother.

**** that for a laugh. They are 9 year olds, I'm sure any grown adult could easily get knives off the kids and restrain them.

Christ, sod the law. Never gets applied to the hooligans, so I doubt trying to stop someone from killing somebody is illegal.

I'd love to see a court case trying to prosecute/sue someone for stopping a knife fight.

Really....

 

[Jai]

**** that for a laugh. They are 9 year olds, I'm sure any grown adult could easily get knives off the kids and restrain them.

i'm sure there's an experiment to conduct, and a lesson to be learned here.........

 

[Chas Uno]

Let me be sure I understand this.
Young children can't reason sufficiently to understand a telling off.
So don't explain just assault.
Young child will have sufficent reasoning to understand that the pain came because of the behaviour.

Your last sentence is exactly the point I am making.

I'm basing my statement on biological understanding of how the brain develops. The brain evolves through several stages until it functions as per adults. Up until 5-6 years old there is insufficient development in the part of the brain that deals with reasoning. 'Reasoning' means explaining to someone that what they just did is wrong and them actually understanding why this is so.

So the point is many children do not yet understand why they did something wrong, therefore just explaining it to them and telling them not to do it again has little effect. However, if they do something particularly bad and then get reprimanded by a 'slap' the brain DOES recognise that. It then associates the wrong doing with pain and learns not to replicate the action again.

And just took more care not to be caught.

Deviousness is another matter entirely. The fact that we then take more care not to get caught means that we now understand that what we are doing is wrong.

 

[fenton_jd]

Basic principles.

Take a dog, speak to it and tell it not to jump and lie on the sofa.

Dog continues to lie on the sofa.

Smack the dog whenever it jumps up >> dog eventually stops doing so.

it doesnt understand english, but associates.

 

[Jai]

pavlov? or some other cakey?

 

[Chas Uno]

pavlov? or some other cakey?

[Human Psychology]

Ivan Pavlov accidentally researched 'conditioning' (Pavlov's Dogs) and highlighted the power of association through repeated exposure. This is a form of learning but has more to do with associating an action/ event with a consequence (both good or bad).

http://www.essortment.com/pavlovdogs_oif.htm

Smacking (pain) as a stimulus is a form of conditioning, whereas reasoning is a form of independant comprehension and decision making.

Conditioning can be carried out at almost any age. However, reasoning requires development of intellect before it can operate effectively.

[/Human Psychology]

 

[johnw]

They are 9 year olds, I'm sure any grown adult could easily get knives off the kids and restrain them.

A 9 year old can stab you just as easily as a 19 year old. If you get a knife in the ribs you won't care how old the person was.

 

[johnw]

So the point is many children do not yet understand why they did something wrong, therefore just explaining it to them and telling them not to do it again has little effect. However, if they do something particularly bad and then get reprimanded by a 'slap' the brain DOES recognise that. It then associates the wrong doing with pain and learns not to replicate the action again.

if that was true then it would only be necessary to assault a child once to stop a particular form of behaviour.

Anyone who has any contact with children who have been assaulted by an "adult" in an attempt to evoke a learned response - ie to stop them misbehaving - can tell you that real life isn't like that.
It can take many assaults to obtain the desired result, and sometimes they never achieve the desired result.
The child undoubtly feels the pain and the shock that comes from being assaulted by a person they thought they could trust to keep them safe from harm but repeats the behaviour. This is because young children are not capable of connecting cause and effect.

 

[johnw]

Basic principles.

Take a dog, speak to it and tell it not to jump and lie on the sofa.

Dog continues to lie on the sofa.

Smack the dog whenever it jumps up >> dog eventually stops doing so.

it doesnt understand english, but associates.

Basic principles.

Dog jumps on sofa.
push dog gently to floor and make a fuss of it.
repeat as necessary.
dog learns to stay on floor.
no need for violence.

 

[Chas Uno]

if that was true then it would only be necessary to assault a child once to stop a particular form of behaviour.

You seem to like using the word "assault" instead of "smack". There is a big difference between a physical reprimand (a 'smack') and an assault. In fact, the Collins English dictionary describes 'assault' as a "violent attack" or "attack violently". 'Smack' meanwhile is described as a "sharp slap".

Anyone who has any contact with children who have been assaulted by an "adult" in an attempt to evoke a learned response - ie to stop them misbehaving - can tell you that real life isn't like that.
It can take many assaults to obtain the desired result, and sometimes they never achieve the desired result.
The child undoubtly feels the pain and the shock that comes from being assaulted by a person they thought they could trust to keep them safe from harm but repeats the behaviour. This is because young children are not capable of connecting cause and effect.

Your last sentence confirms what I said in a previous post - young children below a certain age are unable to understand reasoning. That's not my opinion, that's the findings of child psychologists and bio-scientists who've mapped the stages of growth of the human brain.

And a primary human survival instinct is to understand that if carrying out a certain action leads to pain then it learns to not to do it again. If a small child puts their hand in a fire it gets burnt and hurts like hell. They then learn not to put hand in the fire. That is the very basic principles of our survival mechanism and ALL people have that unless afflicted with certain brain conditions or disorders.

Basic principles.

Dog jumps on sofa.
push dog gently to floor and make a fuss of it.
repeat as necessary.
dog learns to stay on floor.
no need for violence.

You forgot:

Turn your back and walk out of the room.
Dog jumps back on sofa.
Why? Well the owner won't do anything other than push it off again when/ if they walk back in the room...


Perhaps you could explain how all these 'problem' children who get taken on holiday and get treated 'nicely' after causing trouble continue to be problem children?

How do you suggest we treat the obnoxious chav type kids who seem to have no respect for anyone or anything other than themselves? The PC approach seems to not work in these cases.

Life isn't so simple that by being nice and rewarding all the time will work with every child. Quite the contrary, you give some kids an inch and they will take a mile. Anyone who's had or worked with kids will tell you that...

 

[Jai]

Capt. Ramsey: Speaking of horses did you ever see those Lipizzaner stallions.
Hunter: What?
Capt. Ramsey: From Portugal. The Lipizzaner stallions. The most highly trained horses in the world. They're all white?
Hunter: Yes, sir.
Capt. Ramsey: "Yes, sir" you're aware they're all white or "Yes, sir" you've seen them?
Hunter: Yes, sir I've seen them. Yes, sir I was aware that they're are all white. They are not from Portugal; they're from Spain and at birth, they're not white; they're black. Sir.
Capt. Ramsey: I didn't know that. But they are from Portugal. [Chuckling] Some of the things they do, uh, defy belief. Their training program is simplicity itself. You just stick a cattle prod up their ass and you can get a horse to deal cards. [Chuckles] Simple matter of voltage.

just a thought...........

 

[Helz]

The thing that bugs me is it's always the little scrotes who get the freebies, never the decent kids who behave all the time. This pees me off something royally! IMO there has to be both carrot and stick. There have to be rewards but there also have to be punishments. Reasoning and rewards without punishment isn't going to work, as described above!

And I would hazard a guess that anyone who doesn't agree with punishment of any kind for the rotten scrotes probably lives an insular existance and never has to come into contact with them on a dark night on a dodgy council estate. I came face to face with some young children Fing and blinding and fighting the other night and they might have been 7-8 (late at night - where were the parents!?) but there was a big gang of them and hell I was terrified, couldn't get out the place fast enough! You cannot reason with that.

 

[ChrisUK]

I have no problem with that or me/family/friends hitting other peoples kids who give me/family/friends grief.

Total lack of discipline and respect for others all of which can be traced back to the soft nanny like labour government is a main cause. I also used to get a smack when I stepped out of line. Did I do it again? No.

However if someone else Disciplined my child without me knowing and my approval they would get a free trip to hospital courtesy of me and the tax payer. My child's discipline is my responsibility no one else’s!.

 

[johnw]

You seem to like using the word "assault" instead of "smack". There is a big difference between a physical reprimand (a 'smack') and an assault. In fact, the Collins English dictionary describes 'assault' as a "violent attack" or "attack violently". 'Smack' meanwhile is described as a "sharp slap".

Both of which constitute assault in legal terms. Could be common assault, actual bodily harm or grevious bodily harm according to individual circumstances.

I use the term "assault" partly because it's accurate and partly because euphemisms make it easier for people to justify their behaviour. As an example, drug addicts have various slang terms for the substances they use. When an addict is in rehab one of the first things that has to be done is to get them to stop saying they use charlie or horse or china etc and get them to admit that they actually are using heroin or cocaine etc.

People saying that they smack their children won't change the fact that they are assaulting them and that the same action against an adult would result in a conviction for an offence of violence.

If someone hits me - it's assault and I report it to the police and (assuming the have the time to investigate) it ends up in court. Why should children not have the same protection under the law as adults? Arguably they have more need of protection than adults do.

Perhaps you could explain how all these 'problem' children who get taken on holiday and get treated 'nicely' after causing trouble continue to be problem children?

For exactly the same reason that borstal and the cane failed to cure large numbers of children. Some people, child or adult, just don't understand the idea of acceptable behaviour and will not respond to any regime.

 

[99sei]

being a trainee teacher my self (on the job) i cant say the issue of too much paper work is a load of bull along with the pru. the pru removes pupils from mainstream school, which lets others have a good education but they get to go on a trip or take driving lessons every week. thus rewarding the bad and ignoring the kids that work hard.
if a kid comes at you with a knife you have every right to defend you self both as a human and teacher. if you feel harm will come to any one through an incident, you have to step in.