Reply to: Children Seen as "Feral" and "Dangerous"...

[Moscow Mule]

Why only in the classroom? Why shouldn't any adult be allowed to prevent a child harming itself of others?

Good question, I don't know the answer - but I imagine it's got something to do with training or CPD checks that give teachers a better idea of when restraint is appropriate.

FWIW, in the example of the train worker earlier, I would say restraint would have been in order.

[Purple Dalek]

Restraint is no longer considered assault in the classroom. And not before time if you ask me.

Why only in the classroom? Why shouldn't any adult be allowed to prevent a child harming itself of others?

[EternalOptimist]

How old were the youths?

15

[NotAllThere]

How old were the youths?

[EternalOptimist]

confession time.

Maybe we should be asking someone who has actually used violence against these little angels whether they can justify it, rather than keeping it hypothetical.
About 15 years ago I was in a chippy in Liverpool, fairly tanked up on ale, and there were about half a dozen rowdy youths in the queue behind me. An old lady with a crooked back came in and they started giving her stick, asking here if she was looking for money on the ground etc.
One of them started waving his boot under her nose and was making some nasty comments about dog tulip on his boots. The guy behind me was getting quite agitated and knocked into me a few times, he was the big mouth. Some of the other customers asked them politely to leave her alone, they just got worse.
So I shifted my footing and put my heel on this guys foot, shifted my weight. That shut him up faster than any talking to would have done. There was a certain satisfaction watching the git hobble out of the chippy with tears in his little feral eyes.

[Moscow Mule]

Of course that is the preferable action. My position is that in some situations you need to physically restrain a child to prevent harm. Now as restraint is considered assault, just like a clip round the ear, then a clip round the ear has to be allowed. That is the either or situation.

Restraint is no longer considered assault in the classroom. And not before time if you ask me.

[Purple Dalek]

Is it really an either/or situation? Can one not speak to children and warn them?

Of course that is the preferable action. My position is that in some situations you need to physically restrain a child to prevent harm. Now as restraint is considered assault, just like a clip round the ear, then a clip round the ear has to be allowed. That is the either or situation.

[DodgyAgent]

I have, and I won.

My final position was: it is better that kids get an undeserved clip around the ear, than some are seriously hurt because they do not know the boundaries of their play.

That is interesting, so you only advocate hitting a child if he is about to kill himself?

[BrilloPad]

I have, and I won.

My final position was: it is better that kids get an undeserved clip around the ear, than some are seriously hurt because they do not know the boundaries of their play.

Is it really an either/or situation? Can one not speak to children and warn them?

[BrilloPad]

My kids would never be out of control, and if they were I would expect to take responsibility for their behaviour and for me to be dealt with according to the law.
you are talking about the very small minority who have no controls over them, which is where the law should be brought to bear. Those that still fail to make the law protect those who are terrorised should then themselves be held accountable.
Talking to out of control kids is one thing, hitting them puts you below their level except where self defence is required.

You can never be 100% sure. Some children - from very decent families - go off the rails. I agree there is a correlation between child/parent behaviour - but its a number less than 1!

I just hope my kids will be okay.....

[BrilloPad]

yep, plus anyone who gets the social services involved is asking for serious trouble

I have seen the effects of SS involvement. Best to avoid......

[Purple Dalek]

So if my position is so weak why are you not able to argue your superior position?

I have, and I won.

My final position was: it is better that kids get an undeserved clip around the ear, than some are seriously hurt because they do not know the boundaries of their play.

[Purple Dalek]

well I was treated with extreme violence as a kid, never did me any harm

I think I have manged to break the cycle though, some kids looked at me funny so I jumped all over their bikes. Little feral gits

No, it's best to carry a 5mm allen key, and when the little tykes aren't looking, loosen the brake pads. Hilarity ensues.

For people of our age, vandalism is most properly an art form.

[DodgyAgent]

Continuing with an Ad hominem fallacy just makes your position look even weaker.

So if my position is so weak why are you not able to argue your superior position?

[Purple Dalek]

It seems to me that you are an easily scared individual who when confronted with something that makes you afraid immediatly resorts to violence in order to hide this fear. I would imagine that you are scared of children partly because you dont have any of your own (there is nothing wrong with this). You therefore make no attempt to understand (which is different to condoning) their behaviour.

Children are deeply insecure (especially teenagers) and react to situations in what seems to us to be illogical ways. The reverse is actually true, so when an adult comes along and deals with a problem using violence then this is conveyed as acceptable behaiour to children.

You will probably find that the most violent bullies were themselves violently bullied as children.

Continuing with an Ad hominem fallacy just makes your position look even weaker.