It’s for excluded children, isn’t it? The rest of the article is, although that sentence did sound a bit general – I just assumed though that it was the BBC being rubbish again and that it was still talking about excluded pupils.
Typical crap ‘solution’ to a complicated problem. Children are assumed criminal these days. But when they do commit crime we seem to have no idea what to do with them anyway… Depressing.
I heard about this; it’s aimed at excluded children being kept under supervision at home for the first 5 days of being out of school, so they aren’t roaming the streets and potentially getting into trouble.
I’ve got to be honest, i can’t see a single thing in the article that isn’t intended for the positive benefit of the children involved. It’s about asking (or ensuring) that parents take full responsibility for the care and supervision of a child who has been excluded, which presumably would be good for both the child and society as a whole in all but a minority of cases. If we are going to have school as mass childcare, then i’m not sure that exclusion meaning you can doss around on the streets as a reward for antisocial behaviour is particularly positive.
Well, I think it is just another scary little bit of ‘big brotherdom’. How dare the govt assume the right to put children under house arrest! If a teenager who has been excluded needs to pop out for a pint of milk should her parents be fined £50? If young people are out on the street committing an offence then arrest them. If not, then they have as much right to be there as I do. It is very dangerous all this law for ‘certain people’.
I don’t doubt that our MPs have good intentions. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the invasion of Iraq was “intended for the positive benefit” of the Iraqi people, and that the same goes for the godawful mess they are making of healthcare, for the id card scheme and everything else.
My main objection to this is that it is total gibberish – if I could work out what it meant, then I rather think I would be agreeing with Allie. These things never quite work out in practice quite as lovely as we are told they are going to be. And a law which means a person has to justify being in a public place…… well, I think that stinks and is a poor precedent.
So… if a teenager has been excluded for threatening another child with a knife in school, is it reasonable that they should be free to be wandering around the streets, potentially scaring other children on their lunch breaks, or perhaps waiting for their original victim to come out of school?
If they’ve been excluded for bullying, which isn’t a criminal offence, should they be perfectly allowed to be at large during school hours, without supervision, so they can persist in that behaviour to anyone who crosses their path?
If they’ve been excluded because they’ve got undiagnosed ADHD and seem to just be naughty and disruptive beyond any ability to care for themselves or others, is it right that they shouldn’t have some legislation that ensures they have a responisble adult caring for them. Lots of people can’t take time off work if an excluded child is at home in fear for their jobs or wage, but if legislation means it becomes acceptable to get paid time off to care for them because the law states you must, then good.
I think this is well intended, it is also essential. An excluded child who has genuinely done wrong, in my opinion, does need to feel the pinch of that punishment, or what is the point? I certainly don’t see why the rest of society should have to cope with them being at a loose end for 5 days. Surely, if nothing else, we as a society are starting to see that people have no accountability for themselves and that a lot of societies ills are stemming from the entire “human rights of the accused means the victim suffers more” culture that we have. Is it not right we try to get some common sense back into how we work as a society?
I don’t recall anyone in my class ever getting suspended for bad behaviour, but if they had, as a law abiding classmate, i’d have been dead pissed off to know that effectively it meant 5 days out of prison going shopping and having a nice time. If that is what it means, the incentive to get yourself excluded is quite high. I might not like schools, but i do think they system needs to make sense and work or what’s the point?
If this said that excluded children should be supervised and accompanied by an adult at all times during the school day, say 9am to 4pm, during any period when they are excluded, then I think I would agree with you, but it is saying nothing like that. I am not sure what it is saying but, it isn’t that.
In any event, why is this an issue? How come exclusions are running at a rate where this comes up?
Otherwise, I agree that people should be obliged to take responsibility for themselves and those in their care, and held to account.
Just because the law says you’ve got to supervise your kids does not mean that employers are going to give you paid time off to do it!
You’re more likely to have to use the unpaid time you’re entitled to as a carer, but given you’ve got to give some ludicrous amount of notice to get that, can’t see that’s going to work either.
I can see this meaning that ppl with children who get excluded will lose their jobs, increasing the stress in the the family home and therefore increasing the likelihood that children go off the rails. It’s a punitive and controlling approach that is not going to solve the problem (I do agree that there is a problem).
If it was made compulsory for employers to do it, like maternity leave or antenatal care, then they’d have to or there would be tribunals. Or sick leave; i’d suggest there arep lenty of examples of employment lawe being there to assert the rights of people compelled to put family matters first. And with the political emphasis of point scoring on family, i’d say it was odds on they’d make that change too.
It would mean a vast amount of effort and cohesion to change, but change could happen.
Incidentally, how would you feel if you were an employer and found out you had to pay for someone to stay at home because their child had been excluded from school?
I can imagine there would be quite a few people who would thrilled by the idea.
can I have that in English please?
You’re a chav, your spawn are all scum and aren’t allowed out, you’re nicked.
It’s for excluded children, isn’t it? The rest of the article is, although that sentence did sound a bit general – I just assumed though that it was the BBC being rubbish again and that it was still talking about excluded pupils.
Typical crap ‘solution’ to a complicated problem. Children are assumed criminal these days. But when they do commit crime we seem to have no idea what to do with them anyway… Depressing.
So .. are chavs to be the new blacks?
“You’re nicked”
“What for?”
“Posession of a hoodie in a built-up area”
I heard about this; it’s aimed at excluded children being kept under supervision at home for the first 5 days of being out of school, so they aren’t roaming the streets and potentially getting into trouble.
I’ve got to be honest, i can’t see a single thing in the article that isn’t intended for the positive benefit of the children involved. It’s about asking (or ensuring) that parents take full responsibility for the care and supervision of a child who has been excluded, which presumably would be good for both the child and society as a whole in all but a minority of cases. If we are going to have school as mass childcare, then i’m not sure that exclusion meaning you can doss around on the streets as a reward for antisocial behaviour is particularly positive.
Well, I think it is just another scary little bit of ‘big brotherdom’. How dare the govt assume the right to put children under house arrest! If a teenager who has been excluded needs to pop out for a pint of milk should her parents be fined £50? If young people are out on the street committing an offence then arrest them. If not, then they have as much right to be there as I do. It is very dangerous all this law for ‘certain people’.
I don’t doubt that our MPs have good intentions. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the invasion of Iraq was “intended for the positive benefit” of the Iraqi people, and that the same goes for the godawful mess they are making of healthcare, for the id card scheme and everything else.
My main objection to this is that it is total gibberish – if I could work out what it meant, then I rather think I would be agreeing with Allie. These things never quite work out in practice quite as lovely as we are told they are going to be. And a law which means a person has to justify being in a public place…… well, I think that stinks and is a poor precedent.
So… if a teenager has been excluded for threatening another child with a knife in school, is it reasonable that they should be free to be wandering around the streets, potentially scaring other children on their lunch breaks, or perhaps waiting for their original victim to come out of school?
If they’ve been excluded for bullying, which isn’t a criminal offence, should they be perfectly allowed to be at large during school hours, without supervision, so they can persist in that behaviour to anyone who crosses their path?
If they’ve been excluded because they’ve got undiagnosed ADHD and seem to just be naughty and disruptive beyond any ability to care for themselves or others, is it right that they shouldn’t have some legislation that ensures they have a responisble adult caring for them. Lots of people can’t take time off work if an excluded child is at home in fear for their jobs or wage, but if legislation means it becomes acceptable to get paid time off to care for them because the law states you must, then good.
I think this is well intended, it is also essential. An excluded child who has genuinely done wrong, in my opinion, does need to feel the pinch of that punishment, or what is the point? I certainly don’t see why the rest of society should have to cope with them being at a loose end for 5 days. Surely, if nothing else, we as a society are starting to see that people have no accountability for themselves and that a lot of societies ills are stemming from the entire “human rights of the accused means the victim suffers more” culture that we have. Is it not right we try to get some common sense back into how we work as a society?
I don’t recall anyone in my class ever getting suspended for bad behaviour, but if they had, as a law abiding classmate, i’d have been dead pissed off to know that effectively it meant 5 days out of prison going shopping and having a nice time. If that is what it means, the incentive to get yourself excluded is quite high. I might not like schools, but i do think they system needs to make sense and work or what’s the point?
If this said that excluded children should be supervised and accompanied by an adult at all times during the school day, say 9am to 4pm, during any period when they are excluded, then I think I would agree with you, but it is saying nothing like that. I am not sure what it is saying but, it isn’t that.
In any event, why is this an issue? How come exclusions are running at a rate where this comes up?
Otherwise, I agree that people should be obliged to take responsibility for themselves and those in their care, and held to account.
Just because the law says you’ve got to supervise your kids does not mean that employers are going to give you paid time off to do it!
You’re more likely to have to use the unpaid time you’re entitled to as a carer, but given you’ve got to give some ludicrous amount of notice to get that, can’t see that’s going to work either.
I can see this meaning that ppl with children who get excluded will lose their jobs, increasing the stress in the the family home and therefore increasing the likelihood that children go off the rails. It’s a punitive and controlling approach that is not going to solve the problem (I do agree that there is a problem).
If it was made compulsory for employers to do it, like maternity leave or antenatal care, then they’d have to or there would be tribunals. Or sick leave; i’d suggest there arep lenty of examples of employment lawe being there to assert the rights of people compelled to put family matters first. And with the political emphasis of point scoring on family, i’d say it was odds on they’d make that change too.
It would mean a vast amount of effort and cohesion to change, but change could happen.
I just read this Return to the Norris Green estate
Incidentally, how would you feel if you were an employer and found out you had to pay for someone to stay at home because their child had been excluded from school?
I can imagine there would be quite a few people who would thrilled by the idea.