Gang of boys who threw flour at disabled woman 'put under police protection for their safety'

VincentHanna said:
Well those teachers aren't following official government guidelines then:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-reasonable-force-in-schools

What is reasonable force?
1. The term ‘reasonable force’ covers the broad range of actions used by most teachers at some point in their career that involve a degree of physical contact with pupils.
2. Force is usually used either to control or restrain. This can range from guiding a pupil to safety by the arm through to more extreme circumstances such as breaking up a fight or where a student needs to be restrained to prevent violence or injury.
3. ‘Reasonable in the circumstances’ means using no more force than is needed.
4. As mentioned above, schools generally use force to control pupils and to restrain them. Control means either passive physical contact, such as standing between pupils or blocking a pupil's path, or active physical contact such as leading a pupil by the arm out of a classroom.
5. Restraint means to hold back physically or to bring a pupil under control. It is typically used in more extreme circumstances, for example when two pupils are fighting and refuse to separate without physical intervention.
6. School staff should always try to avoid acting in a way that might cause injury, but in extreme cases it may not always be possible to avoid injuring the pupil.

Who can use reasonable force?
• All members of school staff have a legal power to use reasonable force.
• This power applies to any member of staff at the school. It can also apply to people whom the headteacher has temporarily put in charge of pupils such as unpaid volunteers or parents accompanying students on a school organised visit.

When can reasonable force be used?
• Reasonable force can be used to prevent pupils from hurting themselves or others, from damaging property, or from causing disorder.
• In a school, force is used for two main purposes – to control pupils or to restrain them.
• The decision on whether or not to physically intervene is down to the professional judgement of the staff member concerned and should always depend on the individual circumstances.
Click to expand...

No, they were using common sense. One person's level of reasonable force is not the same as another and no member of staff wants to be suspended whilst an investigation takes place.
 
VincentHanna said:
If only there was a quoted post directly above the message that you quoted, that answered this question.
Click to expand...

I thought you was hinting at something else.

I think the schools have lost it anyways. They are on the front line of a degenerate society. No wonder the teaching profession is losing so many teachers. They aren't paying them danger money.
 
Anyone have statistics of youth crime over the last few decades. People love moaning about how things have gotten worse and that it wouldn't happen back in the day but do figures actually suggest this?
 
BowdonUK said:
Britain as become lawless. It as been for a long time. Older people, even 25+, seem to have a mindset from an older time, when the reality today isn't like that. Kids are testing todays boundaries and there are very few. If you are a 'bad lad' you can get away with more today with less punishment than you could do 20 or 30 years ago imho.
Click to expand...

The problem is your fear of crime leads you to incorrectly assume the actual level of crime, which is at its lowest level for nearly 40 years.

The Crime Survey for England and Wales 2015 figures show that crime in England and Wales is currently at its lowest level since the CSEW began in 1981, having decreased dramatically from its peak in 1995 and by 31% in the past five years alone.[5] For example, 1.32 million violent crimes were counted in 2014/2015 compared to 4.2 million in 1994/95.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_Kingdom

So it doesn't seem your other opinion is right either that harsher punishments people got 30-40 years ago led to lower crime levels
 
Which was my point, plus you have the different data sets of 'police recorded crime' which the Home Office say is unreliable due to 'no criming' and the variabilities between forces and the CSEW that is used by the ONS
 
Freakbro said:
The problem is your fear of crime leads you to incorrectly assume the actual level of crime, which is at its lowest level for nearly 40 years.
Click to expand...

We know recorded crime as dropped... because there isn't the same about of police.

Here is my previous thread I started here: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/is-crime-going-out-of-control.18825841/

This is the link to the BBC article;

No-one charged in 9 out of 10 crimes - Home Office
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113
 
Regardless, it is accepted among experts that criminal justice systems which focus on rehabilitation over punishment generally have much lower repeat offending rates for criminals.

Whacking a horse with a bigger stick doesn't make it run faster.
 
BowdonUK said:
We know recorded crime as dropped... because there isn't the same about of police.

Here is my previous thread I started here: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/is-crime-going-out-of-control.18825841/

This is the link to the BBC article;

No-one charged in 9 out of 10 crimes - Home Office
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44884113
Click to expand...

The CSEW doesn't use recorded crime as it's basis though, as they are unreliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Survey_for_England_and_Wales
 
Freakbro said:
The CSEW doesn't use recorded crime as it's basis though, as they are unreliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Survey_for_England_and_Wales
Click to expand...

Wut?!

"
Lord de Mauley has said the BCS omits rape, assault, drug offences, fraud, forgery, crime against businesses and murder, while accepting that it "is accepted as a gold standard by most British academics and internationally".[11]

One criticism is that both the youth survey and the adult surveys do not distinguish between a) crimes not reported to the police because they thought the police would do nothing or b) crimes not reported to the police because the victim thought them too trivial"

So basically...It's kinda useless since it's not reporting on crimes that we know are on the rise!
 
Freakbro said:
The CSEW doesn't use recorded crime as it's basis though, as they are unreliable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Survey_for_England_and_Wales
Click to expand...

I noticed the criticism section makes quite startling reading;

Professor Ken Pease, former acting head of the Home Office's police research group, and Professor Graham Farrell of Loughborough University, estimated in 2007 that the survey was underreporting crime by about 3 million incidents per year due to its practice of arbitrarily capping the number of crimes one can be victimised by in a given year at five. If true the error means that violent crime might actually stand at 4.4 million incidents per year, an 82% increase over the 2.4 million previously thought. Since the five crimes per person cap has been consistent since the BCS began this might not affect the long-term trends, however it takes little account of crimes such as domestic violence, figures for which would allegedly be 140% higher without the cap. The ONS has responded by explaining that because victims of ongoing abuse often are unable to recall the detail and number of specific incidents it makes sense to record this crime as a series of repeat victimisation. These are only recorded in this manner if the incidents described were ‘the same thing, done under the same circumstances and probably by the same people’. Because the number of victims captured by the survey that experience high levels of repeat victimisation are relatively low, spurious volatility in the data will occur from year to year. However, the ONS has admitted that the cap of 5 incidents is crude and will be publishing a review. This will also "explore alternative approaches to dealing with high frequency repeat victimisation."

Lord de Mauley has said the BCS omits rape, assault, drug offences, fraud, forgery, crime against businesses and murder, while accepting that it "is accepted as a gold standard by most British academics and internationally".

One criticism is that both the youth survey and the adult surveys do not distinguish between a) crimes not reported to the police because they thought the police would do nothing or b) crimes not reported to the police because the victim thought them too trivial.
Click to expand...

So it seems the survey is under reporting what people are telling them. Restricting them to 5 crimes per year. It says any crimes involving rape, assault, drug offences, fraud, forgery, crime against businesses and murder aren't included.
 
Dis86 said:
Wut?!

"
Lord de Mauley has said the BCS omits rape, assault, drug offences, fraud, forgery, crime against businesses and murder, while accepting that it "is accepted as a gold standard by most British academics and internationally".[11]

One criticism is that both the youth survey and the adult surveys do not distinguish between a) crimes not reported to the police because they thought the police would do nothing or b) crimes not reported to the police because the victim thought them too trivial"

So basically...It's kinda useless since it's not reporting on crimes that we know are on the rise!
Click to expand...

Odd isn't it, but then it's still classed as more accurate than Police Recorded figures for estimating actual crime figures (which is all we are trying to determine) and if the methology has stayed the same over the last 40 years then it still gives the relative trends, does it not?
 
Freakbro said:
Odd isn't it, but then it's still classed as more accurate than Police Recorded figures for estimating actual crime figures (which is all we are trying to determine) and if the methology has stayed the same over the last 40 years then it still gives the relative trends, does it not?
Click to expand...

I agree it does. But that relative trend may be crap if it's not a trend of useful info. As I've pointed out it doesn't track some critical crimes which even the police concede are on the rise. So if it's tracking some niche crime that has fallen out of favour (So to speak) is it a useful source of info?
 
Dis86 said:
I agree it does. But that relative trend may be crap if it's not a trend of useful info. As I've pointed out it doesn't track some critical crimes which even the police concede are on the rise. So if it's tracking some niche crime that has fallen out of favour (So to speak) is it a useful source of info?
Click to expand...

I'm no statistician, but I guess even with its flaws, as nothing is going to be exact or perfect, it's the best we've got as seemingly acknowledged by the guys raising the criticisms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom