A Deputy Headmaster at a primary school in Lancashire has decided not to return to his post, after a four month ordeal, triggered by an accusation of “assault” made by a defiant, rebellious pupil at the school.
The teacher was cleared of the assault charge but because of the traumatic experience he has endured ( and it is thought that he suffered a minor heart attack since the court case,) he will not be returning to his post.
It is very wrong that a teacher with an impeccable 41 year teaching career can be falsely accused by a juvenile delinquent and yet, the one who leaves the school is the teacher. The wretched, un-named boy is still a pupil at the school. He remains anonymous but there was no anonymity for the falsely accused teacher.
He described the boy as the “most disruptive and aggressive” he had encountered in his career. He had to be removed from classrooms after he was violent towards other children. In March last year, the boy ran amok, hitting ten classmates with his bag, pinning one to the wall, and yelling at teachers. The Deputy Head teacher was called upon to deal with the boy and, three days later, he told his mother that the teacher had hit him and, though it beggars belief, some wooly liberal(s) BELIEVED him! His witless mother held forth on the departure of the teacher by stating that she was “glad to see the back of Mr……”
Since corporal punishment was outlawed in in 1998 ( and it has been outlawed in nearly all of Europe,) defiance of teacher’s authority and rebellious, disruptive behaviour is endemic. The solution to this problem is the restoration of corporal punishment, it WAS an effective deterrent and can be again and, if the teacher concerned had been permitted to mete out “six of the best” to that young rebel, calm would have been quickly restored, but the liberal establishment will shriek in horror at the thought of physical punishment being meted out to the “poor little dears,” and , that being the case, it is only a matter of time before another teacher is falsely accused by one of those whose “rights” supersede the rights of teachers to establish and maintain discipline.
PS It has been drawn to our attention that the case of the teacher highlighted in our post was not a case of corporal punishment. It is a fact that the teacher did not mete out corporal punishment, however, the point we were making is that the outlawing of such punishment makes it more likely that pupil’s will defy teachers’ authority and engage in lawless behaviour, because the effective deterrent i.e. corporal punishment, is now against the law, and many pupils, intoxicated with the power they have over teachers, cast off all restraint and behave in a disruptive, aggressive manner.
The teacher mentioned in our post found himself accused of assault when called upon to deal with an unruly pupil, and the charge would have been the same if he had used corporal punishment, so teachers are in a no-win situation.