France Bans Ketchup in School Cafeterias

[Ally]

If a fourteen year old punched me in the face, I would teach him what happens to people who randomly go around and punch people in the face, and usually what happens is they keep doing it until they find someone who beats the living snot out of them and then they realize the error of their ways and quit doing it. I would be happy to give that object lesson. And I frankly don't care if he's retarded, or high, or whatever. High people are still responsible for their actions and retarded people need to learn consequences can hurt just as much as non-retarded people do. If they are capable of understanding the power of hitting by hitting, then they are capable of being hit.

My friend (who knew me very well) had kids and her first kid, maybe around 3-4? was going around punching people all the time. Each time it would happen, they'd do the "no we don't hit people" and the kid would just keep punching. I told her if he ever hit me, I'd hit back, so if she was opposed, avoid me til he grew up. Sure enough, she brings the kid over one day and he tried to hit me because his mom and I were talking and he wanted attention. The first time, I grabbed his arm before he connected and told him "if you hit me, I will hit you back. If you hit my leg, I will hit your leg. If you hit my face, I will hit your face. I am bigger than you, and I hit harder". He'd been hitting his mom and everyone for a while and nothing had ever happened. Sure enough about five minutes later he came up and punched me in the arm so I took his arm and slapped him extremely hard on it. He went crying to his mother and she basically told him, she warned you she would do it. Don't hit her.

He spent the next few months continuing to hit his mother, but he never once tried to hit me again. He knew I wouldn't allow it and he knew he wouldn't like the result.

Hitting should not be the first recourse, but when reason fails, sometimes an object lesson is needed.

[Robert]

Limehouse, nice to hear you admit that often these kids do not come from broken homes, are not regularly beaten at home, etc.

Still mystified as to why forcing someone to stand outside the classroom would be a health hazard.

[Limehouse]

Limehouse, you say that sometimes it isn't possible to send a child out of the room. Why? Do they refuse to leave?

Any child who doesn't respond to discipline should be removed to a special institution.

John, yes, the cane isn't meant to be a dreadful experience that people remember for the rest of their days. I can barely remember the two occasions on which I was caned or what it was for.

Yes, the slogan is "I'm underprivileged....therefore I'm privileged." One mustn't pander to such attitudes.

I think the teachers were campaining for the outlawing of caning. One young teacher said that if he couldn't get the attention of his class without the threat of the cane, he'd be a very poor teacher.

Errata, your post tells me all I need to know about you. Do not address me again.

Robert - sometimes it is unwise to send students out of the class for their own safety and that of other students. It is best to leave them to calm down and just keep an eye on them. The exception would be if they become violent. As John pointed out, we are allowed to use reasonable force to restrain students who are likely to cause harm to themselves or others. In my case that would be alomost impossible as I am half the size of most of my students, including the girls. In 17 years, I have only twice had to separate boys engaged in fighting in my class and I did so by jumping between them before the next punch was thrown.

You comment:

Yes, the slogan is "I'm underprivileged....therefore I'm privileged." One mustn't pander to such attitudes.

This rather assumes that all the ills in society (and disruption in schools) are caused by the 'underprivileged'. This is not the case. Many, many privileged people raise children who cause havoc and distress and disruption to others. The difference is that it rarely gets reported in the Daily Mail and their parents/carers pay for the damage and, very often, the incidents are smoothed over. As an example, it is said that our own Prime Minister and his pals (Boris, I believe) often went out smashing up restaurants and bars when they were students but always paid for the damage before they left.

[Errata]

Errata, your post tells me all I need to know about you. Do not address me again.

My post doesn't even address a tenth of the things people generally feel they need to know about me. But if you feel that my opposition to the specific subject of violence against children renders me unfit to know, that's fine. But you might consider what such a declaration says about you. Just a thought.

This is a public forum, and if you state an opinion on any given topic I am free to respond with my own opinion, or correct you if I feel your facts are incorrect. As I think that this is the first post in which I have ever actually addressed you, I can assure you that I can foresee no need to do so again. However please do not expect that further opinions will go unchallenged. That is not the nature of the forum. If there is something that you do not wish to open to public debate, I suggest you do not post it.

But on a social level? As you wish.

[caz]

I fervently wish they had banned suet dumplings at school when I was five. I can heave just thinking about suet, never mind if I smell it, and tasting it would make me sick as a dog. Miss Jones, my ancient headmistress at the time, came round to check we were eating our lunches, and she smacked me because I couldn't touch my dumplings (no jokes at the back please ).

While I can say quite truthfully that "it never did me any (lasting) harm", that was probably because I was otherwise a very happy and well-behaved kid, with no problems at home or school. And I have never been a fussy eater. I used to love my school dinners in general, and would help other kids who were having trouble finishing theirs, so they would avoid getting smacked too.

But I really don't think smacking young children for not eating certain foods should ever have been part of their 'education', and thank goodness we have moved on from such - wickedness. Yes, I would call it wickedness.

So much for the good old days.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Limehouse, you say that sometimes it isn't possible to send a child out of the room. Why? Do they refuse to leave?

Any child who doesn't respond to discipline should be removed to a special institution.

John, yes, the cane isn't meant to be a dreadful experience that people remember for the rest of their days. I can barely remember the two occasions on which I was caned or what it was for.

Yes, the slogan is "I'm underprivileged....therefore I'm privileged." One mustn't pander to such attitudes.

I think the teachers were campaining for the outlawing of caning. One young teacher said that if he couldn't get the attention of his class without the threat of the cane, he'd be a very poor teacher.

Errata, your post tells me all I need to know about you. Do not address me again.

[Adam Went]

The only thing teachers can do these days to punish a student is something like sending them to the "time out room", short of sending them to the principal's office or suspending them, depending on how serious the offence is - in any case, it gets them out of a normal class routine which plays into some students hands. Half the time that's what they're trying to achieve in the first place.

Cheers,
Adam.

[John Bennett]

I agree that teachers have a very stressful job, and that they are having to pay for society's problems. But I can't help thinking that they have brought some of this on themselves. They were in the forefront of the campaign to abolish corporal punishment. So now they have kids whom they can't discipline, and they have to call the police.

I was caned at school and no, I didn't vow revenge on society. Even in our primary school (age 5 to 11) the teachers would sometimes give us a slap on the leg or the arm (boys wore short trousers in those days and girls wore skirts). Maybe I'm eccentric but it didn't make me twisted and bitter. What made me bitter was having to learn to bloody dance.

I'm not sure if teachers were at the forefront of having corporal punishment banned in the UK - I thought it was an act of Parliament (1987), but I could be wrong.

I feel that corporal punishment never worked anyway. It was around throughout my entire schooldays and it was used sparingly. And it always seemed to be the same pupils who got it, who rarely seemed to correct their behaviour afterwards. That said, I don't believe Messrs. Quinn, Garlick, McCloud or Smith spent the rest of their days grinding their teeth over it. Smith certainly didn't - he became a successful magician and children's entertainer!

I was never caned, but my parents were back in the 50s, for quite frankly minor indiscretions. In fact, one day a teacher asked my father's class if there was anybody who hadn't been given 'the slipper' yet. My father said he hadn't. "Come up here, boy" was the answer.... I think my father is none the worse for his experience.

But there is a totally different midset today. Kids think they are untouchable for a start. "You can't touch me" was a comment I heard often. In fact that was pretty much the rule when I first started teaching, until a code of 'reasonable force' was introduced to enable teachers to physically remove students from a class when it was entirely necessary. Some of these students clearly got a bit of a shock when they spouted the standard line only to be told "well actually, I can" and were then promply led out the door to cool off.

[Limehouse]

Limehouse, these people you talk of should obviously not be in a normal school where they will disrupt the other pupils' learning. They should be in a home for idiots. You are so concerned for these unmanageable kids. But what effect do you think they are having on their fellow pupils? Do you think they bully their fellow pupils? Obviously they do. So for the sake of your principles, there will be children who dread the thought of going to school and whose work suffers when they are at school. The health and safety of these pupils may even be jeopardised by the presence of these vicious kids. I'm sorry, but we cannot constantly round down everyone to the lowest level and we cannot constantly be going back to pick up stragglers.

Firstly, Robert, I do not have control over who is sent to my class. I have to accept that whoever is sent, is entitled to be there.

Secondly, I am concerned for ALL of my students. I am especially concerned for students whose learning is disrupted by others. Ideally, students who are disruptive are sent out of the room. Sometimes this is not possible. What does happen is that they have a disciplinary hearing with the curriculum manager and possibly the curriculum director or assistant principal.

We are VERY alert to bullying. We do not tolerate it. Bullying always results in exclusion and our students know this. I cannot hand on heart say that bullying never happens, but we are vigilant in dealing with it.

Numerous research studies show that beating people who are already violent themselves, or are displaying disturbed behaviour, does not address the problem. Beating someone for bad behaviour is punitive only - it does not change the behaviour - it only punishes the behaviour. Working with disturbed and disruptive students (and adults in mainstream society) on a variety of programmes, depending on their needs, is much more effective in achieving a turn around.

[Errata]

Sorry CD... I'll stop. I just have a thing about this. Mea Culpa.

[Errata]

Errata, what you're saying is that if a child proves unmanageable you should sit down and explain the reasons for the rules in an attempt to gain his consent. Most schools do give the reasons for the rules, but still the kids break them. But it's Ok - all the other students' learning has to be interrupted while you sit down with the child and try to persuade him to obey the rules. And in the case of the 14 year old who punches you in the face, you think it's fine that the police should use force on him, and send him to a detention unit, but if you punch him in the face it's a terrible thing for which you must apologise. Sorry, but if a 14 year old were to punch me in the face he'd get one back.

First of all, you seem to have this weird idea that it's either begging and pleading with a child, or slapping him in the face. I have been very effectively disciplined any number of times without any adult pleading with me for my good behavior, or getting belted. And I'm sure you have as well. But you either don't have the imagination or the desire to find an alternate route, so you wanna belt a kid who is acting up. You don't deserve anyone's respect, much less that of a child.

I went to school with a kid who got paddled a few times for acting up in class. After a few months, he disappeared. Turns out that the reason he was such a behavior problem was that his Dad was raping him on the weekends. He goes to school, and acts out, looking for any kind of attention that isn't sexual, and they hit him with a bat. Sound fair to you? Well it probably does. He disappeared because his Dad punctured his rectum, and he had to be hospitalized, and his father finally couldn't explain it away. He was removed from house. Switched schools. Do you think he trusts adults today? Do you think he trusts authority? But you probably don't care what happened to him, as long as the majority was served. How terribly socialist.

You deal with a kid who is acting up. You do not let the behavior stand. And if you can't think of a way to do that without physically harming a child, you should not be allowed near children. You probably also should not be allowed near animals, the disabled, anyone physically smaller or weaker than you, anyone else you might want to physically lash out at when they do not conform to your specifications.

I don't know why a 14 year old would randomly run up and punch me. But as it is not a regular occurrence, I would assume that there is something terribly wrong with that kid. Perhaps he is intellectually challenged, retarded you would say. Yeah you should totally punch a retarded kid in the face. THAT will teach him. Maybe the kid is desperate for attention. Personally, I would want to know why. Maybe the kid is high as hell. Maybe he wants my wallet. But a kid who has a normal brain and normal brain chemistry who has a loving family and stability does not do this kind of thing. Is he challenged? Is he abused? Is he using? These are real problems that I am not going to add to by hitting him. If he's a sociopath then I'm not going to change his behavior by hitting him. Most of the cops I've met are very interested in why kids act out, and they make damn sure they find out why. I would call the cops so family services gets involved, and every aspect of this childs life and that of his parents are rigorously scrutinized. I don't want the cops to punch him back for me. I want them to help him.

The biggest reason that you don't hit kids is because you can. You can hit a kid. Most of them won't hit back, they won't question, they will accept it as your right as an adult. Why would you let them? Are you going to tell them that your right as an adult extends to having sex with them? There is no difference. Hell, it could be argued that at least sex is supposed to feel good, unlike a switch which is supposed to cause the maximum amount of pain with the least amount of damage.

Who do you trust to hit your kid? A teacher with a hidden rage problem? His best friend's secretly alcoholic mother? The guy at the convenience store? Why would you trust anyone to hit your kid? What if they hate your kid? What if they have absolutely no sense of proportion? What if they know nothing of the anatomy and start hitting your child on the spine and around the kidneys? Does a kid deserve to be paralyzed for a classroom infraction? does he deserve to piss blood for a few weeks? Does hitting kids even work?

It doesn't. Every study since the 60s says it doesn't work. So you aren't disciplining him. You're just hurting him. You are hurting a child to make yourself feel better, and to feel more in control of the situation. There's a word for that. Sadist.

[c.d.]

If I am not mistaken, this topic has to do with ketchup does it not? Just saying.

c.d.

[Robert]

Errata, what you're saying is that if a child proves unmanageable you should sit down and explain the reasons for the rules in an attempt to gain his consent. Most schools do give the reasons for the rules, but still the kids break them. But it's Ok - all the other students' learning has to be interrupted while you sit down with the child and try to persuade him to obey the rules. And in the case of the 14 year old who punches you in the face, you think it's fine that the police should use force on him, and send him to a detention unit, but if you punch him in the face it's a terrible thing for which you must apologise. Sorry, but if a 14 year old were to punch me in the face he'd get one back.

Limehouse, these people you talk of should obviously not be in a normal school where they will disrupt the other pupils' learning. They should be in a home for idiots. You are so concerned for these unmanageable kids. But what effect do you think they are having on their fellow pupils? Do you think they bully their fellow pupils? Obviously they do. So for the sake of your principles, there will be children who dread the thought of going to school and whose work suffers when they are at school. The health and safety of these pupils may even be jeopardised by the presence of these vicious kids. I'm sorry, but we cannot constantly round down everyone to the lowest level and we cannot constantly be going back to pick up stragglers.

[Limehouse]

I agree that teachers have a very stressful job, and that they are having to pay for society's problems. But I can't help thinking that they have brought some of this on themselves. They were in the forefront of the campaign to abolish corporal punishment. So now they have kids whom they can't discipline, and they have to call the police.

I was caned at school and no, I didn't vow revenge on society. Even in our primary school (age 5 to 11) the teachers would sometimes give us a slap on the leg or the arm (boys wore short trousers in those days and girls wore skirts). Maybe I'm eccentric but it didn't make me twisted and bitter. What made me bitter was having to learn to bloody dance.

Robert, this is priceless. So - you [B]are[B] blaming teachers for the ills in society - because they refuse to beat children, some of whom may well have been beaten severely by their carers every night of their lives?

Sorry - but teachers have to work with parents, carers and various specialists in order to ensure that children and young people behave well. Teachers cannot beat into children and young people, the social skills and positive attitudes that their parents have failed to model to them.

Additionally, I was threatened and verbally abused by a parent who objected to me telling his daughter off for using foul and disgusting language at the top of her voice. What do you think he would have done to me if I had hit his daughter?

I agree with you about dance though.

[Errata]

Errata, if you are against discipline and against physical force, then I take it you are against the police, against prisons, against armies, and courts, in fact against most of what preserves civilization.

I have heard people say "It's illegal to smack an adult, so why should it be legal to smack a child?" But by the same tolen, it's illegal to send an adult to his room and keep him there, so why should it be legal to do it to a child? It's illegal to take a packet of sweets out of an adult's hands, in the hope that he'll eat his dinner - so why should it be legal to do it to a child? Sooner or later, common sense must intervene - even for liberals.

Question : a 14-year-old comes up to you in the street and punches you in the face. What do you do?

I'm not against discipline. I'm against physical force. If a pair of adults wants to brawl over football teams, thats their call. In that situation they are consenting to violence.

I am not against the police, although I think everyone can agree there are and have been some spectacular problems with police brutality. That is not okay. I am not against prisons, though there have been abuses there too. I desperately wish there was no need for armies. And certainly our military forces have been called upon to engage in some truly questionable conflict over the years.

The analog of hitting a child is not an adult who commits a crime and goes to jail. First of all, hopefully no one hit the adult. Secondly, the adult lives in the full knowledge of the social contract that he obeys the rules of the land, or he submits to the justice of the land. Should he decide that the social contract does not work for him, he can leave. And people do all the time. We don't want Muslim women under Sharia law to abide by their social contract. We encourage them to change it or leave. And many many people do leave.

An adult who commits a crime (in the ideal) faces no violence upon arrest. And I agree that physical restraint may be necessary to prevent harm to others and to the perpetrator. They are brought in for questioning, they are processed. They are given a preliminary court date to decide if a crime has even been committed. A judge generally gives the person an opportunity to post bail, at which point the adult is free until trial. At trial an adult is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and only after a conviction by an impartial jury of their peers after an exhausting examination of evidence is any punishment dealt.

A child has none of these things. A child pisses off an adult, rightly or wrongly, and gets smacked. There is no examination of evidence, there is no impartial jury, there is no consideration of cause or reason. The real analog would be if you open your door one night and a bunch of guys rush in and beat the crap out of you because someone said you did something. A child is incapable of consent, which our societies recognize legally. They cannot consent to the social contract, they cannot consent to violence, and they have no alternatives. They cannot leave their homes if they choose not to obey the rules of the house. And in many instances, outside of a hospitalization, they cannot even ask for intervention. They have to convince an adult to ask for intervention.

I was struck maybe three times in my life by an adult. I think my mom spanked me twice, and that assistant principal. My parents immediately apologized, and explained to me why what they did was wrong, and what their reasoning was. Other than the assistant principal, I was never touched after the age of five. And I obey the law. I am a good person. Because people took the time to explain things to me, I understand how the law works. I understand the value of discipline. Because fear was not a part of my learning process I grew up to love learning, and to challenge. Because the adults in my life didn't just slap me when I got out of line, I also learned that it's okay to question authority, and to challenge it. I learned the value of civil disobedience. And I never learned to fear authority. It's not as though there is no alternative to committing violence on a child. All it takes is not wanting to commit violence on a child.

And if a 14 year old ran up and punched me in the face? Well, it depends on why, but I'd probably say "Ow" and back off. And I would call the cops. Hopefully family services would find a way to help that kid. Or maybe I could find a way. If nothing else they can keep him under control until he turns 18 and can then either abide the social contract or leave. But I wouldn't touch him unless I had to restrain him to keep him from killing me. And that is easily accomplished without hurting him.