• Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Hate register!

Hero999

Banned

Sceadwian

Banned
Hero, the world now is not the same as it was 20 years ago, or the same as it was 20 before that.
According to random net statistics, world population as of 2008 was approximatly 6.9 billion people. In 1988 there were only approximately 5 billion people, in 1968 it was 3.5 billion.

You can't just double the world population in 40 years and expect government and social systems to stay the same, your opinion that it's worse is only that, your opinion. Things will HAVE to change to account for this dramatic change in population, especially considering it's typically centered in cities or other population centers. The more dense the population is the harder it is for people to be governed after a point the government tries to 'crack down' on common themes, it's the nature of government.

If you're afraid of 'big brother', get over it, it's here now and it's going get 'worse' it's not necessarily bad either.
 
Last edited:

HarveyH42

Banned
Come on now, 5 years old? Normal kid stuff, also important for healthy development. Pretty scary stuff, training kids to be sheep, probably teach 'Climate Change Hypothesis' to them as well. Giving kids direction is good, but they also need a chance to explore on their own, handle a few problems of their own choosing. A chance to be individuals, not members of a mind-numb cult.
 

Torben

Well-Known Member
Change is inevitable. Many changes are good. It does not follow that any given change is good.

On this one, I am very solidly with Hero. If you want to just lay down and let the government strip you of right after right that's your account.

Judging by the number of people living in terror of everything (right down to schoolyard taunts) I'd have to say that the terrorists have won.

This is an appalling step by the government responsible.


Torben
 

Sceadwian

Banned
HarveyH42, what does your post have to do with what is under discussion here? Normal kid stuff should not be taken for granted, that 'normal kid stuff' is not always normal.
 
Last edited:

Pommie

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
It's funny that the law recognizes that a child under the age of 10 is not responsible for their own actions but the nanny state is going to hold them responsible from the age of 5. On the other hand, it may enable individuals like Venables and Thomson to be identified before they commit some heinous crime.

So, I have mixed thoughts on the matter. Also, it is The Daily Mail which is known for sensationalizing things.

Mike.
 

tcmtech

Banned
Most Helpful Member
WTF? Some of the feelings Nazis would pee themselves if they heard what my 8 year old niece and I say at times to each other. :eek:
Why? Because I and her father are not going to have a little girl who goes crying to teacher or anyone else if someone calls her poopie head. Her dad an I both agree that she will have the skin and confidence to take what ever life throws at her for the worst.

More people on this planet does not mean be softer and give up easy. It means you will need to stand your ground and make sure no one takes advantage of you that much more. :)

Words are words and nothing else unless you make them into something. And she will have more than enough verbal guns to tear down anyone who provokes her justly enough to need to use them.

I can hardly wait until she is old enough to be on the debate teams. I bet she will make a few boys cry too some day! :D
In a few more years when here typing skills mature and her tactfulness levels out I may even bring her here and let her have a go at a few chat subjects for a while. :eek: :D
 
Last edited:

Reloadron

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
HarveyH42, what does your post have to do with what is under discussion here? Normal kid stuff should not be taken for granted, that 'normal kid stuff' is not always normal.
I think that what HarveyH42 was getting at was that children in a 5 to 7 year old age group will frequently do things somewhat out of the ordinary and among those behaviors some can just be considered kid stuff and normal development behavior.

I agree that what some consider "normal kid stuff" may not be normal in the eyes or thinking of another. Generally this in itself is not a problem however, it can be a problem. If a 7 year old does something a teacher views as not normal should that child's name be placed in a national data-base soley on what a single teacher perceived to be abnormal behavior. Should a single person like a teacher have the power to make that decision?

Questions:

Little Johnny is 7 years old and little Susie is also 7 years old. A teacher finds Lil' Johnny and Lil' Susie behind a large oak tree during recess playing I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Now should both children simply be disciplined and their parents notified or should this teacher have the power to place the names of both children in a national data-base register as potential someday sexual predators? Or, would this be normal child behavior?

Little Johnny and Little Susie are playing peacefully in the school yard when little Susie takes little Johnny's pencils and won't return them. She taunts him with the pencils a little. Little Johnny finally gets angry and pushes little Susie as he screams "I hate you". This last part is witnessed by a teacher. Should little Johnny be placed in a national data-base register for potentially violent people? Or, would this be considered normal child behavior?

I guess it all depends on who decides what is or is not "normal" child behavior.

Ron
 
Last edited:

Hero999

Banned
I can't believe that some people here actually seem to be in support of this.

I also get the feeling that many of you who have commented have not read the article.

For those who haven't got the time to read the entire thing I'll post a couple of quotes:

Heads will be forced to list children as young as five on school 'hate registers' over everyday playground insults.

Even minor incidents must be recorded as examples of serious bullying and details kept on a database until the pupil leaves secondary school.
Somerset, Peter Drury, were told that his name would be put on a register and his behaviour monitored while he remained at school.

The boy was reported after he called a friend 'gay boy'. His parents fear the record of homophobic bullying will count against him throughout his school career and even into adulthood.

In another incident last year a six-year-old girl, Sharona Gower, was reported for 'racist bullying' at her school near Tunbridge Wells in Kent.

Sharona was chased by two 11-year-old girls, one of whom taunted her that she had chocolate on her face.

The six-year-old responded to one of the girls, who was black: 'Well, you've got chocolate on yours.'
The government are recording every incident of playgound banter as bullying. This covers insults ranging from racist, to homophobic to disability related, even if they're blatantly light-hearted.

I don't think there's a single person at the school I went to who hasn't called someone a retard, batty boy or some other insult which would go on the register.

Using certain words in a derogatory sense is also an offence, i.e. you can't say "I hate English, it's seriously retarded", "Homework's gay" or "That's dark" without it being recorded on the stupid register. All of the aforementioned words have been used by British schoolchildren in recent years to describe something inferior or bad and have caused minimal offence at the time.

Even people who are gay or black can often enter into some banter about their differences without being offended, it depends on the person and the nature of the banter. My brother's gay and some of the banter he enters into at work regarding his sexuality would put nearly all his colleagues on the list. It's true that there's often a fine line between banter and bullying but I think people should try to assume the best of others as much as possible.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Our government are going worse.

Children as young as 7 now get their names recorded on file if they're witnessed insulting their fellow pupils in a politically incorrect manner. This is worse than some of the nannying on this forum. :rolleyes:

Pupils aged five on hate register: Teachers must log playground taunts for Government database | Mail Online
I've never heard any suggestion of such a thing, and my wife works in a Primary school - anyway, any decent school would flatly refuse to participate in such a ludicrous idea.

Sounds more like a Daily Mail made up story than anything else?.
 

Hero999

Banned
I haven't been able to find another source of information but if this is made up the Daily Mail are going to be subject to pretty big libel suit.
 

HarveyH42

Banned
HarveyH42, what does your post have to do with what is under discussion here? Normal kid stuff should not be taken for granted, that 'normal kid stuff' is not always normal.
First, kids mimic things they hear and see, doesn't mean they actually understand what they are doing. Name calling isn't always hateful, and usually better than violence. Children who are teased and taunted, usually rise to the challenge, and strive to overcome and improve themselves.
Kids need to develop emotionally, which is something that has to be done by the individual, you have to earn it through experience.

There have always been defective kids, those that do some pretty horrific things, and grow up to do even worse. Doubt it had much to do with school yard taunting, probably something at home, they can either choose to change what sets them apart, try to fit in, or continue with their strange ways.

Basically, having the school step in at every incident, is going to turn out some emotional weak individuals, and another bunch afraid to express themselves. Pretty much just sheep in a flock, depend on a Shepard to lead them through life, and protect them from harm, lost, without such a provider. Guess that would be ideal, for some organizations, but not great for society as a whole.

Everybody has unique qualities, and usually excel in a few things, that others struggle at. Some might be really good at physical activities, like sports. Others do well in some academic subjects, or music, arts... Those with common strengths usually form groups, which usually also share the same weaknesses. The 'jock' are noted to excel in studies, the 'nerds' not some much for sports. Some do okay at most anything.

Now when one kid says something hurtful to another, out of anger, things change, and both kids know they did something bad to each other, and will eventually make peace. If the school steps in, the verbal kid that was originally wronged, is punished, and the other kid is rewarded. It's okay to provoke other kids, because they are going to get into trouble if they get caught reacting. The time-bomb of rage, just hold it in, until you explode...
 

shortbus=

Well-Known Member
I lay the blame to the way society is today on Dr. Spock (no not that Spock, Klingon) Benjamin Spock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I was born in that era ,but, my Mom never read the book!

From that time forward it seems that no one is held responsible for their own actions. It's always somebody else thats wrong. Letting kids learn to figure out how to work things out on their own is much better in the long run than parents or government doing it for them. Someday they will need to do it for themselves, but don't know how because they never learned.

The same people behind this went after Criminal Rights. And look where we're at today, criminals have rights, but lawful people need to watch out every where they go.
 

Sceadwian

Banned
Harvey, and how do you expect to watch out for these types of behavior if the kids aren't monitored? An official register makes sense with fewer teachers expected to take care of more kids. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever said in the article about consequence, just that the behavior was monitored. If you think that this is big brother monitoring what we can and can not say and trying to force youngsters to conform to some absurd ideal then you've gone off on your own tanget as there is nothing in that article that would suggest that is what's occurring.

If the teachers log this kind of behavior and are able to view other log entries over time this will build up an image of the childs behavioral makeup to at least a lesser degree, you'll at least have something to compare to other students, it would empower the teachers that might not be able to mentally correlate all of this information to have a simple record of behavior. If a trend emerges then parents should be notified so that they are made aware of it.
 

Hero999

Banned
Fair enough, I would accept it, if only serious incidents were recorded but surely not harmless banter?

Come on the remark about a girl having chocolate on her face should have never been recorded and neither should the gay boy remark.

I would not have a problem if yellow and red card type of system were introduced, i.e. if a kid says something to make another child cry, not silly banter, they get a yellow card, if it happens again it's a red card, then if it happens a third time within a year they get badly punished and the black mark stays there for a year or so.

But a UK wide scheme run by the government?

What a complete waste of money? I'd rather they spend in on tackling the real causes of bullying: counselling and confidence building sessions for victims so they can stand up for themselves and a decent discipline and behaviour reform scheme for the perpetrators.

I think the bully register is is very dangerous because it can be easily abused. Suppose a child learns that someone saying a certain word gets them in trouble? The might make a malicious false allegation about another child calling them a bad name. The trouble is that the rules state that every silly incident needs to be recorded so it can't be ignored so the kid making the allegation wins every time.
 

Nigel Goodwin

Super Moderator
Most Helpful Member
Get a grip - you're getting excited over one unconfirmed article in a newspaper renowned for their imagination. There are no such rules, and heads would refuse to do it if anyone was daft enough to try and introduce such a silly scheme.
 

HarveyH42

Banned
Harvey, and how do you expect to watch out for these types of behavior if the kids aren't monitored? An official register makes sense with fewer teachers expected to take care of more kids. There was absolutely nothing whatsoever said in the article about consequence, just that the behavior was monitored. If you think that this is big brother monitoring what we can and can not say and trying to force youngsters to conform to some absurd ideal then you've gone off on your own tanget as there is nothing in that article that would suggest that is what's occurring.

If the teachers log this kind of behavior and are able to view other log entries over time this will build up an image of the childs behavioral makeup to at least a lesser degree, you'll at least have something to compare to other students, it would empower the teachers that might not be able to mentally correlate all of this information to have a simple record of behavior. If a trend emerges then parents should be notified so that they are made aware of it.
Schools are run like a business, they have to control risk and liability. If there is a serious problem, and they new about it before hand, but only wrote it down. They would risk being sued, which happens often enough already. Even if somebodies kid comes home with a bump or bruise, from a little school yard brawl, the school could face consequences. A black-eye doesn't always tell who initiated the fight either, nor is it related to anything said in the past. But when the kid's name gets checked on the list...

The point is, if the school has information, that potentially puts them at risk, they will have to act on it. The less you know, the better off you are.

Now, I will admit to not having been around big city, high society, type mentality, and probably a few decades behind the times, perhaps a little barbaric by some standards. I've always lived in small towns, grew up on the side of a huge mountain, so the big city issues were never part of my life. Will probably never understand much of big-city lifestyle. I just grew up to be independent and self sufficient. There isn't always someone else around to help you through the rough spots, and just sitting around waiting could, cost you your life. Rivers rise quickly when it rains, the temperature drops quickly when the sun sets, not to mention the wild animals roaming for food. We had to develop inner strength, learn how to function through unpleasant circumstances, stuff you learn through experience, you have to live it, and survive. Some things can be taught, but there are many things we must learn for ourselves.
 

Thunderchild

New Member
it's the childs patrents names that need to go on the register ! for some reason goverments miss it everytime, a child can be taught in school whatever the gov wants but home life and the example parents give is the determining factor in a childs development (and no I don't need a pediatric degree to know that !). With people having children long before they should and for the wrong reasons (ie the gov benefits they get and yes they DO do it for that) its small wonder that some parents are little more than tramps that do have a house and a car but their attitude to society is appaling. I've seen young parents in aour local shopping centre who have a hard time controlling their kids and don't seem to understand where that fine line between discipline and nasty/bullying attitude lies. unfortunately the goverment can't control people directly and only blows things out of proportion when it tries the direct method like this one. what I'd do is stop people having children in the first place if they are no good at bringing them up but then who is to be the judge of that. of course removing child benefit for unmarried or onviously unstable couples may bring down the birth of children into undesirable circumstances and reduce the "redundant" population. Unfortunatelt the goverment seems to think that the way to tackle things is to ever more treat children like adults and let adults behave like children. our recent credit crunch is a good example, ok it was wrong of banks to "give away" so much money to people that clearly could not afford it but hey any normal adult should know what they can affort, I recently submitted an application for a mortage and yes I weighed up very carefully how much I can afford, others in the past have been happy to take on loans they could not afford and say "what will be will be" or be that incompetent that they could not see what they were doing, and by the way I'm talking about the same people that are supposed to be bringing up children and showing them how to live as adults - great example !

what I would like to ask the gov is: why did nothing happen to the children aged 14 and 16 and their parents when they had sex (illegally) and produced a child who's future I have no faith in at all. Why were the parents of the kids that killed a man not loose custody of all of their other children and the same for other children/their parents that have commited MURDER. when will this goverment WAKE UP ?????????????? bloody paper work loving idiots and incapable of commn sense,
 
Last edited:

Reloadron

Well-Known Member
Most Helpful Member
HarveyH42 says in part:

Schools are run like a business, they have to control risk and liability.
You got that right. Currently going on in Detroit, Michigan US:

In what experts say could be a landmark decision, a Michigan school district has been ordered to pay $800,000 this week to a student who claimed the school did not do enough to protect him from years of bullying, some sexually tinged.

This week's jury verdict against Hudson Area Schools puts districts on notice that it's not enough to stop a student from bullying another. There needs to be a concerted effort to stop systemic bullying, too.

Essentially, the federal court ruling says schools can be held responsible for what students do, if there is a pattern of harassment or if they don't do enough to provide a safe environment.

"This is going to have implications across the nation," said Glenn Stutzky, a Michigan State University instructor and an expert on bullying.

The district's attorney, however, says the verdict puts schools in the tricky position of being held liable for student behavior.

The district plans to appeal.

"You're never going to completely stop kids from being mean to kids," said Timothy Mullins of Giamarco, Mullins and Horton of Troy.

The case
It started with name-calling in middle school and escalated as Dane Patterson entered high school. Some of the harassment was bullying, such as being shoved into lockers.

Other harassment was decidedly sexual in nature. He was called sexual insults, his locker and notebook were defaced with similar names, and worse. He and his parents say they reported the abuse, and yet it continued. Finally, in 10th grade, he was taunted in a locker room by a naked student rubbing against him.

That was the last straw for the Patterson family. In 2005, they sued Hudson Area Schools under Title IX, the Equal Opportunity in Education Act, using the sexually tinged bullying as the basis for a sexual harassment lawsuit.

This week a jury in U.S. District Court told the school district to pay $800,000 in damages to Patterson, now 19. Anti-bullying proponents say the case will send a message to all school districts that they are responsible for sexual harassment and, by extension, bullying.

For the Pattersons, however, the verdict is much simpler. It's vindication.

"I can't even put into words the pain and suffering that I went through for years," Dane Patterson said. "It's something that I would not want anyone else to go through."

While Patterson said he feels vindicated and is trying to move forward, his mother can't help but look back on their ordeal.

"I don't know how you get back eight years," Dena Patterson said. She said her son is so emotionally damaged by his experiences, he can't even go away to college and live in a dorm with other students. "We said it was worth standing up. We don't want another student, another parent to endure what we have seen."

Hudson schools, like most school districts, has an anti-bullying policy, and it took action against individual students when the bully could be identified. What the district failed to do is stop the pattern of abuse, said Terry Heiss, attorney for Patterson. For example, the school could have done more anti-bullying education, instituted more monitors or other measures to stop the pattern.

But this case makes it clear that having a policy, or even punishing individual bullies is not enough to stop a school from being liable, said Stutzky.

School officials will now have to show they were not indifferent, and that they made sure there wasn't a broader pattern of harassment beyond the individual case that went unchecked.

"If you only deal with things on an isolated case, that doesn't meet the standard for an effective response," Stutzky said.

But Mullins said the verdict leaves schools in a difficult situation.

"It sounds simple, but when you've got 500 kids and you're supposed to predict what any two or three or one are going to do in advance, well good luck," Mullins said. "If somebody writes dirty names on a boy's locker and you can't identify who it is, you can't punish the whole school."

The Patterson case initially was dismissed by the lower court in Detroit. But in October, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision, saying the family had demonstrated that there was enough of a question of whether the district's response was adequate to go forward with the trial.

Patterson was called pig or sexual insults and pushed into lockers, among other types of harassment, "on a daily basis" in sixth grade. When they complained, the family was sometimes told, "Kids will be kids; it's middle school," according to the court papers.

The harassment escalated in seventh grade, according to the lawsuit. Dane Patterson wanted to quit school, and his grades slipped.

Eighth grade was better. He began going to a resource room, a kind of study hall, to be counseled, and the lawsuit says the resource room teacher was helping him cope with the problems.

But ninth grade meant a change to high school. The Pattersons wanted their child to continue working with the resource room teacher, who had been successful the previous year. But the school district said no. The bullying continued in 10th grade, culminating in the locker room incident.

"It's a terrible thing, and I'm hoping with this verdict that schools will have to enforce stricter sexual harrassment and bullying policies," Patterson said.
Relatively large award for being bullied. I wonder what else the schools should be held accountable for. Gee, I remember when a school was only responsible for teaching. I guess the reach can be much further and all at a cost to who? Oh wait, that would be me.

Ron
 

Latest threads

EE World Online Articles

Loading

 
Top