Have the police nothing better to do?
As any teacher or parent will tell you, 13-year-old boys can be extraordinarily difficult to cope with, especially when they are in groups.
It seems there was a bit of an altercation between one such boy and his teacher, a man, on a recent school outing. The boy told his parents that his teacher hit him. The parents, instead of doing what I would have done and giving the boy a bollocking on the grounds that he must have done something himself to get it, then taking it up directly with the headmaster, went to the police.
Idiots on all counts.
1. It gives the boy utterly the wrong message.
2. They should have known what 13-year-old boys are like and that there was a very strong likelihood that something fairly bad must have happened to provoke the teacher into losing it and lashing out.
3. Things that happen at school – unless they are extreme, like sexual crimes – are always best sorted out within the school and left to end there instead of being dragged on. Schools have the disciplinary structures to deal with bad behaviour by teachers and pupils, and they should not be undermined, circumvented or replaced by the police and the law courts.
4. It is never a good idea to assume that your children are telling you the truth, especially when the truth is going to get them into trouble. Children can assess the consequences of telling the truth (a bollocking, no pocket money and two weekends in) but they are unable to calculate the risks and gambles of telling half-truths or lies. In this case, the boy could not foresee that his parents would go to the police, and that the police would find out he had done something and decide to prosecute him as well.
The police are idiotic, too, for prosecuting the teacher and his pupil. We have already had the farcical case of the nursery school teacher who reported a small child to the police for pushing a crayon into her eye. At the school my sons went to, the popular sports master was prosecuted for grabbing a notoriously insufferable boy, who had sat out one football session lobbing small stones at select targets, and ramming him against the lockers. The sports master was cleared of all charges. UPDATED: a former school official has emailed to tell me that he did not lose his job as a result of the accusations and prosecution, but left of his own accord around two years after the incident to work elsewhere.
The police would have achieved more, if they were going to get involved at all, by sitting the involved parties down, giving them a stern talking-to, then sending them on their way. Instead, we shall have waste of police time, waste of court time, and a protracted hassle that nobody needs or wants, and which will achieve precisely nothing.
I hope we’re not going the current British way on this. What next – parents prosecuted for smacking their children?
47 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
And so say all of us
Certain parents are worse than their own children. Once I heard a mum saying that teachers should never get married so that they will be more patient with their students as they wouldn’t have a family of their own to worry about.
Ara it-tustagni ta’ certu nies.
In my opinion there are no rude children but only rude parents.
[Daphne – Some of the worst children I have known had parents who were extremely polite and civilised – and vice versa.]
A good piece of writing.
I apologise for posting this here. I haven’t particpated in your blog for a while as I agreed with your strong opinions on Libya and the tragedy unfolding there. Even more so on your stand regarding immigration.
On a separate issue, I am of course fully in favour of divorce despite, as a practising Roman Catholic, I strongly believe in the indissolubility of a CATHOLIC marriage. However, you mention that not voting in favour of divorce is essentially undemocratic. I sense I agree with you here but I cannot articulate the reasoning as to why it is undemocratic. Can you please elaborate?
Cheers
[Daphne – Everybody is free to divorce or not to divorce, with a few exceptions where people find themselves divorced by their spouse against their will. Those who do not wish to divorce have no right to stop others from doing so when they are not a party to the marriage. It is, to put it simply, none of their business. It makes no difference to me whether John and Mary get a divorce and I have no right to stop them. I am not even a stakeholder in the matter. Your religion affects you alone: it tells you that you should not divorce. It does not tell you to forcibly prevent others divorcing, even when those others do not share your religion and might not even have been married in the Catholic Church. ]
The fact that my religion does not tell me to forcibly prevent others from divorcing does not mean I should vote for what is right for others. If I am a convinced and practising Catholic, then I should vote in accordance to my conscience. I am not preventing others as those others themselves have a vote and are free to use it according to their own conscience.
[Daphne – Does your conscience really tell you, when you look at – for example – two people who married in a public registry, who are not Catholic, who have no children, and who want to divorce, that you should stop them? And if so, why and on what basis? This is a genuine question, because I can’t fathom the mindset. I need to have it explained to me.]
oops, then!
Perfect! I fully agree, Daphne.
Antoniette, the religious argument and conscience mumbo jumbo is useless here. I am voting Yes as this is a civil solution to a civil problem; I will vote Yes as I strongly believe that the only valid arguments against divorce are the ones based on faith.
Any state accepting these arguments is nothing short of a theocracy, which is just what our government has deemed our state to be with its pathetic ‘no-to-divorce’ position.
I will vote Yes as I believe my wife and I will remain together despite divorce not because of its absence – contrary to what the now notorious couple, Pierre and Mireille Cordina maintained in a recent The Times interview.
As I said, I am not stopping them, they too have a vote and are free to vote as they like. I understand the point you are making but if I have to vote I will not vote for something I do not believe in.
I would not have held it against the goverment if it had legalized divorce, that is their job, to cater for Catholics and non Catholics alike, but since they are asking for my vote I will vote according to my beliefs.
[Daphne – That depends on how you define your beliefs: belief in democracy, not in divorce. You’re not looking at the matter correctly. I’ll give you a tangible example. I don’t believe in the Labour Party. I am completely against it. But does that mean I think the Labour Party should be banned and should never have existed, and will I vote Yes in a referendum to ban Labour? No, I will not. There are wider issues at stake.]
The solution to pig-headed people is quite simple. Divorce should have been made available to all and sundry, with no referendum having holy cows decide on the fate of others.
Each to his own. Whoever does not believe in divorce should then not avail themselves of it. Their not agreeing with divorce does not mean that everyone else has to abide by the religious beliefs of others.
@ Antoinette:
“As I said, I am not stopping them, they too have a vote and are free to vote as they like”.
If you vote “no” and the “no” vote wins (and if the government legislates according to the referendum result), yes, you would be effectively stopping them.
In my previous post, I meant “parliament”, not “government”.
[Daphne – Does your conscience really tell you, when you look at – for example – two people who married in a public registry, who are not Catholic, who have no children, and who want to divorce, that you should stop them? And if so, why and on what basis? This is a genuine question, because I can’t fathom the mindset. I need to have it explained to me.]
All this divorce business revolves on the meaning of the word marriage. Your point of view is “nonsensical” to somebody for whom marriage is a sacrament. A marriage is not an ordinary “contract”.
[Daphne – Come on, Reuben, you’re better than that. You should know that marriage is also a contract and that with some couples, it is nothing but a contract because they never had the sacramental ceremony. People who married in Malta between 1975 and 1993 actually married twice: the religious ceremony, and the civil rite. They were separate. An official from the Public Registry turned up at the church to marry the couple civilly in the sacristy. This still happens with non-Catholic religious marriages. Catholic marriages, since 1993, have been recognised automatically by the civil authorities.]
On the other hand, I can understand that people who see marriage as an “agreement” cannot fathom why it cannot be undone – just like any other agreement.
Who’s right and who’s wrong? Cynical as it may sound Pascal’s wager comes to mind …
[Daphne – All contracts can be undone with a legal say-so, Reuben. All of them, particularly when both parties are in agreement. It is the law, not God, which dictates whether contracts can be undone or not. Believers are free to believe that God decides, but they should know they do not operate in a theocracy, so others are free to disagree. I truly cannot understand why you find the concept of separation of church and state so difficult in marriage when, or so I gather, you accept it in other fields.]
Are you aware that in Australia the Catholic Church insists that you must be divorced before you can apply for an church annulment.
http://bit.ly/fURR5i
“A civil divorce decree must be obtained before any formal action to investigate a marriage may be taken at a Catholic Tribunal”
I was not able to start my annulment process without first obtaiing a divorce. Fortunately Australia has a system of no-fault divorce granted after living apart for 12 months. and a speedy annulment process which took me just 11 months and only cost me A$600 (now costs A$750).
@Mark Vassallo – People getting married in the Catholic Church in Malta have to apply through the Public Registry some six weeks or so ahead of the date.
On doing so, both parties have got to sign something to the effect that, should the marriage not work out, it is the Catholic Church which has the last say regarding the annulment of the said marriage. From what I recall, one cannot apply for a civil annulment in Malta should one not have obtained a church annulment beforehand.
I may be wrong, but that is what I remember. If I am correct, then the Catholic Church here has really got to catch up with the rest of the world.
First of all no one will prevent others from not keeping their promise . The referendum is a consultation process where our parliament consults the voters on a specific question . Parliament can vote against the wish expressed in a referendum.
Conscience has to be informed and formed.
Daphne’s example of this childless civil marriage can still affect society if for example one of the spouses suffers a nervous breakdown because of being kicked out .
[Daphne – You can’t protect people against life, John. That’s a very silly example.]
Maybe divorce is the solution for this couple if they are in agreement , but life is different from this scenario. Nowadays a family consists of the parents and one or two kids, and even if the parents agree to divorce , society will have to take care of the children of the divorced parents even when they do not shrug their responsibilities. Problems will start mushrooming for these children; learning difficulties , drug and substance abuse , crime and undernourishment come to mind.
If we will accept divorce we can accept a ‘free for all’ in heterosexual relationships , they’re just the same.
After the introduction of divorce cohabitation will increase because of the above ; the rationale behind this is that if one marries and can get out of the bond with a lot of trouble , why should one get married in the first place? Untying the knot will be a piece of cake.
When the pill was introduced women were told that babies weren’t going to be aborted any more, but in actual fact we all know that abortions increased .
Same will happen with the introduction of divorce ; co-habitation will increase and we will have more people living below the poverty line and depending on social security. How can a single person support his children from his first marriage and his other child from his second marriage not to mention another child from a third marriage. I a person in the UK who is ‘supporting’ SIX children; namely his and his second wife’s children and their newborn baby.Problems started when his daughter aged fifteen was harassed by his second wife’s son who is aged seventeen. I didn’t want to listen to more stories from this ‘unstable’ bloke.
@ John Schembri:
“…even if the parents agree to divorce , society will have to take care of the children of the divorced parents even when they do not shrug their responsibilities”.
With or without divorce, the responsibility of children legally rests on the parents.
“Problems will start mushrooming for these children; learning difficulties , drug and substance abuse , crime and undernourishment come to mind”.
Let’s ignore this sweeping generalisation. But how are children of divorced parents different from children of separated parents?
“After the introduction of divorce cohabitation will increase because of the above ; the rationale behind this is that if one marries and can get out of the bond with a lot of trouble , why should one get married in the first place? Untying the knot will be a piece of cake”.
A counter-argument would be: If there is a way out of marriage, why cohabit and not marry?
“When the pill was introduced women were told that babies weren’t going to be aborted any more, but in actual fact we all know that abortions increased”.
That can only mean that the contraception advertising campaign didn’t work. More contraception = less abortion. Common sense.
“Same will happen with the introduction of divorce ; co-habitation will increase…”
Any evidence to back up the claim that cohabitation increases BECAUSE of divorce?
“How can a single person support his children from his first marriage and his other child from his second marriage not to mention another child from a third marriage”.
How can an unmarried person support her children from her first affair, and her other child from her second affair, not to mention another child from her third affair? Your argument is not an argument against divorce, but an argument for a means test making it illegal to have children if one can’t afford it.
“Problems started when his daughter aged fifteen was harassed by his second wife’s son who is aged seventeen. I didn’t want to listen to more stories from this ‘unstable’ bloke”.
Yes, harassment can be tough on teens. That’s what laws against harassment and the police are for.
@Josephine,
Not quite correct but almost.
If both spouses, even if they both signed that document, choose to apply for an annulment in a civil court then that’s fine but if one will only accept a church annulment, then the civil courts have no say – in effect allowing one spouse to blackmail the other.
“A counter-argument would be: If there is a way out of marriage, why cohabit and not marry?”
Cohabitation does not need formalities to be terminated pack up your clothes and go” , no claims for maintenance, (if there are children the mother just claims she doesn’t recall who the father was), hassle free and no legal fees to pay.
With the introduction of the pill people were led to believe that they can have fun without the responsibility of having children, then people started trying to do away with the pill because abortion became available.
When we are presented with ‘instant solutions’ for our problems we tend to go for the ones which bear less negative consequences on our individual lives.
And that says it all, well nearly, because in addition to your very valid argument, I also maintain that we cannot have a situation where divorce is actually accepted by the state as long as it took place abroad.
Does this not make NOT having the right to divorce in Malta a case of pure discrimination against a section of society who cannot go abroad and get it there? Any human rights lawyers around who can throw some light on this?
[Daphne – 780 divorces have been registered in Malta in the last 30 years.]
I fully agree with your view. I may also add that the people who are in favour of divorce are the ones who truly believe in marriage.
The main reason for someone seeking a divorce is to be able to marry again and formalise the new relationship with a new-found partner. In my view this is much better than cohabitation which apparently the Catholic fundamentalists have no qualms about.
This in my opinion is unbelievable since according to my Bible when an unmarried couple are living together, they are living in sin, even more so when both or one are still married to someone else but only separated.
Dear Antoinette and all of your ilk, this is ADULTERY, but to our church and the Talibans in the No campaign it does not matter as long as officially we remain the only country in the civilised world that has no divorce. What a bunch of hypocrites.
This relates to your article which appeared on the Independent, today.
Migrants drown off Pantelleria
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/…/migrants-drown-off-pantelleria.359931
Read the comment by Adriano Spiteri:
Another tragedy indeed which should not make us feel good about.
However, that said, I think that these people plan to and eventually break our border laws. They do so for economic reasons and are given total immunity. We should no longer insure their illegal endeavours by sending our own people miles away to tow them in – irrelevant of what the EU states. So far the latter ridiculed Simon Busuttil’s burden sharing joke (literally a joke), forced us to initiate integration programmes and is now calling for their regularisation (after 5 years). This is ridiculous.
We have become a spineless people with no patriotic fervor. We are handing our own country to others and in doing so becoming strangers on our own land.
Mass migrations have been happening throughout history ever since the first caveman thought that the next valley offered better opportunity. There are mass influxes of people from farmland to cities, and the cities grow (the Chinese have a serious problem here). Malta is two islands of half a million and we are not sinking yet. If it is culture change that worries our patriots, there is not much that can be done – things change and so what.
Antisocial behaviour – the silliest law enacted by any British government.
Another excellent article. Some years back, I came across teachers who do not put an X near the wrong answer to a sum. Why? Because parents objected and said that this was causing stress to the child.
I was astounded that teachers complied. They helped instill the notion in the child’s mind that he could do no wrong, without realising that this would apply in all situations, not just at school, with all foreseeable consequences.
Today’s children are being made aware of their rights without being taught that they have duties too. So they grow up thinking they are the masters and nobody should hamper their whims. We are producing the arrogant youngsters of tomorrow.
My craft metalwork teacher in the late 70s early 80s had a piece of rubber tubing called Fibi. Miscreants who did not pay attention met Fibi “up close and personal.”
I felt the wrath of Fibi ONCE, and that was enough. Never did me any harm apart from the red face of embarrassment amongst my peers. And yes, you are right, Daphne – if I had reported him to my parents I would have received a tongue-lashing from my mum: “Well, you must have deserved it”.
If I remember rightly my school banned caning in 1982, the year I left.
Hmm yes. We had the “cikkulata”. I did get that a bit too frequently for my tastes, along with other ‘scrumptious treats’. But hey, they made me the man I am today!
BuBu, it is a case of from one extreme to another. The hand lashings I took with pride, yet somehow being lifted up by the ear is all I can remember of one particular thuggish teacher .
@yor/malta. I remember something like that too, even though I never got that treatment. If the thuggish teacher you speak of taught P.E., I believe I know who you are talking about and what school you went to.
“I hope we’re not going the current British way on this.”
That’s exactly the way we’re going. The writing has been on the wall for a while now. I’m surprised you never noticed.
I concur. There was quite a drive by the former Commissioner for Children to have smacking children banned in our laws.
Take a look here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20091114/local/smacking-violates-childrens-rights.281646
“The call for a ban on smacking was echoed during the seminar by the Commissioner for Children, Carmen Zammit who said she would like to see the abolition of all forms of physical punishment of children.”
I remember asking my father to complain to a notorious St. Edward’s headmaster about the food we were made to eat.
He put me on a scant home diet so that I would stop complaining.
Discipline at schools has become so bad that now students are effectively bullying teachers.
Many students answer their teachers back using vulgar and offensive language whenever the teacher sees fit to correct them.
I’m flabbergasted that the authorities do not tackle the issue. We are bringing up a generation of children that will grow up to be unemployable!
Though I do not agree that corporal punishment should be allowed or encouraged, yet this does not mean that a teacher, or for that matter, a police officer, should suffer bullying, threats or physical violence from children.
A 13 year old might be stronger than a teacher or a policeman. Most probably the headmaster was the first to suffer abuse, either physical or/and mental, and for anyone to expect that that he keeps his cool or that he should not defend himself as best he thinks in the circumstances is asking for the impossible.
Corporal punishment should be re-introduced forthwith. It’s the only way to deal with the modern ghetto-attitude pupil or student. Been there, done that. It would be reserved for boys, of course. You never raise a hand against a lady.
It saps the will to live right out of you when you see some young delinquent smirking at you from behind his shades while being given a stipend. A good box to the ear would remove that smirk and drive the lesson home. If it’s good enough for the army, it’s good enough for schools.
Nah, if it’s good enough for the boys then it’s equally good for the girls – equality in everything mate. They can (young ladies ) also play football – seeing the girls play against our male national team and beat them, now that would bring some egos to earth.
Gallantry before equality, my dear yor/malta. You never hit a girl, and that’s final.
I know who the sportsmaster in the above anecdote is.
He is a lovely man, who is well-respected by the pupils and the parents alike at the school where he now works, which is the one my children attend.
I don’t believe he could hurt a fly unless driven to the extreme, so I would say that your anecdote sums up the situation very well.
Daphne, I remember you stating some time ago that, at the time of the EU referendum, your 97-year-old grandmother went out to vote “Yes” – quite obviously for the younger generations and not for herself, and that she died around two weeks later.
It is a shame that the younger generations, with so many opportunities available to them still remain stuck in a “tal-MUSEW” rut.
Education is not only book-learning, but unfortunately, it remains so for the thousands churned out of university each year. In many cases, close-mindedness remains, despite the wealth of information readily available at their fingertips.
Il-Muzew! Biex it-tfal jiehdu sagrament iridu jmorru kuljum il-Muzew. X’pussess ta’ knisja.
“the nursery school teacher who reported a small child to the police for pushing a crayon into her eye”
The teacher is not seeking the child for compensation but the authorities for failing to realise that this particualr child needed help from DAY 1 at school. He needed 1 to1 attention because on his own (or in a group of 25) he was a danger to himself and to the others.
This teacher is now blind in one eye. and guees what…after this incident the child was given an LSA.
And why should this teacher have the need to take anyone to court. If she was partially blinded in the course of her duty she should have been compansated like others have been, in other circumstances. She should not have been humilated into reporting a three year old child to get what she deserves.
If we decide the school for our child, then we should allow that school to deal with matters that have to do with socialising that child. Those of us who have the luxury of choosing a school for our child have to then live with our choice or put the child in another school, with all the repercussions the child would suffer with such change. If we disagree with certain school policies or actions further down the line after the child has been there for some time, a chat with the school admin is the first step before deciding on any further action. Bringing the police into any matter prematurely is precipitous and the police should refrain from taking any active part in any proceedings. Some parents are their own offspring’s worst enemy and the state might want to equip itself to recognise the children who might be at risk in order to help provide the best socialising care for such children. A child who does not know discipline will grow up to loathe others and eventually him or herself. The educational system we have today is far from ideal, but the one we had a couple of decades ago for some sectors of society, mainly state schools, was counter-productive to say the least. Many social problems we have today stem from the inadequacies of that state educational system that was more akin to Ukraine’s or Romania’s (a failed attempt at North Korea’s or China’s model) than it is to a modern European state that we now strive to be. Sociological studies on the matter need to be taken seriously for once. Corrective action is in order but the Department of Education still gives the impression that it is the Tower of Babel where it knows best and there’s no negotiating on its tenets and policies.
I have friends who were brought up in very well educated families and frequented the best church schools in Malta. When they graduated as teachers they were posted in government schools were they had to face the most difficult children. There were times when they found all this very challenging and other times when they were sick of their career and couldn’t take it anymore.
Daphne, please note that the nursery school teacher who happens to be a close friend of mine, did not report the child to the police but the education department for taking so long to assess the child so that a facilitator is provided. In fact after that incident, a facilitator was given only a week afterwards. Besides, the teacher in question ended up being blinded from one eye at 29 years of age at her workplace. She lost her vision completely by that incident. She is now suing the authorities concerned for ending up partly disabled (20%) for the rest of her life. I am sure that you or anyone else would have done the same!
I think that this testimonial proves my last point quite eloquently. The Department of Education is not a hands-on organisation but rather a more or less rigid top-down structure where the top jobs are given to individuals who have worked for such posts.
Not that meritocracy is non-existent, but new ideas are lacking and fresh blood is a ‘non-concept’. This is a structural problem that needs to be overhauled for the benefit of the younger generation, particularly, those receiving state education.
On a related issue Daphne, what is your honest opinion of public schools? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of, or attended, a decent school here in Malta which wasn’t private or belonged to the Church. If memory serves me right, the teachers were the worst part. Some of them were good, decent, hard working people, but the general population didn’t seem to really care.
People seem quite fond of laying the blame at the feet of the pupils and their parents, but are generally keen to accept the competence (or lack thereof) of government workers, including teachers and the police, as a constant rather than an independent variable.
Last time I checked, I was paying the government a chunk of my pay check so that the children of lower income families — such as mine, when I was a child — could get a good education. I’m not saying we should shoot census workers and harass public unions like they do in America — which has a public education system comparable to ours — but that we should stop treating the education system like a golden calf, which it arguably isn’t.
Now, I’m twenty five, I don’t have children, and I’m seeking a private undergraduate education, so I haven’t had contact with the public education system in quite a while. However, I haven’t found any decent statistical comparisons (because Malta is too good for PISA), and the anecdotal evidence I heard is still negative.
Also, why aren’t teachers held accountable for the exam results of their students? This isn’t really an issue which is isolated to Malta. They tried to introduce such a system in the United States, along with a huge financial incentive, but teachers there were more keen to keep complaining about their wages, and to blame poverty for the students’ results.
In my opinion, there is a much deeper, untouched, issue here than all this shallow Victorian nonsense everyone keeps bringing up about discipline.
P.S. The schools weren’t really that disciplined when I was a child. Teachers were more apt to yell hysterically than to act like strong consistent figures of authority.
Daphne, by the look of things, judging by the comments on this post, this area of analysis – education; particularly state education, requires some modicum/measure of journalistic attention on your part. Why not devote an article to the subject, even for sociological merit, to gain some insight and knowledge into where and how this vital aspect/criterion places itself into your whole grand scheme of things good, bad and ugly?