# PC or what??



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

So, my wife works at a primary school and all the staff received an email from the Head saying that any phone, Ipad or similar device has to be handed in to the office at the start of the working day and that the Head will relay important phone calls to the recipient that will now come in to the school office. Apart from the sheer volume of phones the school office will have to look after as kids have their phones taken too, it's difficult to see how they will cope with the constant messages. 

The reason, apparently, is following guidance about safe guarding children following the Vanessa George case where inappropriate images were taken secretly. 

So, are we now saying that everyone has to be treated as if they are potentially a pedophile just because of a, mercifully, few isolated cases. Are they going to ban knives and forks due to the number of stabbing committed these days?

The world has finally gone mad!


----------



## Martin70 (May 14, 2015)

If they are going down this route then I think they should ban them completely.

Everyone I know managed to get through school without a mobile phone. In any emergency the school would get a message to whoever needed it.

Maybe I am just showing my age


----------



## Odvan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So, my wife works at a primary school and all the staff received an email from the Head saying that any phone, Ipad or similar device has to be handed in to the office at the start of the working day and that the Head will relay important phone calls to the recipient that will now come in to the school office. Apart from the sheer volume of phones the school office will have to look after as kids have their phones taken too, it's difficult to see how they will cope with the constant messages. 

The reason, apparently, is following guidance about safe guarding children following the Vanessa George case where inappropriate images were taken secretly. 

So, are we now saying that everyone has to be treated as if they are potentially a pedophile just because of a, mercifully, few isolated cases. Are they going to ban knives and forks due to the number of stabbing committed these days?

The world has finally gone mad!
		
Click to expand...

I agree, massive overkill.

Still, if it is implemented across the country its yet another reason for the teachers to go on strike


----------



## PhilTheFragger (May 14, 2015)

Massive over reaction there, I can understand the staff's concern as their phone is private, my phone is clean, but I wouldn't like someone fielding my calls and while they are at it , looking at my messages etc

They either trust their staff or they do not

I'm all for taking the phones off the kids in school time as they are a massive distraction, but doing the same for staff is poor unless there are specific instances with particular individuals.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So, my wife works at a primary school and all the staff received an email from the Head saying that any phone, Ipad or similar device has to be handed in to the office at the start of the working day and that the Head will relay important phone calls to the recipient that will now come in to the school office. Apart from the sheer volume of phones the school office will have to look after as kids have their phones taken too, it's difficult to see how they will cope with the constant messages. 

The reason, apparently, is following guidance about safe guarding children following the Vanessa George case where inappropriate images were taken secretly. 

So, are we now saying that everyone has to be treated as if they are potentially a pedophile just because of a, mercifully, few isolated cases. Are they going to ban knives and forks due to the number of stabbing committed these days?

The world has finally gone mad!
		
Click to expand...

The board of governors and the senior leadership team at each school will make a decision on what to do in each case regarding this. And it will then go in the relevant policy. And by no means all schools go this far.

This is not a blanket directive handed down, but it is a tricky area.  As you don't want to over react, but on the other hand the safeguarding of the children is always paramount and takes precedent over the ability of a teacher to read their texts.  As the governor responsible for safeguarding at the recruitment stage I fortunately (or possibly unfortunately as some of what people do to groom kids it is very depressing) know a bit about the issues.


----------



## Fyldewhite (May 14, 2015)

I don't think anyone of the moral character to be in the business of taking indecent photos of children will be too bothered about breaking a draconian rule on mobile phones. Totally pointless and probably misinterpreting the actual advice or guidance "to be on the safe side". Happens far too often these days.


----------



## guest100718 (May 14, 2015)

I don't really see the point. If someone wants to smuggle in a camera they will, unless you have airport style screening at the door each day.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			I don't think anyone of the moral character to be in the business of taking indecent photos of children will be too bothered about breaking a draconian rule on mobile phones. Totally pointless and probably misinterpreting the actual advice or guidance "to be on the safe side". Happens far too often these days.
		
Click to expand...

it is virtually impossible to stop someone if they want to do this and have given no previous signs of wanting to do it.  So all you can do is put as many things in place to prevent it happening, whilst at the same time not over reacting.  But what is 'over reacting' will be a judgement call, ideally made by people who know the facts about child sexual exploitation and are educated in that area.


----------



## Rooter (May 14, 2015)

I would tell them to do one, must be something about human rights or similar she could quote. If someone is a peado, taking their phone off them is not going to solve much is it..


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (May 14, 2015)

Rooter said:



			I would tell them to do one, must be something about human rights or similar she could quote. If someone is a peado, taking their phone off them is not going to solve much is it..
		
Click to expand...


So is it a Human Rights issue, to receive and make personal calls whilst being paid to teach, assist or administer within the school?

As for the pupils! Mobile phones at primary school! Really??


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			So is it a Human Rights issue, to receive and make personal calls whilst being paid to teach, assist or administer within the school?

As for the pupils! Mobile phones at primary school! Really??
		
Click to expand...

Some of the older ones have them mostly for safety reasons so they can let their parents know where they are. So they are not for use in school but after school if say they are going to a friends house. 

Ironically a lot of this has mostly been brought about by the sense of paranoia induced by certain sections of the the media over the chances of your child being snatched off the street by random strangers.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 14, 2015)

At my daughters school if anyone uses a phone within school grounds other than with the permission of the school it is taken off them and they can collect it at the end of the day. Otherwise they are fine to have them with them, switched off. This covers the emergency call situation. If a parent needs to contact their child then they do so through the office. Simple.

With regards to teachers I would not ban phones but any teacher found using their phone anywhere other than the staff room would be disciplined. That seems pretty simple and I suspect it will be the compromise found between the govt and the unions. Common sense will hopefully come through that suits both parties.


----------



## pbrown7582 (May 14, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			At my daughters school if anyone uses a phone within school grounds other than with the permission of the school it is taken off them and they can collect it at the end of the day. Otherwise they are fine to have them with them, switched off. This covers the emergency call situation. If a parent needs to contact their child then they do so through the office. Simple.

With regards to teachers I would not ban phones but any teacher found using their phone anywhere other than the staff room would be disciplined. That seems pretty simple and I suspect it will be the compromise found between the govt and the unions. Common sense will hopefully come through that suits both parties.
		
Click to expand...

the common sense approach and the best way forward IMO.


----------



## bladeplayer (May 14, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			At my daughters school if anyone uses a phone within school grounds other than with the permission of the school it is taken off them and they can collect it at the end of the day. Otherwise they are fine to have them with them, switched off. This covers the emergency call situation. If a parent needs to contact their child then they do so through the office. Simple.

With regards to teachers I would not ban phones but any teacher found using their phone anywhere other than the staff room would be disciplined. That seems pretty simple and I suspect it will be the compromise found between the govt and the unions. Common sense will hopefully come through that suits both parties.
		
Click to expand...

You dont belong here oh sensible one , begone


----------



## Rooter (May 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			So is it a Human Rights issue, to receive and make personal calls whilst being paid to teach, assist or administer within the school?

As for the pupils! Mobile phones at primary school! Really??
		
Click to expand...

I was not talking about the pupils, I agree that kids (if they have mobiles) should have them turned off at all times in school. Many will have them for "Security" for walking home etc..

The teachers, staff etc should be grown up and professional enough to know when to and when not to use them.


----------



## bluewolf (May 14, 2015)

Rooter said:



			I was not talking about the pupils, I agree that kids (if they have mobiles) should have them turned off at all times in school. Many will have them for "Security" for walking home etc..

The teachers, staff etc should be grown up and professional enough to know when to and when not to use them.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they should.. But the School is obviously taking measures so that if the worst did happen, then they could not be held responsible after the fact.. We live in a blame culture and everyone is in the business of avoiding the big scary finger (ooh err Missus)


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

It's clearly an over reaction to a one off case. My wife puts her phone in her locker when in the classroom but if they want to check for messages and emails at lunch time the office may have to find her phone amongst one of 50, or imagine if all 50 people was to access their phones! .... and hers is not a large school! What about the potential for staff to access or use a phone that's left in their care, what if an expensive phone goes missing?

I would probably take offence at the implied suggestion that everyone is potentially a paedophile and, anyway it does start to become worrying that some of the 4 and 5 year olds are not always as toilet trained as others and staff do have to help them. 

It is a directive that any phone, tablet etc is handed in from Monday onwards, no discussion or consultation, I'd tell em to swivel if I worked there!


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			It's clearly an over reaction to a one off case. My wife puts her phone in her locker when in the classroom but if they want to check for messages and emails at lunch time the office may have to find her phone amongst one of 50, or imagine if all 50 people was to access their phones! .... and hers is not a large school! What about the potential for staff to access or use a phone that's left in their care, what if an expensive phone goes missing?

I would probably take offence at the implied suggestion that everyone is potentially a paedophile and, anyway it does start to become worrying that some of the 4 and 5 year olds are not always as toilet trained as others and staff do have to help them. 

It is a directive that any phone, tablet etc is handed in from Monday onwards, no discussion or consultation, I'd tell em to swivel if I worked there!
		
Click to expand...

What was your wives reaction to this?


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			At my daughters school if anyone uses a phone within school grounds other than with the permission of the school it is taken off them and they can collect it at the end of the day. Otherwise they are fine to have them with them, switched off. This covers the emergency call situation. If a parent needs to contact their child then they do so through the office. Simple.

With regards to teachers I would not ban phones but any teacher found using their phone anywhere other than the staff room would be disciplined. *That seems pretty simple and I suspect it will be the compromise found between the govt and the unions. *Common sense will hopefully come through that suits both parties.
		
Click to expand...

I will reiterate this is not a directive that has come down from the government and I suspect there is no particular desire from teaching unions to let them have phones at all times either. It will be a call from the governing body who will approve the safeguarding policy.


----------



## Hobbit (May 14, 2015)

How on earth can you trust a teacher to teach, for them to sit next to a pupil that's struggling, or to keep one back in detention(do they still have detention?) but not trust them with their mobile phone? 

Some really educated thinking there by the H. Master...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (May 14, 2015)

bladeplayer said:



			You dont belong here oh sensible one , begone
		
Click to expand...

I quite liked it here. Ah well, as I can't drive the ball 300yds plus, I never felt I really belonged anyway.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			What was your wives reaction to this?
		
Click to expand...

The world has gone mad!


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I will reiterate this is not a directive that has come down from the government and I suspect there is no particular desire from teaching unions to let them have phones at all times either. It will be a call from the governing body who will approve the safeguarding policy.
		
Click to expand...

I understand it's from "the safeguarding team" who are currently writing a policy!


----------



## Baldy Bouncer (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			What was your wives reaction to this?
		
Click to expand...




He has more than one?........................you have my deepest sympathies Chrisd


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

Baldy Bouncer said:



			He has more than one?........................you have my deepest sympathies Chrisd

Click to expand...

Hey, nothing wrong with a bit of polygamy. Even a bit of wife swapping is fine by me, I finally convinced the wife to give it a try last weekend, swapped her for a new 3 wood.  Be dum tish.


----------



## full_throttle (May 14, 2015)

It wasn't long ago when people had to use a red cubicle (telephone box) in the street to make phone calls, we managed alright then so why can't we mange without a phone for a few hours a day now?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 14, 2015)

full_throttle said:



			It wasn't long ago when people had to use a red cubicle (telephone box) in the street to make phone calls, we managed alright then so why can't we mange without a phone for a few hours a day now?
		
Click to expand...

Because the world has moved on as it always will do


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (May 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because the world has moved on as it always will do
		
Click to expand...


Glad you didn't call it progress.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			Glad you didn't call it progress.
		
Click to expand...

For some it will be progress

The advance of technology is certainly progress for me and that includes the multi use of a mobile phone


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 14, 2015)

On some of my work sites you are not allowed to take even your work phone past the reception/security desk.  You leave it in your car or at reception.  No one really expects any of us to create a deliberate security breach - but it is simple risk mitigation.  You just accept that you can't be contacted on mobile phone whilst in the building.  If you want to check for incoming calls you leave the building check your phone and go back in.  

So not really a problem for school staff I'd say.

As for the school children. As another poster - my children's school allowed the children to have their phone on them but if they use it it is confiscated until the end of the day.


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			How on earth can you trust a teacher to teach, for them to sit next to a pupil that's struggling, or to keep one back in detention(do they still have detention?) but not trust them with their mobile phone? 

Some really educated thinking there by the H. Master...
		
Click to expand...

Indeed; in fact, why didn't he just sack all the staff, that way the children won't be in any danger from them at allâ€¦â€¦â€¦ 

The world truly has gone mad.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

GB



SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			On some of my work sites you are not allowed to take even your work phone past the reception/security desk.  You leave it in your car or at reception.  No one really expects any of us to create a deliberate security breach - but it is simple risk mitigation.  You just accept that you can't be contacted whilst in the building.  If you want to check for incoming calls you leave the building check your phone and go back in.  Not really a problem.
		
Click to expand...

I can understand that there are work environs that stop you having your phone, or maybe wallet or perhaps alcohol etc etc but my argument is that to ensure that a repeat of the Vanessa George situation doesn't happen again that everyone is treated as though they are potentially a vile criminal. It's typical, for me, of the over reaction that one off incidents bring these days.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Indeed; in fact, why didn't he just sack all the staff, that way the children won't be in any danger from them at allâ€¦â€¦â€¦ 

The world truly has gone mad.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on BIM spot on!


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Spot on BIM spot on!
		
Click to expand...

Nice to see they acted so quickly Chris; Vanessa George was sentenced to  on 15th December *2009*;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Plymouth_child_abuse_case

or have they now acted because she's due out.  I don't believe in knee-jerk reactions but well over 5 years to act and then they come up with this pig's ear?  Jeez.  

Doubtless the great and the good will give themselves a congratulatory pat on the back, someone will get a promotion out of it, the honest staff will hand their phones in and the paedophiles will continue to use these items;

http://www.eyetek.co.uk/hidden-camera-and-recorder-1

https://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/covert-secret-cameras.html 

You couldn't make it up.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Nice to see they acted so quickly Chris; Vanessa George was sentenced to  on 15th December *2009*;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Plymouth_child_abuse_case

or have they now acted because she's due out.  I don't believe in knee-jerk reactions but well over 5 years to act and then they come up with this pig's ear?  Jeez.  

Doubtless the great and the good will give themselves a congratulatory pat on the back, someone will get a promotion out of it, the honest staff will hand their phones in and the paedophiles will continue to use these items;

http://www.eyetek.co.uk/hidden-camera-and-recorder-1

https://www.spycatcheronline.co.uk/covert-secret-cameras.html 

You couldn't make it up.
		
Click to expand...

I can't add anything to what you say Blue


----------



## Imurg (May 14, 2015)

If they did this at The Boy's school they would have a crate(s) with upward of 1000 devices in it.
The chances of losing yours is immeasurable and equal to the number of buses that will be missed.
Sometimes you do wonder which planet some people are currently in orbit around..


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Imurg said:



			If they did this at The Boy's school they would have a crate(s) with upward of 1000 devices in it.
The chances of losing yours is immeasurable and equal to the number of buses that will be missed.
Sometimes you do wonder which planet some people are currently in orbit around..
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps everyone should ask for a receipt for theirs


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I can't add anything to what you say Blue
		
Click to expand...

The only thing I can add Chris is that I am genuinely shocked at just what you can stick a camera in these days and how easy they are to buy!


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			GB

I can understand that there are work environs that stop you having your phone, or maybe wallet or perhaps alcohol etc etc but my argument is that to ensure that a repeat of the Vanessa George situation doesn't happen again that everyone is treated as though they are potentially a vile criminal. It's typical, for me, of the over reaction that one off incidents bring these days.
		
Click to expand...

It is not treating everyone as a vile criminal.  They have decided to do this as one way of reducing the risk of a teacher taking pictures of a young child.  It is not a specific reaction to a specific case, there has been many cases of child sexual exploitation before this case and have been many since and unfortunately will be in the future. Yes they are luckily very few and far between, but it does happen.  And in this case it is clear that they have weighed up the risks of this happening against the risks of a teacher not being able to access their phone all day and decided that it is not worth the risk.

I am not specifically for or against their decision, but the Daily Mail readers (yes, I know, there I go again, blaming The Daily Mail) reaction of 'its political correctness gone mad' is missing a lot of context and background to this very sensitive subject.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Yyt



Hacker Khan said:



			It is not treating everyone as a vile criminal.  They have decided to do this as one way of reducing the risk of a teacher taking pictures of a young child.  It is not a specific reaction to a specific case, there has been many cases of child sexual exploitation before this case and have been many since. Yes they are luckily very few and far between, but it does happen.  And in this case it is clear that they have weighed up the risks of this happening against the risks of a teacher not being able to access their phone all day and decided that it is not worth the risk.

I am not specifically for or against their decision, but the Daily Mail readers (yes I know there I go again) reaction of 'its political correctness gone mad' is missing a lot of context and background to this very sensitive subject.
		
Click to expand...

My wife takes her phone in and leave sit in her locker but I guess that won't suffice the new rules. I do not feel that the solution is a measured response to the perceived risk, as I said in my op many people are killed with knives but they are not banned totally!


----------



## Hobbit (May 14, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			The only thing I can add Chris is that I am genuinely shocked at just what you can stick a camera in these days and how easy they are to buy! 

Click to expand...

I couldn't sit down properly for days after my last visit for a check up!


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			I couldn't sit down properly for days after my last visit for a check up!

Click to expand...

I guess that kept you focussed on your aperture!


----------



## Hobbit (May 14, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			The only thing I can add Chris is that I am genuinely shocked at just what you can stick a camera in these days and how easy they are to buy! 

Click to expand...




Hobbit said:



			I couldn't sit down properly for days after my last visit for a check up!

Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			I guess that kept you focussed on your aperture!
		
Click to expand...

Wide angle macro zoom had nowt in it!


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Yyt

My wife takes her phone in and leave sit in her locker but I guess that won't suffice the new rules. I do not feel that the solution is a measured response to the perceived risk, as I said in my op many people are killed with knives but they are not banned totally!
		
Click to expand...

Yes but I would argue it is not an equal comparison as phones do not kill someone.  And they are not banning phones totally. What they are trying to mitigate against a person of responsibility taking advantage of a very vulnerable young person (and the vast majority of kids involved in child sexual exploitation are among the most vulnerable in society).  Which is slightly different to knife crime.


----------



## Imurg (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Yes but I would argue it is not an equal comparison as phones do not kill someone.  And they are not banning phones totally. What they are trying to mitigate against a person of responsibility taking advantage of a very vulnerable young person (and the vast majority of kids involved in child sexual exploitation are among the most vulnerable in society).  Which is slightly different to knife crime.
		
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but if someone really wants to take photos of kids they're going to bring in a 2nd phone so they can leave 1 in the box and keep one concealed.
What are they going to do, frisk everyone every day..?
Surely any time wasted on this should be spent ensuring that the people in place to supervise these vulnerable kids are fit and proper people to do the job...


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

Imurg said:



			I get what you're saying but if someone really wants to take photos of kids they're going to bring in a 2nd phone so they can leave 1 in the box and keep one concealed.
What are they going to do, frisk everyone every day..?
Surely any time wasted on this should be spent ensuring that the people in place to supervise these vulnerable kids are fit and proper people to do the job...
		
Click to expand...

And if they do then there is a much greater chance that someone, either a child or any member of staff, will say there is something going out out of the ordinary if any member of staff starts using a mobile phone during the day in front of children.

And as for ensuring that the people in place are fit and proper then that is exactly what I do in the recruitment stage.  Plus there is hopefully a culture where anyone can report anything out of the ordinary that they feel is not right in that school once they have been recruited.  However as I said earlier, if someone is very determined to do this all you can do is try and reduce the chances of this happening.  And it seems in this case that the governing body has decided, possibly under advice from experts, who knows, that this is one way to do that.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Yes but I would argue it is not an equal comparison as phones do not kill someone.  And they are not banning phones totally. What they are trying to mitigate against a person of responsibility taking advantage of a very vulnerable young person (and the vast majority of kids involved in child sexual exploitation are among the most vulnerable in society).  Which is slightly different to knife crime.
		
Click to expand...


AS BIM said, the case was 5 years ago and it seems to me that if there were regular cases of abuse in this manner then they really have acted too late, are therefore incompetent, and shouldn't be in a decision making role. My analogy of knives and phones were only to highlight the extent of a knee jerk decision. Staff do not use phones during work time to the best of my knowledge but they are now not trusted to keep them, switched off, in their own possession, and that is where I believe the decision is flawed - they are now all potential paedophiles.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

chrisd said:



			AS BIM said, the case was 5 years ago and it seems to me that if there were regular cases of abuse in this manner then they really have acted too late, are therefore incompetent, and shouldn't be in a decision making role. My analogy of knives and phones were only to highlight the extent of a knee jerk decision. Staff do not use phones during work time to the best of my knowledge but they are now not trusted to keep them, switched off, in their own possession, and that is where I believe the decision is flawed - *they are now all potential paedophiles*.
		
Click to expand...

Well for better or worse that is how you have to look at anyone who has access to children in a one on one situation. And then you take what ever initiatives you feel is appropriate to stop them.  And I agree it is a crappy situation.  But you can't just have a blind trust in teachers not to do anything. Yes 99.99% of teachers will not do anything, but some will.  Also you have to understand that there are many other forms of child sexual exploitation than what went on in the referenced case, which luckily is extremely extremely rare. 

And if the head of the school used this case as the sole reason why they are doing this (and again I will state that I am not endorsing the decision, but I can understand why it was made) I would suggest it was very badly explained, as this will not be the sole reason.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



*Well for better or worse that is how you have to look at anyone who has access to children in a one on one situation*. And then you take what ever initiatives you feel is appropriate to stop them.  And I agree it is a crappy situation.  But you can't just have a blind trust in teachers not to do anything. Yes 99.99% of teachers will not do anything, but some will.  Also you have to understand that there are many other forms of child sexual exploitation than what went on in the referenced case, which luckily is extremely extremely rare. 

And if the head of the school used this case as the sole reason why they are doing this (and again I will state that I am not endorsing the decision, but I can understand why it was made) I would suggest it was very badly explained, as this will not be the sole reason.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but thats a shocking thing to say - No not everyone who has access to children is a potential paedophile.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (May 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but thats a shocking thing to say - No not everyone who has access to children is a potential paedophile.
		
Click to expand...


But how does the school know for certain, after all offenders are not going to wear a badge declaring the fact. The CRB checks are not that thorough either. If they were then we would no longer have offences being committed.

There is no absolute way of protecting children but if this school are asking staff to hand in their phones as part of their protection policy it does not seem to be particularly oppressive.


----------



## williamalex1 (May 14, 2015)

Lord Tyrion said:



			At my daughters school if anyone uses a phone within school grounds other than with the permission of the school it is taken off them and they can collect it at the end of the day. Otherwise they are fine to have them with them, switched off. This covers the emergency call situation. If a parent needs to contact their child then they do so through the office. Simple.

With regards to teachers I would not ban phones but any teacher found using their phone anywhere other than the staff room would be disciplined. That seems pretty simple and I suspect it will be the compromise found between the govt and the unions. Common sense will hopefully come through that suits both parties.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 14, 2015)

MetalMickie said:



			But how does the school know for certain, after all offenders are not going to wear a badge declaring the fact. The CRB checks are not that thorough either. If they were then we would no longer have offences being committed.

There is no absolute way of protecting children but if this school are asking staff to hand in their phones as part of their protection policy it does not seem to be particularly oppressive.
		
Click to expand...


That has nothign to do with my statement

Its shocking if people believe that everyone who has access to children is a potential paedophile - and its very very sad state if its going to that stage in life now that no one can ever be trusted.


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That has nothign to do with my statement

Its shocking if people believe that everyone who has access to children is a potential paedophile - and its very very sad state if its going to that stage in life now that no one can ever be trusted.
		
Click to expand...


I agree whole heartedly Phil


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 14, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That has nothign to do with my statement

Its shocking if people believe that everyone who has access to children is a potential paedophile - and its very very sad state if its going to that stage in life now that no one can ever be trusted.
		
Click to expand...

As safeguarding of children is absolutely paramount at schools legally you have to ask questions in the interview about safeguarding.  And these questions are squarely aimed at trying to gauge the applicants attitudes to the subject of safeguarding and if you have any doubts you must probe more into the applicants answers.  You also have to look for unexplained gaps in employment and there are various other signs of potential trouble.  This is in no way saying that anyone who has gaps in employment is a pedophile, or indeed if you prefer the company of children to adults, or if you volunteer to hang around with children a lot etc etc.  In fact I think I fitted 6 out of the 8 characteristics I think which would raise concerns to say the very least.   

And it is not a case of guilty until proved innocent.  But it is a big issue and you have to be as rigorous as possible when interviewing for positions which involve close proximity to children.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			As safeguarding of children is absolutely paramount at schools legally you have to ask questions in the interview about safeguarding.  And these questions are squarely aimed at trying to gauge the applicants attitudes to the subject of safeguarding and if you have any doubts you must probe more into the applicants answers.  You also have to look for unexplained gaps in employment and there are various other signs of potential trouble.  This is in no way saying that anyone who has gaps in employment is a pedophile, or indeed if you prefer the company of children to adults, or if you volunteer to hang around with children a lot etc etc.  In fact I think I fitted 6 out of the 8 characteristics I think which would raise concerns to say the very least.   

And it is not a case of guilty until proved innocent.  But it is a big issue and you have to be as rigorous as possible when interviewing for positions which involve close proximity to children.
		
Click to expand...

Again - its shocking thing to say and suggest that anyone who has access to kids is a potentially a paedophile - massive lack of trust and poor imo

Nothing can justify your statement you make imo


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (May 14, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			It is not treating everyone as a vile criminal.  They have decided to do this as one way of reducing the risk of a teacher taking pictures of a young child.  It is not a specific reaction to a specific case, there has been many cases of child sexual exploitation before this case and have been many since and unfortunately will be in the future. Yes they are luckily very few and far between, but it does happen.  And in this case it is clear that they have weighed up the risks of this happening against the risks of a teacher not being able to access their phone all day and decided that it is not worth the risk.

I am not specifically for or against their decision, but the Daily Mail readers (yes, I know, there I go again, blaming The Daily Mail) reaction of 'its political correctness gone mad' is missing a lot of context and background to this very sensitive subject.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.  It really isn't that hard to be separated from your mobile phone whilst you are working - and you have the opportunity to access it from time to time.


----------



## Qwerty (May 14, 2015)

I'd imagine Ofsted will be quite impressed with this attention to detail..


----------



## SocketRocket (May 14, 2015)

Do Teachers have to wear velcro fastening shoes and elasticated waistbands?   You can kill people with shoe laces and belts!


----------



## chrisd (May 14, 2015)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I agree with this.  It really isn't that hard to be separated from your mobile phone whilst you are working - and you have the opportunity to access it from time to time.
		
Click to expand...

With respect SILH it isn't about being seperate from a phone, it's about the implied suggestion that everyone is potentially a paedophile and not as it should be that everyone is NOT a paedophile unless they are found to be one.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			With respect SILH it isn't about being seperate from a phone, it's about the implied suggestion that everyone is potentially a paedophile and not as it should be that everyone is NOT a paedophile unless they are found to be one.
		
Click to expand...

But isn't that a bit late then though?  Plus what ever initiatives are introduced in schools are also meant to act as a deterrent to people who may want to engage in child sexual exploitation. A lot of the procedures were tightened up after the Soham murders where the process for the vetting of school staff was found to be extremely lax at best.


----------



## Hobbit (May 15, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Again - its shocking thing to say and suggest that anyone who has access to kids is a potentially a paedophile - massive lack of trust and poor imo

Nothing can justify your statement you make imo
		
Click to expand...

What I find really shocking is.... and its sticking in my throat... I'm inclined to agree with HK, but maybe from a slightly different angle - couldn't totally agree with him.

Let's just put the implied, "you are guilty until proved innocent," to one side for a second and look at it from the perspective of what it achieves. It may well stop any number of peads from taking photos of children in that environment.

How many laws have been brought in down the years that were perceived to penalise the innocent but actually achieved a great deal of good, e.g. the seat belt law. There was a great out cry when that was introduced.

How about cameras in shops or in the High St? Are we all shop lifters, or guilty of anti-social behaviour? We are quite willing to accept cameras in shops etc, so is it really wrong to have a ban om phones in the classroom? Or is it because the thought of being a potential shoplifter doesn't give you a second thought, but the thought of you being a potential pead causes afront?


----------



## Fyldewhite (May 15, 2015)

There is always the argument that if such rules save one child from abuse then it is worth the overhead in terms of time spent enforcing it, the inconvenience (real and perceived) etc. However, a mandatory 15mph speed limit everywhere would definitely reduce road deaths and serious injuries. Would never happen of course so it always comes down to that "what is reasonable?" question. The question is always what can be done to minimize the risks? In this case I think it's more than a little draconian and as I've already said won't stop anyone from doing it if they really want to.....it's all about the school being able to tick the box that said "we had strict policies in place" in the (still very unlikely) event that such pictures get taken.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



*What I find really shocking is.... and its sticking in my throat... I'm inclined to agree with HK,* but maybe from a slightly different angle - couldn't totally agree with him.

Let's just put the implied, "you are guilty until proved innocent," to one side for a second and look at it from the perspective of what it achieves. It may well stop any number of peads from taking photos of children in that environment.

How many laws have been brought in down the years that were perceived to penalise the innocent but actually achieved a great deal of good, e.g. the seat belt law. There was a great out cry when that was introduced.

How about cameras in shops or in the High St? Are we all shop lifters, or guilty of anti-social behaviour? We are quite willing to accept cameras in shops etc, so is it really wrong to have a ban om phones in the classroom? Or is it because the thought of being a potential shoplifter doesn't give you a second thought, but the thought of you being a potential pead causes afront?
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, I post so much crap that the law of averages states eventually anyone will agree with one thing I post.  Well almost anyone...

And a good point well made.  So I agree with you as well. Suck it up.


----------



## chrisd (May 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			What I find really shocking is.... and its sticking in my throat... I'm inclined to agree with HK, but maybe from a slightly different angle - couldn't totally agree with him.

Let's just put the implied, "you are guilty until proved innocent," to one side for a second and look at it from the perspective of what it achieves. It may well stop any number of peads from taking photos of children in that environment.

How many laws have been brought in down the years that were perceived to penalise the innocent but actually achieved a great deal of good, e.g. the seat belt law. There was a great out cry when that was introduced.

How about cameras in shops or in the High St? Are we all shop lifters, or guilty of anti-social behaviour? We are quite willing to accept cameras in shops etc, so is it really wrong to have a ban om phones in the classroom? Or is it because the thought of being a potential shoplifter doesn't give you a second thought, but the thought of you being a potential pead causes afront?
		
Click to expand...

I'm in a similar camp as you, I don't disagree with HK at all, but cases are very very rare, I agree there should be no cases at all, but you can't totally guard against it without having a group of people overseeing every contact with children (just to ensure their not working in, say, pairs) cctv throughout the school and constant checking and monitoring of all the staff, visitors etc   Child safety is absolutely paramount but common sense has to apply too


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 15, 2015)

Fyldewhite said:



			There is always the argument that if such rules save one child from abuse then it is worth the overhead in terms of time spent enforcing it, the inconvenience (real and perceived) etc. However, a mandatory 15mph speed limit everywhere would definitely reduce road deaths and serious injuries. Would never happen of course so it always comes down to that "what is reasonable?" question. The question is always what can be done to minimize the risks? In this case I think it's more than a little draconian and as I've already said won't stop anyone from doing it if they really want to.....it's all about the school being able to tick the box that said "we had strict policies in place" in the (still very unlikely) event that such pictures get taken.
		
Click to expand...

I would agree that there is an element of box ticking as that is how a lot of organisations run nowadays.  And I also agree that blink box ticking without any application of common sense which does go on a lot, is dangerous.  And you are right, it is someones judgement call on what is reasonable really.  I know as I've had to make that very call.  

But I would reiterate that the single measure is not there to stop someone per se, as if you take any initiate on it's own you could argue that it will not do much in isolation, so that is not a reason not to do it in my opinion. But it is there as a raft of measures to make it harder for someone to do this.


----------



## Hacker Khan (May 15, 2015)

And one final point (I promise as I've said all I need to say) is that this kind of initiative should apply to all school staff, not just teachers. So that includes any temporary staff, cooks, office workers, care takers, supply teachers and various other people that are employed by schools.  

So whilst there may be understandable uproar at a elderly female teacher (as the vast majority of teachers at primary schools are female) with over 35 years of experience and an  impeccable record having to hand in their phone, would a parent or anyone else have the same uproar if this also applied to a supply teacher, or a temporary male caretaker who was in school for just a few days or a cook who they had never seen before had to do the same? As when you decide on the policies you have to take into account the whole of the staff.


----------



## alexbrownmp (May 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			So, my wife works at a primary school and all the staff received an email from the Head saying that any phone, Ipad or similar device has to be handed in to the office at the start of the working day and that the Head will relay important phone calls to the recipient that will now come in to the school office. Apart from the sheer volume of phones the school office will have to look after as kids have their phones taken too, it's difficult to see how they will cope with the constant messages. 

The reason, apparently, is following guidance about safe guarding children following the Vanessa George case where inappropriate images were taken secretly. 

So, are we now saying that everyone has to be treated as if they are potentially a pedophile just because of a, mercifully, few isolated cases. Are they going to ban knives and forks due to the number of stabbing committed these days?

The world has finally gone mad!
		
Click to expand...

I fully agree and support the headmasters policy.

It's really not a difficult logistical process to set up where children turn off and hand in their phones to be collected after school- yes it's a hassle and some logistical issues easily overcome but a lot less hassle than having internal school images and videos circling the world on a daily basis and totally out of context.

Teachers could be self disciplined and anyone caught using one outside the staffroom or within the school grounds could face disciplinary action. It's not that difficult as an adult to behave as an adult and respect your employers wishes ie do the job you are paid to do without bringing in external distractions, of any kind.

Anyone getting upset over not having access to their phone but knowing they are contactable within minutes via the school office really needs to think again.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 15, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			Don't worry about it, I post so much crap that the law of averages states eventually anyone will agree with one thing I post.  Well almost anyone...

And a good point well made.  So I agree with you as well. Suck it up.
		
Click to expand...

Ever considered getting an infinite number of Monkeys with an infinite number of computers logged into Golf Monthly Forum.   Eventually one of them would post something like you do


----------



## Golfmmad (May 15, 2015)

Slightly off topic but in a similar vein.

Was at my Granddaughters school last week - it was used as the Polling Station.
Everybody was queuing up and waiting in a small lobby to go in and vote. On the side wall is where the children hang their coats at the start of the day. Above each coat hook their names are stuck on the wall.

All the names were covered over with newspaper, so they couldn't be seen.

I found this quite strange!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (May 15, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Yyt

My wife takes her phone in and leave sit in her locker but I guess that won't suffice the new rules. I do not feel that the solution is a measured response to the perceived risk, as I said in my op many people are killed with knives but they are not banned totally!
		
Click to expand...

If it's in a locked locker, what danger is there? Seems the best solution all round and can be checked in breaks in the staff room without any threat to the kids civil liberties or it being misconstrued


----------



## Blue in Munich (May 15, 2015)

Hobbit said:



			What I find really shocking is.... and its sticking in my throat... I'm inclined to agree with HK, but maybe from a slightly different angle - couldn't totally agree with him.

Let's just put the implied, "you are guilty until proved innocent," to one side for a second and look at it from the perspective of what it achieves. It may well stop any number of peads from taking photos of children in that environment.

How many laws have been brought in down the years that were perceived to penalise the innocent but actually achieved a great deal of good, e.g. the seat belt law. There was a great out cry when that was introduced.

How about cameras in shops or in the High St? Are we all shop lifters, or guilty of anti-social behaviour? We are quite willing to accept cameras in shops etc, so is it really wrong to have a ban om phones in the classroom? Or is it because the thought of being a potential shoplifter doesn't give you a second thought, but the thought of you being a potential pead causes afront?
		
Click to expand...

If I seriously thought it would do any good Hobbit, I would support it.  Unfortunately it's a bit like a speed limit; some will choose to observe it by handing in their phones, others will find ways round it such as a second phone or an alternative methods of capturing the images and there will precious little in the way of enforcement.

It's not so much that it stigmatises the innocent; it's that it will do very little to stop a determined paedophile whilst succeeding in inconveniencing the innocent.


----------



## SocketRocket (May 15, 2015)

Is it not a case of risk management?  If you take the case of the school in question, how many times have pedophiles infiltrated it and assaulted a child?   Taking this to the next level, how many times have any schools had this problem?

Regarding the use of mobile phones in schools.  For pupils, they should be banned from Schools as during the School day I can think of no reason why a child's education needs to be interrupted by the use of a mobile phone.  For Staff, there should be a standard procedure for their use, the same as in most workplaces.

I can see that dealing with issues relating to children's wellbeing there are issues around child protection; but is the problem being overreacted and managed?


----------



## chrisd (May 15, 2015)

Precisely Socket

This isn't an issue with pupils, it's a primary school and kids bringing phones to school have to hand them in. The new directive is with all staff and any visitors who will have contact with children.


----------



## Fish (May 16, 2015)

If a teacher is caught with a phone then the kids should be able to get out and apply the size 11 white pump (trainer) out of the locker, I had a very close relation with a couple of pumps, a cane and even a table tennis bat! 

Oh how times have changed, not sure how I'd survive these days without my daily spanking


----------



## Fish (May 16, 2015)

:smirk:


----------



## PhilTheFragger (May 16, 2015)

Fish said:



			I had a very close relation with a couple of pumps, a cane and even a table tennis bat! 
:
		
Click to expand...

Obviously didn't work then


----------

