PC or what??

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Do Teachers have to wear velcro fastening shoes and elasticated waistbands? You can kill people with shoe laces and belts!
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Home Schooling - tips and experiences
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
ScienceBoy
ScienceBoy
1
Scottsdale Golf
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
njc1973
N
full_throttle
Free golf to everyone ........
Replies
4
Views
856
ScienceBoy
ScienceBoy
Sekiro
Shot Vision App
Replies
7
Views
10K
Swilt170571
S
Liverbirdie
Motor homes
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
bobmac
bobmac
Top