On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:49:13 +0000, Mike 
wrote:

>>>> The cane is only justified in situations where expulsion is used
>>>> today, so how many times has he been threatened with expulsion (sorry,
>>>> I mean "exclusion," I sometimes forget the newspeak language and
>>>> resort to using English).

>>> That *might* be when it's justified but, historically in practice, that
>>> wasn't only when it was used.
 
>> So allow its *regulated* use so that it cannot be abused.
 
>Easier said than done.  Schools are not renowned for obeying the rules/law.

What's the point in banning the use of corporal punishment if schools
don't obey the law?

But you are of course wrong - teachers would certainly obey
regulations where any infringement is almost certain to be reported
and the consequence for the teacher would be the loss of a job and a
criminal prosecution.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:49:13 +0000, Mike 
> wrote:
> 
>>>>> The cane is only justified in situations where expulsion is used
>>>>> today, so how many times has he been threatened with expulsion (sorry,
>>>>> I mean "exclusion," I sometimes forget the newspeak language and
>>>>> resort to using English).
> 
>>>> That *might* be when it's justified but, historically in practice, that
>>>> wasn't only when it was used.
>  
>>> So allow its *regulated* use so that it cannot be abused.
>  
>> Easier said than done.  Schools are not renowned for obeying the rules/law.
> 
> What's the point in banning the use of corporal punishment if schools
> don't obey the law?
> 
An outright ban on corporal punishment (especially involving the use of
a implement) is relatively easy to police. Regulations as to
when/where/how would be much harder.

> But you are of course wrong - teachers would certainly obey
> regulations

Like sex/race/religious discrimination laws?  Would that Sikh girl, whom
the school unlawfully attempted to prevent wearing a Kira (sp?), simply
have been beaten into submission if caning were allowed?

> where any infringement is almost certain to be reported
> and the consequence for the teacher would be the loss of a job and a
> criminal prosecution.
> 
Not *all* instances of corporal punishment were properly recorded, as
required, but I can't recall any teacher being prosecuted, or even
sacked, for breaking those rules.

We also have the ECHR ruling to consider.  Parents have the right to
exempt their children from corporal punishment but a proposal to allow
schools to continue to cane pupils not so exempted was dismissed as
unworkable - even though many schools had already implemented a policy
which exempted half their pupils.


-- 
Mike

Ho

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:36 +0000, Mike 
wrote:

>>> Easier said than done.  Schools are not renowned for obeying the rules/law.
 
>> What's the point in banning the use of corporal punishment if schools
>> don't obey the law?
 
>An outright ban on corporal punishment (especially involving the use of
>a implement) is relatively easy to police. Regulations as to
>when/where/how would be much harder.

That depends upon the regulations.  Allowing only one or two
designated teachers to administer the cane is easy to police via
reporting by the "victims", as is having a publicised limit on the
frequency that any pupil is permitted to be caned.

>> But you are of course wrong - teachers would certainly obey
>> regulations

>Like sex/race/religious discrimination laws?

Many of those are impossible to police because they involve subjective
judgements.  Regulations surrounding punishments could be made far
more objective and definite.

> Would that Sikh girl, whom
>the school unlawfully attempted to prevent wearing a Kira (sp?), simply
>have been beaten into submission if caning were allowed?

Why would caning have worked any better than the awful regime of
social exclusion that she was subjected to?  ISTM that the punishment
actually inflicted on her was *more* harmful than corporal punishment
would have been.

But perhaps you are one of the people who believe that physical damage
is far worse than emotional damage - "out of sight, out of mind"?  I
can assure you that the opposite is usually the case.

>> where any infringement is almost certain to be reported
>> and the consequence for the teacher would be the loss of a job and a
>> criminal prosecution.
 
>Not *all* instances of corporal punishment were properly recorded, as
>required, but I can't recall any teacher being prosecuted, or even
>sacked, for breaking those rules.

Where infringements of the rules are detected but not dealt with, it
is a failing - or perhaps an unwillingness - on the part of the
authorities, and has nothing to do with the sensibility of the rules
themselves.

-- 
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:09:36 +0000, Mike 
> wrote:
> 
>>>> Easier said than done.  Schools are not renowned for obeying the rules/law.
>  
>>> What's the point in banning the use of corporal punishment if schools
>>> don't obey the law?
>  
>> An outright ban on corporal punishment (especially involving the use of
>> a implement) is relatively easy to police. Regulations as to
>> when/where/how would be much harder.
> 
> That depends upon the regulations.  Allowing only one or two
> designated teachers to administer the cane is easy to police via
> reporting by the "victims", as is having a publicised limit on the
> frequency that any pupil is permitted to be caned.
> 
OK

>>> But you are of course wrong - teachers would certainly obey
>>> regulations
> 
>> Like sex/race/religious discrimination laws?
> 
> Many of those are impossible to police because they involve subjective
> judgements.  Regulations surrounding punishments could be made far
> more objective and definite.
> 
I disagree.  A lot of discrimination in schools was/is so blatant it's
clear the schools were just defying the rules.

>> Would that Sikh girl, whom
>> the school unlawfully attempted to prevent wearing a Kira (sp?), simply
>> have been beaten into submission if caning were allowed?
> 
> Why would caning have worked any better than the awful regime of
> social exclusion that she was subjected to?

It may not have worked but they might have tried it.  If they thought
they could get away with it, they would probably have just ripped it of
her.  Don't you remember your schooldays?


>  ISTM that the punishment
> actually inflicted on her was *more* harmful than corporal punishment
> would have been.
>
You could well be right.

> But perhaps you are one of the people who believe that physical damage
> is far worse than emotional damage - "out of sight, out of mind"?

Not at all.

>  I can assure you that the opposite is usually the case.

I'd say both can be equally damaging.
> 
>>> where any infringement is almost certain to be reported
>>> and the consequence for the teacher would be the loss of a job and a
>>> criminal prosecution.
>  
>> Not *all* instances of corporal punishment were properly recorded, as
>> required, but I can't recall any teacher being prosecuted, or even
>> sacked, for breaking those rules.
> 
> Where infringements of the rules are detected but not dealt with, it
> is a failing - or perhaps an unwillingness - on the part of the
> authorities, and has nothing to do with the sensibility of the rules
> themselves.
> 
I agree, but rules which aren't (or can't be) enforced are worthless.


-- 
Mike