Don't bug me teacher, eating me breakfast.

[jambutty]

You are all wandering round in circles but seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact and refusing to acknowledge it because heaven forbid you might have to agree with me, that the teacher had no right in law to angrily storm into a shop and demand that the pupils being served in it leave immediately and go to school.

Teachers do not have any authority outside the school premises except as I have already explained. Even if by some weird chance the teacher has authority to round up truants off the school premises, the way that teacher went about it was bombastic and did not present a good example to the pupils or the general public.

I defy anyone to show me a law that gives the teacher authority over pupils outside of school except in circumstances that I have already explained.

Just to forestall a potential facetious remark from garinda - I cannot show you a law that states that a teacher does not have authority over pupils outside of the school. Laws are not made that way.

If that teacher had not exceeded his/her authority this thread would not exist. So all the petty little squabbles around that point are utterly and totally irrelevant and are just trying to justify the boorish behaviour of a teacher.

WillowTheWhisp – I don’t recall that I ever said that the teacher had no right to enter the shop. But then putting words into people’s mouths is your forte so that you can make your viewpoint seem to be the right one.

[Gayle]

So, I've just been doing some googling to find out what the legal position is and one interesting thing is that the children were breaking the law (well, actually their parents were breaking the law and could be prosecuted for not having them at school on time).

Theoretically then, the shopkeeper, instead of serving them butties should have been phoning the police.

The teacher who was trying to get them to school was ensuring that they weren't breaking the law.

I also found this statement
Local authorities (LAs) are responsible, by law, for making sure parents fulfil their responsibility of ensuring that their child receives an education either by regular attendance at school, or otherwise. Most LAs employ education welfare officers, (also called education social workers) to monitor school attendance and to help parents meet their responsibilities.

To me, that sounds like the teacher was perfectly within their rights to tell the pupils to go into school.

[Benipete]

Well as I see it a few little sods have got you all arguing between yourselves so they have won and you have lost Well done.
You should be proud.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Benipete

Well as I see it a few little sods have got you all arguing between yourselves so they have won and you have lost Well done.
You should be proud.

nah mate its good fer the soul "Winding Up The Natives" i love it.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

So, I've just been doing some googling to find out what the legal position is and one interesting thing is that the children were breaking the law (well, actually their parents were breaking the law and could be prosecuted for not having them at school on time).

Theoretically then, the shopkeeper, instead of serving them butties should have been phoning the police.

The teacher who was trying to get them to school was ensuring that they weren't breaking the law.

I also found this statement
Local authorities (LAs) are responsible, by law, for making sure parents fulfil their responsibility of ensuring that their child receives an education either by regular attendance at school, or otherwise. Most LAs employ education welfare officers, (also called education social workers) to monitor school attendance and to help parents meet their responsibilities.

To me, that sounds like the teacher was perfectly within their rights to tell the pupils to go into school.

Why should the shopkeeper be phoning the police just because a group of school children come in to buy something during school hours? It could be argued that it would be the public-spirited thing to do but the shopkeeper was under no obligation to do so. For all the shopkeeper may have known, the kids’ absence from school at that time was authorised.

How many of the contributors to this thread praising the teacher and by definition castigating the shopkeeper, the reporter and all those who disagree with their viewpoint, would turn away custom if they happened to own a shop near a school? How many of those people have actually run a shop? No doubt there will be some who will stick up a “holier than thou” hand in the air and declare that they would. The bottom line rules in business and if it is not in the black you go out of business.

Was the teacher an “Education Welfare Officer”? If not, that teacher did not have the authority to act as s/he did outside of the school. However “monitoring school attendance and to help parents meet their responsibilities” is a long way from having the authority to burst into a shop and demand (not ask mind you) that the pupils get on to school. Monitoring means looking and making a note of and helping parents is knocking on the front door and offering advice on how a parent can ensure that their kids attend school on time. It is not angrily bursting into a shop and demanding that the school kids inside head for school.

[derekgas]

I dont personally give a hoot what the teachers legal rights are, if my kids were in a shop when they should have been in school, I would EXPECT the teacher to tell them (not ask) to get to school, and then to inform me of that action, and I think most parents would be like minded, one of my teachers in the same situation would have taken me to school, my only concern is, what was the teacher doing being late for school?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by derekgas

I dont personally give a hoot what the teachers legal rights are, if my kids were in a shop when they should have been in school, I would EXPECT the teacher to tell them (not ask) to get to school, and then to inform me of that action, and I think most parents would be like minded

agree derek but there will always be some that won't.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by jambutty

You are all wandering round in circles but seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact and refusing to acknowledge it because heaven forbid you might have to agree with me, that the teacher had no right in law to angrily storm into a shop and demand that the pupils being served in it leave immediately and go to school.

We only have the shopkeepers word that the teacher angrily stormed into the shop. We have no other report from any independant witness as to what manner the teacher entered the shop. The only thing all parties agree on is the fact that the teacher did enter the shop. We cannot accept heresay as factual evidence.

Originally Posted by jambutty

WillowTheWhisp – I don’t recall that I ever said that the teacher had no right to enter the shop. But then putting words into people’s mouths is your forte so that you can make your viewpoint seem to be the right one.

See my previous comment. You keep insisting that the shopkeeper's account of the teacher's manner is accurate and factual. We do not know that, which is why I am merely pointing out that the teacher had every bit as much right to enter that shop as anyone else.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Why should the shopkeeper be phoning the police just because a group of school children come in to buy something during school hours?

Because, as I pointed out it was against the law for them to be out of school during school hours. Usually when people see other people breaking the law they phone the police and not the local paper to try and get some publicity.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

We only have the shopkeepers word that the teacher angrily stormed into the shop. We have no other report from any independant witness as to what manner the teacher entered the shop. The only thing all parties agree on is the fact that the teacher did enter the shop. We cannot accept heresay as factual evidence.[/size][/font]



See my previous comment. You keep insisting that the shopkeeper's account of the teacher's manner is accurate and factual. We do not know that, which is why I am merely pointing out that the teacher had every bit as much right to enter that shop as anyone else.

derekgas has picked up on it – what was the teacher doing going into a butty shop during school hours?

Dare I suggest that the teacher went in to get some butties for the staff and was shocked to see some pupils being served? So to disguise his/her reason for being there s/he turned on the pupils. Was a teacher at the shop the day before or the day before that?

OK! Lets accept that what the shopkeeper said was hearsay in the true meaning of the word. That also makes the incident hearsay, doesn’t it? Do we also call it hearsay when a report in the media states what so and so has said? No of course not we take such reports at face value until it can be shown that the report wasn’t accurate. If the shopkeeper did not state what has been reported no one has come back to contradict her. Thus I would conclude that the reporter quoted what he heard. To do otherwise would be to doubt the integrity of the reporter and is also tantamount to accusing the shopkeeper of lying.

Let us for a moment assume that the teacher entered the shop in a forceful manner, as some teachers do when trying to assert their authority and told the kids to get out and back to school. The shopkeeper, reading the teacher’s body language, read it as angrily and demanding. Who is to say that she was wrong? You?

Had the teacher just walked in and calmly said to the kids, something like, “you lot should be at school. Off you go” then there would have not been a story to report. I would suggest that the reported incident wasn’t too far from reality if at all.

As usually you are nit picking in some sorry attempt to justify your stance on this issue. A stance that is flawed, I might add.

However all that apart there is still the point of the teacher not having the authority to collar pupils out of school and send them back. No one has come forward with the law that gives a teacher that authority. And they can’t and they won’t because there is no such law.

When are you going to admit that the teacher did not have the authority to do as s/he did?

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Because, as I pointed out it was against the law for them to be out of school during school hours. Usually when people see other people breaking the law they phone the police and not the local paper to try and get some publicity.

It might be against the law for school children not to be at school during school hours but there is no law (YET!) that a citizen MUST report a felony if that citizen sees one being committed.

We haven’t quite got to becoming a police state.

Now you are jumping to conclusions in accusing the shopkeeper of phoning the paper for publicity’s sake. She could have been and probably was, highlighting the behaviour of a teacher who overstepped the mark.

I see many school children in uniform in Asda during school hours every week. I’ve never seen a copper apprehend them. Meaning that Asda doesn’t give a hoot and only money talks. So if you’ve got a beef on this point go and tackle Asda, Tesco, Sainsburys, Morrisons, Iceland, Aldi, Netto etc. Don’t forget the market and record shops.

Admit it – the teacher was out of order.

[West Ender]

I, along with quite a few others, don't care about the "legality" of where that teacher was on that day at that time. That's a matter for the teacher and his/her employer.

I am a parent and a grandparent and what I care about is children being made to toe the line and not allowed to think they can do just as they please. The reason is because I want to see some semblance of order and respect return to this society of ours before the whole thing collapses completely. Comments about teacher's "attitude" to the truanting children and whether the teacher should have been there, or not, only serve to teach youngsters that there is no restriction on their behaviour.

[Loz]

Well I still stand by what i said and if it were my kids caught in a butty shop or anywhere but school outside school hours i would be glad of a teacher caring enought o try and get them into school and would expect to be informed myself so i could also deal with it.

[Tin Monkey]

Originally Posted by Loz

Well I still stand by what i said and if it were my kids caught in a butty shop or anywhere but school outside school hours i would be glad of a teacher caring enought o try and get them into school and would expect to be informed myself so i could also deal with it.

And the majority of right-minded people would agree with you Loz. In fact, apart from a couple of loons, everyone is actually in agreement on this matter.

Majority rules. Minority are fools.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by Tin Monkey

And the majority of right-minded people would agree with you Loz. In fact, apart from a couple of loons, everyone is actually in agreement on this matter.

Majority rules. Minority are fools.

I'm sure you will be told for the umpteenth time by Judge Jam that you are missing the point