Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

J.R. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:12 pm I await Richard's legal viewpoint with interest.

The deliberate infliction of force to a pupil is an assault. End of.

Legitimate discipline in the 1970s included corporal punishment, ie the cane or the slipper. Whacking a pupil around the head was an assault. There was no justification for doing so.

Leeautemps wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:39 pm Vilified, I don't like your name-calling or your attempts at legal landscape gardening.

Agreed. Your use of the term ‘special needs’ as an insult is pretty bl**dy offensive.

richardb wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 6:12 pm

J.R. wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:12 pm I await Richard's legal viewpoint with interest.

The deliberate infliction of force to a pupil is an assault. End of.

And under the umbrella of 'assault' there is a long list of factors to be taken into consideration when it comes to assessing the seriousness of any particular assault, including intention, as is evident in the Sentencing Guidelines.

Thanks for mentioning the Guidelines. As you will have seen, your assault on the pupil merits custody, so can we stop trivialising it.

You may not have intended the level of injury you caused, but you sure as hell intended to assault the lad.

Vilified, despite the assault, you do have a way with words.

Perhaps you could have considered using your words to persuade the wayward boy to do what you wanted(?)

I also find myself thinking about the victim.

Did he go on to play in the rugby match that day? (Although his ear was probably painful and his head was spinning). Do you remember his name, by any chance?

richardb wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:53 pm Thanks for mentioning the Guidelines. As you will have seen, your assault on the pupil merits custody, so can we stop trivialising it.

You may not have intended the level of injury you caused, but you sure as hell intended to assault the lad.

I am not trivialising it. I can see that a half-decent court would rate it as category 3, with a community order the likely outcome. I am simply continuing to assert that there was no malicious intent, and to resist the interpretation that particularly hostile posters are striving to put upon it.

I have stated that I deeply regret and have always regretted what happened; and it was obviously reckless of me to do as I did. But it was in no degree malicious.

Some perspective (and this case was way after the 1970s when pupils were routinely struck in a great many schools). There is no mention of any legal action having been taken:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teac ... 35359.html

"... he was sacked for gross misconduct in 2006 after he hit a schoolboy on the head while already on a final warning for a series of alleged pupil assaults... Despite the seriousness of his actions the panel said his behaviour was not "fundamentally incompatible" with being a registered teacher."

TMF wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:02 pm
Did he go on to play in the rugby match that day? (Although his ear was probably painful and his head was spinning). Do you remember his name, by any chance?

Yes, he did. And yes, I do remember his name very well.

TMF wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:02 pm
Did he go on to play in the rugby match that day? (Although his ear was probably painful and his head was spinning). Do you remember his name, by any chance?

Yes, he did. I agree, it is horrible to think of; and I have always been saddened to think of it, and therefore the more admired and appreciated his kind and forgiving attitude towards me afterwards, as if nothing had happened. And yes, I do remember his name very well.

Vilified wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:12 pm

richardb wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:53 pm Thanks for mentioning the Guidelines. As you will have seen, your assault on the pupil merits custody, so can we stop trivialising it.

You may not have intended the level of injury you caused, but you sure as hell intended to assault the lad.

I am not trivialising it. I can see that a half-decent court would rate it as category 3, with a community order the likely outcome. I am simply continuing to assert that there was no malicious intent, and to resist the interpretation that particularly hostile posters are striving to put upon it.

I have stated that I deeply regret and have always regretted what happened; and it was obviously reckless of me to do as I did. But it was in no degree malicious.

Some perspective (and this case was way after the 1970s when pupils were routinely struck in a great many schools). There is no mention of any legal action having been taken:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teac ... 35359.html

"... he was sacked for gross misconduct in 2006 after he hit a schoolboy on the head while already on a final warning for a series of alleged pupil assaults... Despite the seriousness of his actions the panel said his behaviour was not "fundamentally incompatible" with being a registered teacher."

The Guidelines is where I am afraid we part company.

You would not be category 3 but category 2. Gratuitous use of violelence by a teacher on a pupil is one of the grossest breaches of trust imaginable.

It would be a prison sentence and deservedly so. You were in loco parents and should have known better.

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:14 pm
Agreed. Your use of the term ‘special needs’ as an insult is pretty bl**dy offensive.

Yes, that was unacceptable.

Vilified wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 8:18 pm

DazedandConfused wrote: ↑Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:14 pm

Agreed. Your use of the term ‘special needs’ as an insult is pretty bl**dy offensive.

Yes, that was unacceptable.
[/quote]

So why did you do it? Can't you control yourself?

As I leave the scene, which I gladly do now, a final reminder as to why I involved myself in this highly unpleasant 'exchange of views' in the first place:
1. To quash vicious scurrilous speculation as to my reasons for leaving CH, which were contemptible and deeply offensive;
2. To put on record my own estimation of Roger Martin, who did wrong, I now know, which is horribly sad; but did a vast amount of good to so many also.
I thank those few who have stood up in this forum to acknowledge my honesty and to defend me against the sustained attacks of the self-righteous. It was good to find a just bit of decency and understanding hanging on in there.

You left because you committed a criminal offence. You were lucky that you had it covered up by Newsome as it otherwise could have been used as bad character evidence at your crown court trial.

Maybe Vilified should have thought of seeking a career in the law rather than teaching.

On second thoughts.........

Time to get off the high horse, I think

Truth and interpretation :

vilify
/ˈvɪlɪfʌɪ/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: vilified; past participle: vilified
speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.
"he has been vilified in the press"
synonyms: disparage, denigrate, defame, run down, revile, berate, belittle, abuse, insult, slight, attack, speak ill of, speak evil of, pour scorn on, cast aspersions on, criticize, censure, condemn, decry, denounce, pillory, lambaste; fulminate against, rail against, inveigh against, malign, slander, libel, conduct a smear campaign against, spread lies about, blacken the name/reputation of, sully the reputation of, give someone a bad name, bring someone into disrepute, discredit, stigmatize, traduce, calumniate, impugn; slur; informaldo down, do a hatchet job on, take to pieces, pull apart, throw mud at, drag through the mud, slate, have a go at, hit out at, jump on, lay into, tear into, knock, slam, pan, bash, hammer, roast, skewer, bad-mouth, throw brickbats at; informalrubbish, slag off, monster; informalpummel, dump on; informalbag; archaiccontemn; rarederogate, vituperate, asperse, vilipend
"the media vilified several of the election candidates"