28-06-2021, 12:41 AM
1
No alm in that
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boy-11-ref...143529212.htmlThe boy’s teacher asked what pupils would do if they found themselves in possession of a lot of money. According to a legal challenge against the school lodged by the boy’s parents, he said he would “give alms to the oppressed”. The teacher interpreted this as “give arms to the oppressed” and made the Prevent referral.
When police received the referral they said there was no substance to it, no sign of radicalisation, extremist views or any threat to national security and closed the case.
The boy’s parents are taking legal action against the school, accusing it of applying a stereotype about his racial and religious background. It calls for a written apology from the school, the payment of damages and the expunging of the Prevent referral from the boy’s record.
28-06-2021, 05:01 AM
3
Re: No alm in that
Originally Posted by Dextrous63
->
Over-reaction from all parties concerned, surely?
But, as usual, I doubt that the actual incident bears much resemblance to the reports of it.
28-06-2021, 05:16 AM
4
Re: No alm in that
Originally Posted by Harbal
->
The word "alms" is not part of most people's normal vocabulary these days, and when it is used, it is more usual to pair it with "the poor", rather than "the oppressed". But, as usual, I doubt that the actual incident bears much resemblance to the reports of it.
28-06-2021, 10:36 AM
5
Re: No alm in that
Originally Posted by Silver Tabby
->
Are children being taught by teachers who cannot read??!!
Originally Posted by Silver Tabby
->
The world is going to hell in a handcart!
28-06-2021, 10:57 AM
6
Re: No alm in that
If the youngster said “ Arms” which obviously he didn’t ,he said “ Alms”The question asked by the teacher, what would you do if you found yourself in possession of a lot of money, then the pupils reply ,
If I was a teacher and thought he said “ arms” straight away I would have asked him , did you say “ arms”....purely because of the question asked....she did what she thought was right, as are the parents, we all look at things very differently......
I wouldn’t be interested ,whether I thought they were right or wrong,( either of them).....so, not really sure where you are taking this thread.
They are/ have taken the action that they
felt was the right course of action .
You won’t change it, if you want to have a rant about then fair enough.
Just my thoughts.
28-06-2021, 11:06 AM
7
Re: No alm in that
Originally Posted by pauline3
->
If the youngster said “ Arms” which obviously he didn’t ,he said “ Alms” The question asked by the teacher, what would you do if you found yourself in possession of a lot of money, then the pupils reply ,
If I was a teacher and thought he said “ arms” straight away I would have asked him , did you say “ arms”....purely because of the question asked....she did what she thought was right, as are the parents, we all look at things very differently......
I wouldn’t be interested ,whether I thought they were right or wrong,( either of them).....so, not really sure where you are taking this thread.
They are/ have taken the action that they
felt was the right course of action .
You won’t change it, if you want to have a rant about then fair enough.
Just my thoughts.
Just thought it was an interesting story which showed how quickly a misunderstanding of (in this case) a single spoken word can lead to all sort of legal problems.
The school has a legal duty to refer potential incidents to the Prevent program. Although not bound to make further investigations, it seems a little remiss not to ask the child to explain a bit further, either in the class or in private afterwards.
I can understand the parents being upset, especially once the police came round, and asking for an apology and a redaction from the records. Not entirely convinced that suing for damages is proportionate though. Suggesting that the school has used sterotypical profiling isn't really helpful either.
Not ranting, just discussing Pauline
28-06-2021, 11:25 AM
8
Re: No alm in that
Originally Posted by Dextrous63
->
Of course.Just thought it was an interesting story which showed how quickly a misunderstanding of (in this case) a single spoken word can lead to all sort of legal problems.
The school has a legal duty to refer potential incidents to the Prevent program. Although not bound to make further investigations, it seems a little remiss not to ask the child to explain a bit further, either in the class or in private afterwards.
I can understand the parents being upset, especially once the police came round, and asking for an apology and a redaction from the records. Not entirely convinced that suing for damages is proportionate though. Suggesting that the school has used sterotypical profiling isn't really helpful either.
Not ranting, just discussing Pauline
Takes all sorts I guess, I don’t think I would su....makes me wonder what’s in some people’s head at times...mine included.
|
|
