New Detention law?

[Zanthos]

What's wrong with hanging people for petty theft?

In saudi arabia if you steal something they chop off your hand, theft rate in that country is near zero. And so is the number of people without hands, because the threat of the punishment is enough to make people not want to steal.

[Nosajimiki]

Okay dead boy, I agree that some rules should be broken, but the value of a damn good education isn't something most people realize until they are atleast in their 20s surprizingly enough, and that is why most people who are older than that (such as law makers and ussally parents) force children to go to school. Hell I finnished Highschool, though, okay I had pretty much strait "A"s, I'm smart, I have tallents... I spent the next year working minimum wage jobs because I was under educated and lacked work experience doing anything but minimum wage type jobs. Every mannager and long term employee I ever talked to was misserable with thier jobs and all pissed because they droped out of school or didn't go to college and waited to long to go back becasue they though it was just temporary.

You are 16, and to me that is an aproprieate age to start making some dissions for yourself like detirmining your own faith, figureing out what is really good and evil, picking out your own clothes, whatever, but trust me, you are still too young to not want to be in school. You might think you have what it takes to work your way up but you have nothing without atleast that little peice of paper that lets you prove you know something. You might think you can tollerate grunt labour for the rest of your life, but you'd just be fooling yourself, cus the BS of fliping burgers 40 hours a week or hauling crates or whatever you think you can do gets old a lot quicker than a few silly school policies.

Once you're out of your parents' care: you conform and get an honest job, you starve, or you live your life in jail, that is the way society works. Your edjucation may feel like it's forcing you to conform when in actuallity it helps you to diversify your choices so that yes, you may still need to get an honest job, but by becoming better than others at what you want to do you pick that job.

[Phalynx]

Man you answered for me! And exactly right on. And to give the story a little more flesh. I'll tell you about me. I did well at school because I didn't have to work, it was all sooo easy.
I went to a good University to study Medicine. I carried on not working dividing my time between partying, playing MUDs and student politics and trying to change the world. I had a few warnings that things were not going great - I went to all the lectures - Heck I needed somewhere quiet to sleep! Failed my first year but scraped through on retakes. Didn't actually get kicked out till the middle of my third year. At the time I was actually pleased it was all over, stop hanging around with all these middle class freaks go out into the real world.
By the end of the same week I was travelling 2 hours each way to work 12 hour night shifts 6 days a week as a security guard in fear of my life. I didn't earn much more than I had from my parttime work before.

Anyway to cut a long boring story short I did a number of real shitty jobs before I went back to carework and then qualifications in nursing. I still count myself lucky to have come through it all but at the same time, occaisions when I have some arsehole doctor, being paid 4 times more than me, doing a crap job and telling me what I have to do it gives me pause for thought!

At 20 I don't think I was mature enough to make wise choices and even if I was I didn't have the expereince of the alternatives to do so, so what hope for a 12 year old. Sure you can argue I wes rebelling once I had the freedom of the environment of Uni but all that happened is I had more choice.

So while my few mates from Uni (most of them won't go near a drop out) drive their kids to private school in their new BMWs and my kids go to a local school with piss poor expectations, you'll forgive me if I would like things to get better for them.

(not bitter and twisted.. honest)

[deadboy]

You two have -really- twisted my words right there. Where did you get the idea that I was saying that I didn't want to go to school? As far as I'm concerned school is my ticket to getting good GCSE's, then A levels (Or IB if I decide to do it), -then- go to uni. No, what I was saying you were wrong to say was that children should be sheltered from the principle that rules can be broken as it is an important one (For example my school has just gotten this new rubbish head who has made loads of rubbish rules, and expelled about 15 people in the last year, and suspended about 70. Many of the things he does we exercise out right to change and break some rules with. Just for one example, when he suspended the whole of one houses lower sixth for doing the gaunlet (Long story, in short it's a traditition that we've had at the school for decades) they put a hole through a wall). Anyhow, moving on before you get the wrong idea again, in society this priniciple applies as well, it's where trade unions etc sprang up from, and going furthur backwards how women got the vote in England, and going even furthur backwards how England eventually got rid of the power of the monarchy and put a democracy in place. Because otherwise those in power could simply dominate over those not, if you believe that no rule is to be broken.

Also I don't believe that those are the only boundries. You forget the fourth option, which in short is becoming a politicion and changing things

But geez that would be a boring job :S

[Phalynx]

Yeah way to go... you break those rules... change the world and start with dicking around in school... doing the 'gauntlet'..

You are rather proving my point... and let's face it the guys in the lower 6th, well they are not exactly on the edge of society are they.

If they got suspended for engaging in a 'Stop the War' protest or, to be honest, even a BNP rally, at least there would be some purpose to it. Breaking the rules for the sake of it proves nothing and teaches you little positive unless there are harsh consequences. There has to be purpose to your actions and the recognition of the cost - a girl at uni broke in to the animal experiment block - she got the boot and was proseccuted. I don't agree with her but I can respect she was standing up for her principles. But there are consequences, big ones.

By the way, it's my impression that you have to compromise your principles so much to make it in politics that by the time you are in a position to do anything a million other considerations stop you from doing much.

But ratboy, rock on, enjoy what you can can and ignore cynical ol' bastards like me...

[Nosajimiki]

Ah Phalynx, seems you beet me to the punch this time, though I would have worded things differently the idea is there.

As Phalynx said some rules need to be broken, but just not liking them is a dumb-ass excuse. You need to consider things like moral impairitives, and how and breaking rules will actually impove your life. If your breaking rules to fulfill some silly school tradition at the cost of getting kicked out of school, then you aren't helping yourself or others. If a wall got boken b/c of it, then obviously what ever details the gauntlet might of consited of were probably dangerious to some degree or another, and your pricipal, was probably right to crack down on it if for no other reason than to cover his own ass from litigation. The people who resisted sexual/racial/stational differences were doing so b/c it was the only way to secure futures for themselves. Breaking a few dumb school rules is doing the exact opposite for you and that is the point we are trying to get across.

[deadboy]

Ah Phalynx, seems you beet me to the punch this time, though I would have worded things differently the idea is there.

As Phalynx said some rules need to be broken, but just not liking them is a dumb-ass excuse. You need to consider things like moral impairitives, and how and breaking rules will actually impove your life. If your breaking rules to fulfill some silly school tradition at the cost of getting kicked out of school, then you aren't helping yourself or others. If a wall got boken b/c of it, then obviously what ever details the gauntlet might of consited of were probably dangerious to some degree or another, and your pricipal, was probably right to crack down on it if for no other reason than to cover his own ass from litigation. The people who resisted sexual/racial/stational differences were doing so b/c it was the only way to secure futures for themselves. Breaking a few dumb school rules is doing the exact opposite for you and that is the point we are trying to get across.

, well, I said I didn't want you to draw your ideas based on that little story but since we are going to let me continue. The gauntlet is, in basis, the younger pupils having to run down a corridor of the older pupils whilst they try to rugby tackle them etc and stop them. It is, in short, an "initiantion program". Now, as I imagined you would, you see things short-mindedly as you cannot see the long-reaching effects of this. So, we have the gauntlet, banned because it encourages bullying from older pupils to the younger pupils. Stupid thing anyway right, noone would care particularly other than being a little annoyed like the lower sixth and lashing out. Oh so wrong. The direct effect of this was to bring in the principle that the older pupils had no type of control or power over the younger pupils at all, as they could not use any force whatsoever, incase they were accused of bullying and suspended or expelled. Now, again, tough luck, but in the long sceme of things it doesn't really matter, it is not going to "Improve anyones life". Wrong again. These older pupils are the prefects, and therefore with no control over them the year of pupils in question has turned out to be one of the most undisciplined, and therefore least hard working and most trouble making years the school has, whereas my year, the year above that, had these gauntlets, and the principles it stands for, in effect, and have turned out to be responsible.

The short of this story is never to pass away anything saying that it is unimportant. In effect, what I am trying to say is that some rules made look good but are really bad, and by conforming to these, such as the rule I am using as a simple example, people's lives -do- change, for the worse.

Actually that wasn't anywhere near what I was trying to say at first, but I cannot remember what that was and I'm saying that now

[Phalynx]

Sounds like you were saying that the head's rule to abolish the gauntlet, to maintain safety and his idea of order was wrong and oppressive.

But the old rule that little kids should get battered and bullied by the older kids was good because it taught them their place. Initiation, hazing fagging, ragging whatever you want to call it can be a real nasty bussiness.

I hope you can read your own words:

The direct effect of this was to bring in the principle that the older pupils had no type of control or power over the younger pupils at all, as they could not use any force whatsoever, incase they were accused of bullying and suspended or expelled.

and recognise that you are arguing FOR control and power over children in your school, the bizarre thing being that, presumably because you are on of the older kids yourself, you seem to assume that a good drubing from a prefect is much better than the rules and regulations laid down by your qualified, accountable headteacher?

*thinks to himself* Hmm maybe HF is right and we should let the kids rule the school....... (sarcasm)

[Nosajimiki]

1 and 2 now...damn I'm loosing. Anyway to save time:

and recognise that you are arguing FOR control and power over children in your school, the bizarre thing being that, presumably because you are on of the older kids yourself, you seem to assume that a good drubing from a prefect is much better than the rules and regulations laid down by your qualified, accountable headteacher?

Also here in the US most schools got rid of hazing b/c each year more and more students were being hospitalized and/or sexual abused etc. What it does is it teaches the younger students that bullying is okay (as it apparently did to you), so they do it to the next generation which often feels inclined to one-up the previous generation. You might be right or wrong about the importance of hazing but, you can't rightfully argue for it and be against the social engeneering practices of others.

[deadboy]

Actually no, I am now a middle year student, and I cannot see how rugby tackling someone etc. can hospitalise them, we do it on the rugby pitches enough (Along with far more dangerous things, someones leg snapped in half last match..... oooo....... I just gave you an excuse to say "No, peoples legs brake, it is bad!". What, shall we ban rugby?), and I'm not even going to mention you mentioning sexual abuse because I have no idea where it is even coming from Anyhow, can we -please- move off the topic of this, and back to my original principle that teaching children to conform to every rule is bad?

[Phalynx]

Rugby is played on grass, without walls, chairs, tables and doors to impede you tackling someone but that's another story. (Remember in the US they wear near full body armour to play roughly the same game)

Anyhow, can we -please- move off the topic of this, and back to my original principle that teaching children to conform to every rule is bad?

But you aren't saying that. You are saying people should reject those external rules imposed by authority whilst complying with unwritten rules imposed by peer pressure (and in your case bullying). Of course every sub-culture, every institution has these unwritten rules, often they are subconscious.

I would much rather be teaching people, to break the prescriptive rules of fashion, consumerism and apathy than tellling them thay don't need to follow school rules or the law. The first are set of rules line the pockets of global multinationals, the second might seem petty but but mostly are about safety and preparation for the future.

[deadboy]

Ok, let's just wrap this up by repeating the fact that with this new school rule the pupils have become far less disciplined, far more inclinced to cause trouble, and far less hard working, and therefore more the kind of people inclined to break those rules that are in place for good reason and end up in jail, as that seems to be the ultamatum you like to quote so often, that those that were brought up without these rules in place. Therefore it was right to ignore it, end of story, please stop trying to move off subject.

Now, let me repeat another example that proves my point, womens votes. Before people stood up and said that laws were wrong women did not have the vote and men dominated over them in society. This is a direct example of why children need to be taught that some rules can be ignored or changed, and why you are wrong to say that without this detention law children are going to end up in jail just because they have learnt this principle. Now some may, if they abuse it, but without it there would not be those that do real good in the world

[Phalynx]

Equating the fight with universal suffrage with the desire to lie in bed a bit, or the desire to inflcit physical pain on little kids is just plain crazy, and pretty insulting.

You will recall this rule was to punish parents to make them enforce the rules. This is essentially because (some) kids don't care about rules already, but if Mum or Dad is late for work because of them then Mum and Dad will take it seriously and little Jane or Johnny will get an ear bashing from some one with the ability to apply real sanctions. The original rule was about trying to get parents to take responsibility for their kids behaviour.... so your arguments about freedom fighting for the ability to bunk of P.E. simply don't apply. You ain't no Nelson Mandela.. m'kay!

[deadboy]

Equating the fight with universal suffrage with the desire to lie in bed a bit, or the desire to inflcit physical pain on little kids is just plain crazy, and pretty insulting.

You will recall this rule was to punish parents to make them enforce the rules. This is essentially because (some) kids don't care about rules already, but if Mum or Dad is late for work because of them then Mum and Dad will take it seriously and little Jane or Johnny will get an ear bashing from some one with the ability to apply real sanctions. The original rule was about trying to get parents to take responsibility for their kids behaviour.... so your arguments about freedom fighting for the ability to bunk of P.E. simply don't apply. You ain't no Nelson Mandela.. m'kay!

Really, if you follow the links they are really not that different. You say that the detention law is important as without it children think that they can ignore rules and this ends up with them being in jail.

The two points I am trying to make are, in terms of universal suffrage, that this is an important thing for children to think as they are not going to automatically go to jail because they realise that they can turn up a little late, and also if they learn to apply this to other causes then they become the great people of the world.

My second point using the metaphor of my school is that some rules need to be broken anyway as even if you think that the rule will stop unruliness, such as this stopping lateness, there are side-effects. In this case it is that the parents will be late for work as well and therefore it is likely to cause problems in already struggling families as they run the risk of being fired if they are half-an-hour late for work twice a week because they have to sit through a detention for being one minute late to school. And of course in the school case it is that it led to even more undisciple than they thought it would prevent as it led to trouble pupils who are more likely to do something dangerous than the previous generation.

[Phalynx]

Really, if you follow the links they are really not that different. You say that the detention law is important as without it children think that they can ignore rules and this ends up with them being in jail.

No delinquent, that doesn't necessarily mean jail -it might mean a life of loafing around on benefits with occaisional cash in hand jobs and not acheiving their potential.

The two points I am trying to make are, in terms of universal suffrage, that this is an important thing for children to think as they are not going to automatically go to jail because they realise that they can turn up a little late, and also if they learn to apply this to other causes then they become the great people of the world.

What apply 'turning up late is cool' to other causes, useful I don't think. Turn up on time and have a silent non-working 30 min protest. That demonstrates the ability to think outside the box with the motivation to get your arse out of bed on time.

My second point using the metaphor of my school is that some rules need to be broken anyway as even if you think that the rule will stop unruliness, such as this stopping lateness, there are side-effects. In this case it is that the parents will be late for work as well and therefore it is likely to cause problems in already struggling families as they run the risk of being fired if they are half-an-hour late for work twice a week because they have to sit through a detention for being one minute late to school. And of course in the school case it is that it led to even more undisciple than they thought it would prevent as it led to trouble pupils who are more likely to do something dangerous than the previous generation.

No dude, because those struggling parents will make damn sure their kids get to school on time if it is likely to effect them. People aren't late for school as a protest, they are generally late because of unavoidable problems or delays or they just don't care enough. The former is rare, the latter demonstrates itself in patterns of behaviour that require intervention. To leave them be is irresponsible.