Teacher back at work after investigation

EDUCATION will take no further action against a Les Beaucamps High teacher after it was claimed that she struck a pupil.

EDUCATION will take no further action against a Les Beaucamps High teacher after it was claimed that she struck a pupil.

The department carried out an investigation into the alleged incident after the senior member of staff was suspended as a precaution just before the half-term break.

Education said yesterday it would not make any further comment on the incident.

Parent Teacher Association chairman Adie Hale said that, after hearing about the incident, he had spoken to the school’s deputy head.

‘If the teacher has returned to work without any action it shows that the allegations weren’t founded.’

Comments for: "Teacher back at work after investigation"


Common sense prevails


I think certain students need spanking, so long as the punishment doesn't step beyond the bounds of what is considered acceptable behaviour.



Who sets the boundary between 'acceptable' or not? This question must be one of the most vexed when it is being considered by parents or professionals who are charged with looking after 'children' or young adults, if you prefer that term).

I'd be interested to hear your views, because I can bet that there will be numerous other 'posters' who will either agree or disagree.

Basically, I don't believe there is a finite answer to this, so everyone tends to err on the side of caution, hence the unenviable position that parents and professionals find themselves in when they seek to administer what they believe to be 'acceptable' punishments.



This type of punishment can be considered acceptable if it is no more than a few strikes with bare hands (actions must involve no objects) and if the student has significantly endangerd the learning of others my causing major disruptions in the classroom, such as continued, inappropriate arguments with the teacher that prevent the latter from educating the rest of the class and activities that seriously imperil the welfare of other students, which includes attacking them both physically and psychologically.

However, it would need to be legitimised to ensure that no teachers- unless they have inflicted injury- are labelled unfavourably. I believe that this will act as a disincentive to poor or malicious behaviour, which will make classroom periods more productive and thus, coupled with the changes to GCSEs in several years time, will improve grades by ensuring that the poorly behaved students are more inclined to work hard, that the attention of the eager students is not diverted and the teacher is able to actually educate the class.

Charlie G

totaly agree!....when i was at school here in the 60s and 70s,if you did wrong,you put up with consequences,cane ,ruler, flying black board eraser,clip behind the ear etc,and if your parents found out,you got another load,and no answering back.

No messing around in those days,no stupid human rights balony either,you grew up fast and learnt to respect those around you,unlike the chaos we live in now.These days,i take my hat off to anyone, wanting to take up teaching as a career , or be a policeman (oops,police person),you can't do the job properly, for fear of being hauled up before the courts,and deemed a criminal, by the very system ,that trys in it's feeble way to enforce law and order,in the first place..Quelle folie !


Oh Ed i think you will find yourself getting a good verbal spanking from your one true supporter Spartacus.

Oh Dear

I'm surprised by your stance on this one Ed. You're more lenient on murderers than students. I guess it's different when they're affecting YOU.

I believe the lack of respect that is so common in youths these days is down to poor parenting. The schools are extremely restricted as to what they can and can't do. There have been cases of teachers being sacked for pushing children OUT of the way of moving vehicles. Punishment in school is laughable.

I recieved the odd smack or two as a child. It did me no harm. It's a good way of explaining right from wrong. IF the child is doing something naughty a little smack (doesn't need to be hard) is enough of a deterrent for them.

Once they reach their later school years however, (15, 16 years old) I think a different form of incentive is nesessary. Reward them for good work and good behaviour. This doesn't need to be anything expensive. Maybe a more interactive lesson where the class has a bit of fun whilst they learn etc. Rewarding individuals will always come with problems due to the inequalities of that system. It will always be those that are generally less well behaved that will earn the rewards, for a lesson or two of good behaviour. This is why the class as a whole should recieve the reward. This will also provoke peer pressure related learning as the trouble maker wouldn't want to let down his/her peers.


Oh Dear

There is already too much interactive learning taking place in schools- that's why they are losing their academic auras. It's no longer a reward or treat for such lessons- this includes the Sixth Form as too often there is more acting or waking around the classroom and very little writing being done, which thus makes it difficult to assimilate fresh information and retain old knowledge.

Given the the fact that interactive learning is commonplace anyway, I doubt that it will incentivise poorly behaved children to improve their conduct.

Oh Dear

That's fair enough Ed. It's been a long time since I went to school.

We had one SMART Board when I was at Beaucamp.

The problem is, as I'm sure you know, different people have different ways of gaining information. I've always been a reading and writing sort, whilst others can gain information purely by listening. Then you get those who need to be doing something in order to learn. It's virtually impossible to cater for the three main learning types whilst in school.

The only way it would be possible would be to have a massive school with three times the amount of teachers, which wouldn't be viable economically.

I can understand why they made it mandatory for all students to stay at school until they were sixteen but in my view it was a change for the worst. When those who didn't care for school reached 15 they could leave which meant that the ones who were left actually wanted to learn. Behaviour in the class was vastly improved once those that didn't like school left.

What do you think would be a reward for you as a student? I'd also like to put the same question to your peers. I know you're different to most your age in that you love learning about new things and you have a very mature perspective.


No Teacher should spank a child

No parent should spank a child

Spanking should be a activity kept to the bedroom for consenting adults


That doesn't really chime with your longing for the 'good old days' PB. Spare the rod and spoil the child and all that.

You deserve a public spanking for your inconsistency


Anyone who knew Fluffy Fulford, Miss Jones, or Taffy Williams, all very much respected teachers, would be aware of the extraordinary naivity of your first two propositions.


It doesn't work.



As a crime of assault was alleged, was this reported to the police, or was it investigated behind closed doors.

I would be interested to know.


Smacking, spanking and caning never did any harm in the past. However it did act as a deterrent to apprenticeships to crime.

Crime is now a multi billion dollar industry.

Judges and lawyers - those who put the laws through government and who interpret those same laws in the courts to their own convenience - are amongst the western world's richest men. Others making a very good living out of crime are child psychologists, human right advocates and all so-called dogooders.

Think about this: I often drive past a house where a young man used a hand axe to murder a woman and her 3 young children. He was sentenced to prison and never to be released. He has done about twenty years and has applied for parole and another judge has overturned his 'never to be released' sentence.


Yes PB another Guernsey shambles, where's the fun in teaching, now you can't beat the kids, bring back the good ol' days

States House

This school s unbelievably loaded with children who have not been taught any respect or shown any discipline.

One lunch break a few weeks ago a friend of mine caught some of them wearing the uniform trying to break in to his house. The houses next door had also seen them the previous days trying the same on theirs! The school was told, police called but im not sure what happened after that. A few of the kids in there deserve a good hiding! That place is turning in to a breeding ground for lazy wasters. Unfortunately it has children from one of the worst estates on the island, so much so the police have put a camera up on it that you can see as you drive up rectory hill.

Lots of very good students there but some who who have spent so little time in school they would barely be able to read their mums social cheque.

Too soft on them, they will be the ones leaching our taxes through benefits when they leave school as no one will want to employ them, either that or we will be paying for them to stay in prison.

Good on the teacher if she did it.

Although... I know they had their blazers on. How would a red mark be left? Wouldnt surprise me if they slapped each other on the back after to make the red mark.


States House

Exactly right.

Cue left-wing namby pambies like Spartacus now telling us that we should "try to understand the children" instead of making damn sure that they learn the difference from right and wrong.

Is it any wonder that parents will bust a gut to make huge sacrifices by paying to send their children to the Colleges to avoid all this?


Oh God no don't start her off on this one, boring the pants off everyone with a stream of sociological psychobabble in defence of gangs of feral chavs and awful liberal parents who let their kids get away with murder.



Understanding is evidently beyond your capacity.


Oh, I understand all right. I understand that complete lack of discipline at home and at school is the root cause of all kinds of behavioural problems which didn't exist to anywhere like the same extent 30 years ago. Chikdren have no fear of or respect for authority these days. Progress? Most certainly not.


Your performance on this forum has indicated that you have behavioural problems of your own. Did you have lack of discipline and liberal parenting?

There is no evidence that things have generally worsened.




No - none whatsoever. Good discipline at school and a fear of the ruler/slipper/cane was enough of a deterrent. The occasional smack at home when a toddler was also enough to remind me where the boundaries lay. I entered my teenage years knowing exactly what was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. My parents knew and cared where I was and what I was up to. How times have changed.

You think I have "behavioural problems" because of how I post on this blog? Oh, the irony. Let me get this straight. You fall out on here with just about everybody, and I only fall out with you (and Arnald of course but that goes without saying), yet its me who has the "behavioural problem"? Are you serious?


"I entered my teenage years knowing exactly what was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour."

Where did it all go wrong I wonder. You lack personal discipline and self control now.

Who knows how you would have turned out if you had been poor and disadvantaged.

Terry Langlois

Sparty, you are being pathetic.

all of these barbs coming from someone who kept a list of all of the times that they were personally "insulted" and then repeated them.

sounds like you are still in the school playground yourself.



How dare you! You don't know me from Adam. On what basis to I lack "personal discipline and self control?" Is it merely because I dare to disagree with you and won't kowtow to your pathetic childish behaviour?

Why it only you with whom I have this problem? Why do you have this problem with multiple other posters on TIG? I think you need to look carefully in the mirror and self-reflect when you accuse others of "lacking personal discipline and self control".

For what its worth, no I wasn't brought up "poor or disadvantaged". I went to a parish primary school and I passed the 11-plus (not fee paid) to go to Grammar School. But that's totally irrelevant.

I grew up with and was very close friends with many who were certainly "poor and disadvantaged", growing up on some of the worst of the island's housing estates. But they knew how to behave. Their parents made sure that they knew how to behave. Their parents took responsibility for them. It has NOTHING to do with being "poor or disadvantaged". It has EVERYTHING to do with parents taking responsibility for their children, and with teachers being able to enforce discipline at school. That's what is very sadly lacking today.



Don't feed the troll, that is the only label that can be attached to Spartacus, whoever she (or he) happens to be.

That is the only explanation for the level of rot that emanates from her (or his) keyboard.



You are a hypocrite of the highest order. I blame your parents!

So you are suggesting everyone was perfectly behaved when you were growing up? You must have led a very sheltered life, contrary to what you have described.



I suggest that you choose your words very carefully. You are getting very close indeed to the online version of a throughly deserved punch on the nose.

No - I can assure you that not everybody was well behaved when I was young. Far from it. But those who were badly behaved got severely punished and learned their lesson very quickly. Sure - not all of them bothered to learn those lessons and ended up in much more serious trouble, but percentage wise the short sharp shock treatment "cured" the majority before they became regular offenders.

None of this "oh, please don't do that Johnny" soft approach when they'd been already warned not to misbehave. They'd be sent to the headmaster's study, their parents would be summoned and, the key difference, the parents would take responsibility, as opposed to parents today denying that their little Johnny could possibly misbehave. And that probably meant a hiding at home or the threat of a hiding. It would certainly result in being grounded. All too often these days the parents can't be bothered to deal with the required confrontation with their children and, in any event, how can they ground them when it would mean the parents having to stay in instead of going to the pub for a few jars?

Deny it all you like with your namby-pamby soft approach. It does not work. The disruptive elements remain at school, the teachers can't do anything about it, and the kids know their "rights". They also know all they have to do is make allegations against the teacher who chastises them and its the teacher who will get suspended pending the usually unfounded allegations being heard.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and you wonder why parents will make huge sacrifices to send their kids to the Colleges? Its a massive issue and until it changes through the teachers' and parents' powers being properly restored, Guernsey's education system will remain exactly as it is.



Yes there were badly behaved children when we were young, as there are now. Exactly. It doesn't matter how you deal with it, or what punishment you deliver, unless you understand the underlying reasons for human behaviour and address the underlying problems the behaviour will not change.

It is not a coincidence that children from poor backgrounds tend to be the culprits. Why is this do you think?

I agree with zero tolerance of disruption and behaviour in schools and I believe policies need to be thoroughly consistent and constant. Deal with the naughtiness and the wickedness won't develop as AJ mentioned. Naughtiness is far easier to manage by implementing consequences.

As for inadequate parenting, again, you need to understand the underlying reasons for poor parenting in order to solve the problem. Applying corporal punishment in school to a child who is crying out for help and attention is inhumane.

Children who are neglected at home should not be punished by the system they should be supported by it. That is the purpose of the social contract. Otherwise you are setting up a lifetime of suffering for a broken individual who will one way or another be a continual liability for the community due to mental health needs or criminal activity or both.

Teachers and parents do have power but they need to use intelligence to deliver it effectively. Violence against a child is never an intelligent or effective solution.

Neil Forman




The softly softly approach does not work.

I was bought up on an estate along with a brother and sister, respect was drummed into all of us from an early age. This is what is missing these days.

I can count on one hand the times I was disciplined in school and on both hands and probably a foot ;-) how many times I was disciplined at home and believe me, I was no angel. It has not left any lasting damage, I would say it has made me a better person. Once I knew the boundaries, I would not step over.

I have met former teachers at various times since and we have laughed about the things I was disciplined for and I bear no animosity towards them. I consider it part of growing up.

My daughter knows the boundaries and we are more like best mates rather than father and daughter and that is down to respect, ( both ways ). I spoil her rotten but the lines are there.

I think the head should be able to smack as a last resort but with a hand not an object.



I agree that indiscriminate corporal punishment is counter productive and that children should not be punished just because their parent(s) simply can't be bothered to teach them right from wrong.

The big difference between the 1970s and now is not necessarily in the way that parents discipline their children. Its in the way in which teachers and schools now hold absolutely no fear for children who misbehave at school. And sorry, it isn't just children who are neglected at home who misbehave at school.

How do you deal with the "naughtiness" when the child has no fear of the consequences? Where is the threat which will deter them from re-offending?

Where will the education system be in 20 years time when yet another generation who have had no discipline in their lives are parents themselves? Its a frightening thought.


Neil Forman

"(respect) This is what is missing these days"

Well it was missing for some people back in the seventies too. That's the point.

Your disciplining did not prevent repeated misdemeanors, as you say you can count the times!

Fortunately for you there was no lasting damage but for others the circumstances are different and this is why it is imperative that the law on smacking should be clear and unequivocal, otherwise the perception of whether the abuse will cause lasting damage is highly subjective.

I agree that it is important to set clear boundaries and this is an easy mistake for inexperienced parents, you have to be very consistent and very strict which is hard work when you have been working all day and you're knackered and have a lot on your mind. No one says parenting is easy. Smacking is a cop out as its far easier than explaining and taking time out to enforce the naughty step or enforce withdrawal of privileges.

Children need attention, it's that simple and if they are given it they pay you back tenfold.



Maybe you are right that some schools have greater challenges in dealing with behaviour now. Nevertheless I don't agree that greater challenges justifies corporal punishment. We now have the evidence that proves those methods are detrimental on the whole and we have the evidence of which methods do work.

Naughtiness needs to be addressed with zero tolerance and I mean zero. Teachers know what they can and can't do however I believe they do not always have the time and capacity to be effective. This is why I believe schools need more teaching assistants and in some cases social workers. Teachers are there to teach and should not be spending their time dealing with behaviour issues which is not their expertise.

Naughtiness occurs for all sorts of reason and unless you know the reason for each individual you cannot always find an effective consequence or strategy to deal with it. As PLP mentioned the teachers do not have that sort of close relationship with the child.

The education vision statement is overdue but is due to be released soon. I hope it will encompass this issue. No doubt it will generate further debate generally about where we are heading. I believe major change is required in the system to avoid the same problems being repeated in 20 years time as you fear.

States House

Spartacus, are you for real? Put them on the naughty step?

As a child I had proper hidings, that I deserved and generally did as I was told for fear of reprisals but if instead I was offered the "naughty step" i'd have laughed my tits off! All I would have to do to get away with doing something I was told not to do or something I knew was wrong is sit down for a little while and pretend to be sorry. Just like some do now in court. I grew up with a respect for the law and right and wrong. Im not in and out of prison knowing its no deterrent to antisocial behaviour whatsoever and in some cases actually encourages it so they can get back inside sooner for a warm, dry, clean bed, food and other luxuries like a gym, sky tv and skills training.

Dyou really think the likes of Jamie Bulgers killers would have been sorted out by the "naughty step"?

Thats pathetic! Naughty step! Thats why kids are getting worse and worse and running RIOT in the UK, no fear of reprisals.



You say: "Naughtiness needs to be addressed with zero tolerance and I mean zero. Teachers know what they can and can’t do however I believe they do not always have the time and capacity to be effective. This is why I believe schools need more teaching assistants and in some cases social workers. Teachers are there to teach and should not be spending their time dealing with behaviour issues which is not their expertise".

Sorry, but I have multiple issues with those comments.

1. Yes - teachers know what they can and can't do. The problem with that is the children also know what the teacher can and cannot do. How can there be zero tolerance when the child knows that there is no ultimate punishment? Suspend me for a few days - so what?

2. You say that teachers don't have the time to be effective. Excuse me? It's a key part of their job, and always has been. Why is any different now? Is it because parents are ignoring their part of the "contract"?

3. More teaching assistants and more social workers? What for? To deal with the disease of the last 20 years which is to blame everyobody else other than those who are actually responsible, being the parents and the removal of the effective authority of teachers?

4. Am I missing something? Are teachers no longer trained to deal with behavioural issues as part of their teacher training?

What you appear to be saying, in fact quite clearly, is that the teachers cannot cope and cannot be expected to cope. If the teachers cannot cope, and if the parents aren't interested, then who is going to solve the problems? Where is the discipline ever going to come from? That state of affairs is precisely why there is such a massive problem with discipline and behaviour in our secondary schools, and is precisely why there will always be a huge demand for fee-paying education in Guernsey.

All Guernsey has done is copy the UK's fatal mistake of the last 20 years in eliminating teacher authority which, along with copying UK standards of modern society, is a clear recipe for poor behaviour in secondary schools. I don't blame the teachers - its certainly not their fault, but the whole scenario is a one-way ticket to disruptive behaviour by children who get no discipline in their lives, and who are our next generation of parents. What chance do their own children have?

I agree with you (I know that's rare), that zero tolerance is essential. However, I just don't see that the tools exist to enforce zero tolerance. What are the sanctions for those who step out of line under zero tolerance? Being sent home to an empty house? How much bigger would the Link Centre have to be? What is the answer?



Some fair debating points there and I'll try to address them but I didn't say this was easy!

1. I believe children should have adequate quiet time to be bored and reflect on their behaviour. I also believe in detention and extra work. Suspension is a reward to some.

2. I don't believe children should be allowed to disrupt a class and I don't agree that a teacher should take time out, even 10 minutes, in order to implement correctional measures. They are there to teach.

Parents behaviour is beyond the control of teachers but I suspect in Guernsey that social policies are not adequate to address parental behaviour and inadequacies.

3. This is not about blame it is about solutions.

4. I'm sure it probably is part of their training but it should represent a very small part of their work. Some schools and some year groups have larger numbers of SENs. Teachers are there to teach and the show must go on no matter what or they may as well all go home.

I didn't say the teachers cannot cope but clearly the education delivered to pupils is going to be more effective if less teacher time is spent on disruption.

I agree with your suspicion that some parents cannot cope and maybe this is a neglected area of Guernsey's social policies. But how big is this problem? I'm not convinced it's as big as you seem to think.

Naturally in fee paid schools which have a comprehensive cohort and take scholarship students the disruptive students will be diluted and behaviour is mitigated due to peer pressure which makes the teachers' job a lot easier. This is one reason why comprehensives would be favourable for Guernsey.

I do not agree with your assertion that teacher authority has been eliminated. Teachers have authority in schools but there are challenges in enforcement. Funding would eliminate all the challenges.

As for sanctions, well as I said above I'm a big fan of creating boredom in children. I believe children should remain in school unless they pose a threat of harm in which case they should not be at large either. There are other measures too but the important thing is having the budget and personnel to employ the measures.


States House

Obviously in hindsight the Bulger killers should have been in care. They and their siblings had shockingly depraved and violent home lives.

So yes, I believe if they had been brought up in the sort of household which had a naughty step Jamie Bulger would not have been killed.



Re your post of 1.14pm on 26 February:

1. Sorry but I cannot get my head around your belief that boredom in children is good. Boredom causes mindless vandalism. It causes them to hang around street corners or with other similarly bored children with "nothing better to do". It is nothing but a recipe for kids drifting into the wrong crowd and getting into trouble.

Get them doing sport or music or drama or anything similar to develop hobbies and passions. Keep them occupied doing things that they enjoy. There is then no time to drift into the sort of environment which will get them into trouble. That's of course in addition to doing their school homework.

2. Teachers have always had to deal with disruptive children. Its of course more prevalent when children of a wide range of learning ability are taught together as the bright ones get held back and so get bored, while the less bright ones feel out of their depth and also lose interest. Both again seem to be recipes for drifting into disruptive behaviour. If they are being challenged at their right academic level then they are surely far less likely to be disruptive in class.

3. You say that the level of authority of teachers hasn't changed, yet you accept that they have fewer enforcement powers. Sorry - the two go hand in hand. Authority without enforcement powers is as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

There is so much wrong with UK and Guernsey society today which manifests itself in secondary schools. The whole culture of reality TV, the breakdown of family units, parents showing no interest in their childrens' educstion or behaviour, ASBOs being a "badge" of honour because they have no bite, excessive political correctness, health and safety, a litigious society etc all converge to prevent the education system being powerless to stamp out disruptive behaviour.

Zero tolerance is a great aim although we are starting from the wrong starting place. The correct starting place would have been around 15-20 years ago before it had a chance to develop into where it is today. And in order to enforce zero tolerance there has to be a genuine alternative and appropriate consequences (whatever they are) for those children who have to be removed from the system. Without that, then the education system has no way of dealing with those children.

It therefore falls back on the parents, which is exactly where it always starts and should remain. Until parents become properly and directly responsible for their childrens' behaviour, nothing will improve. Look around - the number of single-parent families is proliferating, as are the numbers of young mothers on benefit with 2 or 3 children from different fathers. Their children will not benefit from proper parental guidance from two responsible and caring adults. They are unlikely to get discipine in the home. What is the likelihood of them behaving any differently at school?

The teachers have my sympathy. The "system" does not help the teachers at all. It has to be a proper partnership bewteen the school and the parents, but if the parents can't or won't play their part, then it cannot work.



1. Boredom can be good but obviously I don't advocate unsupervised children being allowed to run riot.


Structured activities can be very beneficial but some do not have these opportunities and more could be done to facilitate this.

2. I don't agree with your comments on segregating children by ability. There is too much evidence to the contrary. La Mare have mixed up some of their classes which were previously streamed and I gather disruption has reduced.

3. Teachers don't have fewer enforcement powers. I just don't believe physical force equates to power it equates to desperation. There is no intelligent justification for the primitive act of physical punishment.

The rest of your post sounds very much like Victor Meldrew.

It's not as bad as all that and not much has changed. The world has not fallen apart since corporal punishment was banned.

I do not agree with your concern that single parents are incapable of disciplining their children. In fact in many cases eg when a mother stays with a violent partner to preserve the family unit, it creates a much worse environment.

So what would you do to encourage parental responsibility?



1. I don't buy at all into the "boredom is good" idea, and never will.

2. I absolutely disagree, as you knew I would, about segregation of children by ability. Don't hold back the bright ones, and let the less bright develop at their own pace. Structure the learning process accordingly.

3. The mere threat of physical punishment is far more important than the use of it. The vast majority of us were not caned at school, but the fear of being caned was enough to deter us. If the threat is a genuine one because the punishment is known to exist, then for most children that mere threat is enough. However, in the right circumstances then the threat clearly does have to be carried out from time to time, otherwise its meaningless.

Yes - it is "all that bad" and yes, things do appear to have got a lot worse since the threat of corporal punishment was removed. My opinion is different from yours.

I accept the validity of your penultimate paragraph. Sadly, its not a case these days of "keeping the family unit together". Its more like never creating a family unit in the first place - many young mothers are not remotely in living with the father.

What do I suggest re parental responsibility? I really don't know. Its a huge problem caused over the past 20 years or so, and it isn't therefore going to be solved overnight. For many it has already gone way beyond the point of no return.

Making parents personally/legally responsible for their childrens' criminal activity if and when it occurs would be a good starting point, instead of children getting warning after warning and a gentle "slap on the wrists" with no comeback at all on the parents. In the absence of that, many parents will simply do nothing or, even worse, claim that their "little Johnny would of course never dare do anything like that". Again, there has to be a consequence to be fearful of before any fear will exist.



The very mention of the words "threat" and "children" in the same sentence just makes me shudder.

I think you have some prejudices against single parents. The world has changed.

The only way to mitigate teenage pregnancy is to ensure girls get the best possible education which will provide them with alternative opportunities. Some will always make that lifestyle choice.



That's because you allow namby-pamby attitudes to prevail. A "threat" can be anything. It does not have to be physical. A threat to get more homework? What's wrong with that?

I don't have a prejudice at all against single parents. I do have a prejudice though against those who choose to have multiple children from multiple relationships and expect the taxpayer to fund it, and who then can't be bothered to bring up their children properly. It has nothing to do with "education". It has everything to do with lifestyle choice, encouraged by over-generous social welfare programmes which actively encourage it. There are options available to newly pregnant mothers you know.



I beg your pardon I definitely thought you meant physical threat.

I don't think I'm namby pamby just because I disapprove of corporal punishment.

A threat to get homework rather devalues the homework but it's better than a physical threat. Any homework at all would be a step in the right direction for La Mare.

Any mothers should have the option to work in which case affordable childcare choices should be available or alternatively women need to feel that postponing motherhood in order to develop a career is a more appealing option.

The implication in your last sentence is despicable. Any woman who is pregnant whatever the circumstances is entitled to feel that she has a viable option to continue with the pregnancy.



Stand outside Edward Wheadon House on benefits day and you'll get the picture. Open your eyes and look around you. Denial won't make it go away. There are girls barely 16 or 17 on their second pregnancy trying to get accelerated up the emergency housing list.

Having a baby at 15 or 16 (or younger) should not be a "career choice". Its an easily avoidable scenario. Now its seen as a badge of honour. There are grandmothers of age 34 or 35 around. Is that natural?



I'm sure you are exaggerating as you always do.

Women of 16 are deemed mature enough to have children. No need to avoid that scenario if the women have options and choose motherhood. That is their right.

If there are girls barely 16 on their second pregnancy that means they are victims of child abuse. Has that occurred to you? How is this an easily avoidable scenario other than through better education and better child protection?

You may contribute to support these children in their early years but they will be contributing towards your support in your twilight years.



You very clearly aren't anywhere near Edward Wheadon House on benefits day.

Yes it's their right to have a child at 16. Preferably their first child and not their second one. Another two by 18 or 19 as well. You think its not intentional? Do you seriously think they are going to then go out and work for a living? Who's going to pay for the childcare costs (which will be far more than they will earn)? That's a burden on very taxpayer for at least the next 10-15 years. You really are naive. However, its not where I would like to see my taxes going.

Hardly "child abuse" if the father is also under 16. And when was the last time you heard of a charge of under-age sex going to court when two teenagers are involved? Very unlikely.

I hardly think that members of serial benefits scrounging families are going to keep me in my old age. They will by then be 50-year old great-grandparents helping to look after their 12 great-grandchildren while the parents, their 15 year old grandchildren, are at school.

Unfortunately it really isn't funny at all.



I'm not naive, I know that in some cases this happens intentionally but you have ignored my point which is that improved education would provide more appealing options.

Raising a family is never easy at any age and on any income, raising a family when you are very young and poverty stricken is hardly an appealing choice.

They should have the option to work for a living and have access to affordable childcare options without being forced to take substandard childcare.

State subsidised good quality childcare would be an investment of public money not a burden.

Just as well it's not up to you or children would be destitute, babies would starve and you would be stepping over them in the street. I would like to ask you how you would prefer our taxes to be spent rather than protecting vulnerable people?

And what would you do to protect children from the consequences of under age sex?

If they are tax payers - oh yes they will be helping to support you and better we make sure they have the opportunity to become fully participating members of our community. Demonising these people solves nothing.



I didn't ignore your comment. I just thought it unworthy of response as it merely underlined your naivety.

The easy way to avoid raising a family at a young age and in poverty is very obvious. Don't start a family at a young age in the first place. Nobody forces a 15/16 year old to have a baby. Contraception, adoption and abortion are all perfectly valid options. However, as I said in a previous post, it seems to be a very deliberate choice to have/keep babies in order to secure welfare benefits and climb up the emergency housing list.



I find your prejudice and ignorance astonishing. It's not illegal for a 15 or 16 year old to have a baby but obviously it's not an ideal situation for the mother or for the baby. You clearly don't give a stuff about that you only care about your taxes.

It has been proved that education is a solution to this problem throughout the world as education improves prospects for quality of life and I don't see why you think I'm naive for pointing that out.

Regarding the options of termination or adoption are you seriously suggesting a minor has the maturity to make the right choice and that such a course of action won't damage them psychologically? You are the one being naive here.

You make it sound like welfare benefits and emergency housing are covetable luxuries, well what a sad state of affairs if young women feel that starting a family in utmost poverty is the best option available to them.

So as usual you can't think of a solution you just seem to enjoy demonising those in less fortunate circumstances than yourself, including children.



Your entire post sums up precisely what is wrong with today's society. You see nothing wrong in 15/16 year olds getting pregnant, in many cases deliberately, and then living off welfare benefits. I suspect you are in a very small minority who see nothing wrong with that. You are condoning it.

On the basis that the legal age of consent for sex is 16, I cannot reconcile your view that it is not illegal for a 15-year-old to have a baby. At least one party clearly must have acted illegally for a pregnancy to result!

In the past, pregnancies of 15/16 year olds usually were accidental, rather than deliberate. They didn't have the incentive of welfare benefits. Adoption or abortion were the rule rather than the exception.

I make no apology whatsoever for saying that I object to my taxes being used to fund "baby factories" for welfare spongers.



In view of the fact that a 15 year old is below the age of consent how can a pregnancy at that age ever be deliberate?

Still no solution all you can do is moan about your taxes.



If a 15-year old is unable to give consent, then it becomes rape and is therefore illegal.

Let me remind me of what you said:

"It’s not illegal for a 15 or 16 year old to have a baby".

The 16-year old's position may be different, depending on what age she was when conceived, but for the 15 year old is was either under-age sex, which is illegal, or it was rape, which is illegal.

All looks pretty clear to me.

Why shouldn't I be concerned about my taxes being used to pay social welfare benefits to 15-year-old mothers?

You appear to be getting more extreme left-wing by the day with your ridiculous posts. What next? Creches in primary schools for 10-year old mothers? I suppose you wouldn't see anything wrong with that either?



If a 15 year old got pregnant by another 15 year old I'm not sure where the legal position would be.

What I am clear about though is that a vulnerable young mother and her baby would require all the support they could get.

As taxpayers we pay funds overseas to help women in poverty in these circumstances and it is only right we should look after our own citizens too. Minors are always vulnerable and our provisions are there to protect them.

I'm not condoning teenage pregnancy at all as I feel it is a tragic state of affairs but I am realistic and I know that it happens, although not to the great extent as you seem to think. Normal human empathy seems to be absent in you.

If you are genuinely concerned about this problem you would be doing something to help towards a solution.

10 year old mothers? What? Are you aware that girls cannot have babies until they have been through puberty?



Two 15 year olds are both breaking the law. Unlikely to be prosecuted though.

If it was an accident that a 15 or 16 year old got pregnant then it would be "tragic". As its often deliberate it cannot be described as tragic at all.

I have "normal human empathy" for accidents, but not for teenagers who deliberately get pregnant in order to get benefits.

What on earth do you expect me to do to solve the problem? I would only advocate withdraw the benefits in order to remove the "incentive".

It won't be long before 10-11 year olds get pregnant. 10 was maybe an over-exaggeration. 12-13 certainly isn't far-fetched.


"Withdraw the benefits in order to remove the incentive"

That won't be happening any time soon. Not for teenage mothers nor any benefit recipients. The vulnerable will continue to be protected no matter what. You could always live somewhere without a welfare system and you would get to keep your taxes.



I have no issue with paying my taxes. I do have an issue though with seeing it disappear to benefits scroungers.

Don't be so sure that benefits won't get cut.


GM - Like you I'm certainly in favour of measures that stop the workshy from living off those who work hard however the issue of teenage mothers is slightly more complicated.

Although there is anecdotal evidence to suggest some girls have children for the reasons you suggest, there is a child to consider. A baby didn't choose to be conceived as leverage to fast track the social housing ladder. Is it right to punish the child for actions it had absolutely no control over? Even taking social issues out of the equation, from a purely cost perspective it isn't simple. Taking children into care costs money too and some other options (like forced abortions) just don't bear thinking about.

I'm certainly not suggesting we go all ostrich minded and woolly and just allow things to continue the way they are, but when deciding what to do with the benefits system, the States will also need to consider the welfare of the child.



You need a reality check. You'll never control how tax is spent because it's not your money and you're out of ideas on how to eliminate scroungers and teen pregnancy.

Those babies will be entitled to welfare as that's the type of society we live in and they could grow up to accomplish wonderful contributions to the world given a chance so it's not all bad.

There are other places without welfare, you might like Korea?



Fair comments. Striking the right balance is important.


If there is a queue of people needing a reality check you are much nearer to the front of the queue than I am!

Neil Forman


Sorry, this year has not started very well.

I was a seventies child and there was a lot more respect then than there is now.

I cringe these days when I hear the way some children speak to their parents, total lack of respect and discipline. I would not speak to my parents like that ever!

As I said, I was no angel and tried to push the boundaries, I learnt the hard way. No lasting damage. My father did the disciplining, my mother tried a few times but ended up giggling along with us.

A smack will not cause lasting damage, a beating will, that is the difference and why clear guidelines must be set.

I agree that parenting is not easy, being ' knackered ' after a day at work is a poor excuse. You must find time to interact with your children, I have an autistic Grandson who can act up when bored but when entertained is a delight, should not have favourites but I have to admit he makes me laugh.



My point is that a smack is not necessary as there are other more appropriate methods of discipline available.

I totally agree that children need attention and will rarely need disciplining if all their needs are met.

Some parents have reasons why they are unable to provide the required attention to their children and any such problems need to be identified and resolved.



I consider myself to be relatively left-wing, yet I advocate mild corporal punishment of students who are poorly behaved and not conducive to an intellectually-stimulating classroom environment. It's difficult to be purely left-wing or right-wing.

Oh Dear

I went to this school. It's an excellent school. Peter Le Cheminant (who was there when I was at school) is a very good head teacher and is very strict on bullying etc. He certainly helped me out when I got bullied by a group of people my own age.

The majority of the children at Les Beaucamps School come from mortgaged properties, you can not blame it all on one estate. If you mean Rectory Hill I very rarely see addresses for rectory hill in the GP. Les Genats estate is far worse in terms of crime the children that live there go to Le Mare.

I'm sure those children who broke into your friend's property were dealt with under the school's guidlines.

You obviously have no understanding of the good work that goes on at that school. Everyone in my year group who took GCSE's passed. One person in our year had the top marks in their GCSE's across the whole of the UK. So to knock this school in the manner in which you have is absolutely ridiculous and unfounded. Even during the education debacle this school was left relatively unscathed.

Try sourcing your material rather than spouting nonsense from the Grapevine.

States House

Have you even read what I wrote?

"Lots of very good students there but some who who have spent so little time in school they would barely be able to read their mums social cheque."

Some... Some are little sh*ts!

The reason I mentioned the ones up Rectory hill is that the anti social behaviour is so bad that they have installed a police camera and most of the time you wont read about them in the press, or rather, realise its them because they are too young to name.

If you are saying that more states house kids go to la mare I reckon youd be wrong. Beaucamps gets The old Mill, Route de Couture, Rue Jehhanet, Rue de Grons, Les Naftiaux, Chemin Robin, Rue au Pretre, Rue de la Croix, L'aumone, Rue de la Perruque, Chemin du Monts, Le Mont Marche and maybe some others I cant think of.

Oh Dear

Have you read what I wrote?

The MAJORITY come from mortgaged properties. I didn't say that La Mare had more from States Houses.

That statement can be put onto most schools on this island. To blame one housing estate is wrong. I'm suprised you'd be so discriminatory, coming from a states house yourself. The main trouble makers when I was at school were those from mortgaged properties in St Martins.

There has been a camera at Courtil St Jaques for years. I wouldn't say that was a "bad" estate. Anti-social behaviour when kids are out and about is totally different to how they behave at school. I wouldn't be surprised if these kids that broke into your friends property weren't from rectory hill (or any of the other estates). To blame all the problems on one estate is very narrow minded. But of course they've got a camera there so it must be them....

States House

Yes the kids were from an estate, we have a child who goes to the school and the police interviewed the kids in question but dont know what the outcome was and no I don't live in a states house, for the umpteenth time, its irony...

We hear first hand what goes on in there and how some kids ARE let to get away with too much. The teacher this artical is about apparently is a target by some of the kids because they know she will snap eventually so they push and push to get people in trouble like a game because they know full well the system is on the little sh*ts side which is why they continually and repeatedly do these things.

That isnt a knock on her, everyone has a breaking point. As some have said, kids years ago used to get the birch and proper punishment, now though teachers and parents have to bite their lip with their hands tied behind their back while certain kids run riot.

You might think that the headmaster is or was good at dealing with bullying but when we talked to him about our child getting bullied it was our child who got moaned at for being absent from school because she couldnt cope with it in certain lessons with certain people

Oh Dear

I'm not sure what's ironic about your name. You have never told me that you don't live in a states house, I think it's natural to presume, don't you?

He helped my brother and myself out with bullying. He was very good. I can't imagine things would've changed that much.

I agree that the system is on the side of the children. The main purpose of my first post was that you were attacking what is probably the best "high school" in the island.

If your child is struggling to get to school due to bullying keep bringing it up until something is done.

So the kids were from an estate? Not that awful rectory hill then?

The teachers that get stressed easily will always be a target by kids. The teacher clearly needs to learn some self control. Poor behaved children is part of the job. I know it's a very stressful job but you have to bite your tongue and deal with bad behaviour using the school guidlines. Children stressing a teacher out is no excuse to hit them.

The problem with the birch etc is that they just didn't work. My Mother who went to St. Peter Port school said that children behaved far worse in her days than they do now. My school year was considered bad in terms of behaviour but they didn't get up to half as much as the children did when my Mother was a child. She reported that people from her class fiddled with the head teachers car etc. Bad behaviour at Beaucamp (bar those kids that broke into the properties) is normally being cheeky to senior members of staff. This sort of thing should be sorted out at home. It's a simple lack of respect.

I'm sorry for assuming you lived in a States House. I'm still struggling to understand how your name is ironic.


GM vey well put and totally agree background is irrelevant, it is all down to parental guidance and discipline at home and school.

There is to much my child has done nothing wrong these days, due to lack of discipline in recent years.

Spartacus is a educated person and has some good points, but to attack you like this is a step over the mark and he should retract those remarks, this is not a forum for personal attacks.


The old States of Guernsey Intermediate School, taught discipline and respect,with the 'cane' being used when necessary.

History has shown that this has worked. Whenever I have met up with some of the 'old boys' from this school in later life. All have agreed that none of the canings caused them to hold any animosity towards their teachers.

There is a big difference between 'naughtiness and 'Wickedness'If you control the former,then you are more likely to prevent the latter.


AJ, Whilst I agree with the general gist of what you say, I believe that discipline is unrelated to respect as the former is inflicted, whereas the latter is earned.

My old school had a quite harsh discipline regime administered by some teachers who positively revelled in their power over students. They earned no respect whatsoever from me as I hated then for the cavalier way in which they would dish out punishment. Other teachers at the same school however earned my respect which I hold to this day as they dealt fairly, but firmly with schoolroom 'transgressions'.

I think your last sentence sums up this difficult subject quite succinctly.


Both Ed and CSR have brought up a good point: this issue is not black and white; it is a lot more complicated than some people would like to make it.

I think corporal discipline, when used appropriately by loving caring parents in a supportive environment can be appropriate and helpful. I've seen children raised by parents in this way that have grown into some of the most well balanced young adults I know.

In contrast, corporal punishment delivered indiscriminately by angry parents (or teachers) who have just "lost it" can contribute towards the problems Spartacus mentions. This has more to do with a lack of adult self control than a desire to raise well balanced children.

I'm not in favour of allowing teachers to mete out corporal discipline - they don't have the relationship with the children and are not ultimately responsible for their upbringing. Although I would support teachers in keeping order in class, if my child was behaving an a manner so extreme as to warrant corporal discipline I would see it as my responsibility as a parent to deal with it appropriately.

Besides, if children are brought up to respect themselves, their peers and adult authority there should be no need for it in school - which is why the root of the issue needs to be tackled, namely the home environment.



I think that it is possible to address the core issue in certain circumstances(poor parenting and a lack of discipline at home), but I think many children are inherently predisposed to being subversive as it's only natural for a youngster to refuse to comply with authority and rebel against what they see as rigid control coupled with relative dullness . This applies to students who have had favourable upbringings and have been taught right from wrong.

It's regrettable, but inevitable that only with age will people develop some degree of acceptance for authority. Therefore, until further scientific research is done, we will need to adapt to the problem, rather than mitigate it, by appropriately penalising students (that involves mild corporal punishment).

Mititgating the issues will only become fully effective once public and political will and scientific/psychological expertise is improved.



Too many times in the past corporal discipline has been badly used (by both parents and teachers) to the detriment of children - the "cop-out" that Sparty mentions above. That doesn't make it wrong though - and I will oppose any attempt to ban corporal discipline by parents - it just means it needs to be done right.

I agree entirely with GM when he laments the "my little angels don't do anything wrong" mentality; I also agree with Spartacus that parenting is hard work and requires time. Both firm discipline and loving support are necessary - but both need to be done in a relationship context by people the child trusts. Only parents are in the position to provide appropriate discipline alongside the love, support and attention required to help the child improve their behaviour - including talking through issues the child may have.

Perhaps when you are a parent you will understand why I will not permit teachers who have no relationship with my children to smack them. It's certainly not because I am a weak parent I can assure you! When children step out of line in school, their parents should be called. If corporal discipline is considered necessary, it should be done in the privacy of the home by parents who (hopefully) have a loving supportive relationship with the child. Of course such an arrangement requires parents who are prepared to take time with their children.

vic gamble

...I'm not sure this story is even newsworthy...

A teacher, who has not even been summoned to court, is found innocent by her peers of some vague allegation.

Bit like an office situation where a member of staff ate the last hob-nob and the one accused was found not to be the culprit...reporters arrive, breathless, at the office main entrance with pencils and notebooks in hand to make a scoop.

Geoff Le P

Are you the real Vic from France?

In rural locations in France, villages are not covered in graffiti etc. Eateries appear to have well behaved children. How do they bring up their children?

vic gamble

...I like that Geoff Le P..."the real Vic...". Well certainly I am not the unreal Vic and yes, you are correct,graffiti is rare, but not unheard of, and kids eat with their parents in a perfectly blended manner, as if they were small adults...and maybe that is the answer, if they are treated with respect then they treat their parents with respect. Also there is a strong flavour of family binding/bonding and everyone seems to make time for everyone else within the family. I never fail to be amazed by the good manners of kids who catch your eye in a supermarket,or on a walk, and they say "Bonjour Monsieur"....not "What are you starin' at dickhead"


I'm inclined to agree, Vic. What concerns me more is the knock-on effect of such an article, namely to fuel the fires of Guernseys infamous gossip grapevine....which is very good at spreading rumour and misinformation.



I went to Guernsey Intermediate School and had the cane twice by the headmaster Mr Hill. I deserved it and I still remember going into his study for my punishment some 55 years later. Even today I think of Mr Hill with respect .

Number One

Forget the cane, use knuckle dusters.

States House

I remember at La Mare de Carteret secondary seeing a teacher in art class pick up a thick heavy book and really clout it hard over the head of a boy. He was a quiet lad, never in trouble or a nuisance and all he did is talk to a mate and the teacher lost his rag and nearly broke his neck! That to me was just being a bully. He knew full well the boy wouldn't make a big deal of it like the gobby kids and sure enough, nothing was said. He was too much of a coward to do it to the kids that actually deserved it and took his frustration out on the quiet one. This was back in about 1993?


States House, this teacher was not respected because of his temper, the striking out and locking in the book room never gained respect.

I think the strict but fair ones were okay, but ones that just lost there temper were just a laugh.

The other teacher that swore and bought fags and smoked with us was not really respected either, she was just trying to be cool.

I think they are gone now so maybe its better.

States House

Im not saying he was respected. There was only one teacher there I really respected and that was Mrs Graham. The others didnt want to know as far as I can remember.

Im not one of the above that says corporal punishment gains respect. Iv said the kids havent been taught respect by their parents. They deserve to be punished. Its not there to gain respect, its there as a deterent to being a nuisance. There are teachers like the one mentioned above that the press has edited out the name who were just bullys and would pick on the quieter kids because they knew theyd get grief if they did it to the kids likely to talk about the way the teacher acts.

Did you go to La Mare?


I was at Le Mare and knew straight away who was being spoken about without a name, because that was the way he was. I don't think he is there anymore. The woman who we got sent to for mucking around was trying to hard to be cool, so she would swear and come out for a fag and stuff, but I think they sent her to another school and now she has been sent to england



So is being sent to England a punishment ?


It wasn't a punishment for swearing and having a fag . She reared up and called Guersey people tomato pickers and said if people hadn't come from England we would still have to work in greenhouses. They sort of punished her but not really cos she didnt like Guernsey ways anyway.

Its not really a punishment it is what happens if you stay to long but most people just stay for 5 years then go like they sign up to do. She wanted to show her power but it made no difference.

Here is an interesting thing JohnT - just because teachers have to let kids do what they want now, can the old ones that were allowed to bash people be suwed for some money, cos I could do with some cash. A bit like Jimmy SoVile, in the old days loads of people fiddled with kids and it was okay, but now we don't have that any more, they can get taken to court.

I think I could be getting a new set of wheels!

Oh Dear

My goodness Calco. Are you trying to be funny or are you actually that ignorant.


Being a teacher myself I think there is a double issue with behavioural standards at schools.

Firstly, some (not all) parents believe it is the school's responsibility to teach the child everything. However, in reality, parents and schools need to work together to ensure this is given. So if a child is punished at school, it is followed up at home by being grounded or having luxuries (computers, mobile phones, etc.) taken away, then students will understand that their behaviour at school will affect their home life too. It is essential that there is a close tie between schools and home.

Secondly, consistency in the delivery of behariour systems is a real issue. Not just in the island but across the Uk/Europe. Every school should have a clear behavioural policy and code of conduct, clearly detailing the minimum expectations and the consequences one can expect. I should be a signed agreement between student, parent child, be displayed in every classroom and be in both teacher and student planners. That way it is very clear what needs to be done. I completely agree that a zero tolerance policy should be followed, but the consequences have to match the crime. For example, disruptive behaviour in a lesson should get a verbal warning, written warning, final warning then automatic detention and email/letter home to parent. Three detentions in a week should lead to an internal exclusion where the student will be provided work too complete in a room isolated from their friends where it is supervised by staff and work completd in silence, with breaktimes and lunchtimes spent in the pne room. External exclusion/suspension for some it seen as a holiday...e.g. On of my ex-students was suspended for a week for an offence at school and was taken on holiday to the USA in that time.....completely indermining the schools authority.

The findamental aspect that makes teaching and learning effective is respect. I did not walk into this career expecting respect, as far as I was concerned I had to earn it. Being honest with feedback, as supportive as possible and consistent in my behaviour management helped me to build a solid teaching and learning environment in my classroom. There was space for interactive learning and for the more written-based learning, having made clear to students they feed into each other and are equally important. I am by no means saying that I have the perfect classroom discipline, you never can as every child is different, but by making your expctations clear to the students, and to parents, allows more time to teach then deal with behaviour constantly.

New ways of delivering teaching and learning will always be explored, interactive, different learning styles and now the increased use of technology. At the heart of it is not how you deliver it but what you deliver. If you are interested in your subject and approach it with passion and enthusiasm you are more likely to get that back from your students, that enthusiasm cannot be delivered by a prezi presentation.

With the island being fairly small, there is no reason why a cross-school development of a behaviour policy cannot be drawn up. But it is also essential for Primary and Secondary schools to communicate on thei different behaviour strategies. Students go from one set of classroom expectations to another and for some it is a little different and difficult to manage.

The more dialogue between home and school and school to school will help to support the excellent teaching and learning that does take place on schools on the island.


Fantastic post Island girl. It is very reassuring that we have teachers of your calibre within our island schools.


Unfortunately not teaching on the Island, but educated on the island. But, thank you for your kind words nonetheless.


I agree Sparty, a generally excellent comment.

Schools were never meant to be surrogate parents and if every parent understood that responsibility for their children is not abdicated, but delegated to the school it would be a good start.

Guernsey should take the lead in developing a culture where parents understand they remain fully responsible and accountable for their children at all times, even when they are at school.

If children are disruptive, parents should be involved immediately so they can work together with the school to address the root causes. If support is needed it should be given, equally though if parents persistently abdicate responsibility they should be called to account quickly.

St Martins mum

You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. So back in the day, we were taught respect, did as we were told but apparently NOT taught against being prejudiced. I'll have you know my children do not by any means fit in the box that you are putting all states house children in. But yet they're supposed to go through their childhood with a label that they don't deserve because there are a number of badly raised children as their neighbours.

So, there may be a large number of little bleeps on estates, that's not the only place you'll find them. To mention a few, I remember a few paid pupils (so obviously not from states houses) of boys college charged for having Ecstasy on seperate occasions shortly after finishing school, not to mention the well known young murderer in the island, I'm assuming he didn't live in a states house either.

Island Wide Voting

There was also a period a few years ago where a gang of Elizabeth College boys took a shine to 'collecting' ( forcibly wrenching off) as many different car badges as they possibly could from parked cars

I think the reason given was that they had succumbed to the effects of boredom


St Martins Mum - You're right to dismiss stereotypes about States House tenants; I have a friend from the "infamous" Rectory Hill estate and he is a hard working and polite young man.

Please practice what you preach though. You say "you lot should be ashamed of yourselves" and yet hardly any comments even mention States tenants, let alone in a derogatory way. If you have a problem with comments by specific people please address them directly.

St martins mum

I apologize, you're totally right, I had originally clicked for my comment to come in reply to 'States House' who on second read through does seem to be the only one making blanket statements against states tenants, whilst arguing over which high school is the 'worst' which apparently the criteria under which he/she seems to believe to be the most viable is how many housing estates come within catchment.

PLP- thanks for your support re the unfortunate stereotyping of States tenants


No problemo :-)

Oh Dear

Good comment St Martins Mum.

That was irritating me a bit as well (as you may be able to tell from my previous comments).

For Real Brah?

Good on the teacher i say. when i was at school the amount of things the pupils did and said to the staff was horrendous, i even recall a pupil throwing a chair at a member of staff. Theres nothing wrong with getting a clip around your a**e if you've done wrong.

My mum would smack me and my sister when we were naughty and we haven't come out being mentally scarred, quite the opposite we've come out the other end being quite successful.

Some of the kids you see out now don't have any respect or wellbeing for what there actions do to others.


We tried to keep a constant balance,between love and respect whilst bringing up our children.If one of them was being naughty (ie.disrespectful) the parent who was enraged, would not be the one responsible for the chastisement, and therefore avoiding the possibility of bad temper causing any serious harm.

Long before they were old enough to start school, they new what was right and what was wrong.

We feel proud that ours was a happy and caring family.

States House

The two kids that did this slapped each other on the back like I said and one of the kids mothers is a teacher herself who wont have a bad word said against her little angel. This little angel came close to losing a fellow teacher her job, he tried his hardest. These kinds of kids dont deserve teachers that our taxes are paying for.


Interesting posts here, for both sides of the debate.

From what I have seen and read, other than on this thread, many parents leave their child's 'home education' for teachers to take up their valuable time with, and yet, when the teacher steps in, all hell breaks loose. I am not discriminating between our States and privately educated students, there are hooligans, hell bent on causing disturbance and disruption in all our establishments.

If necessary and with a cool, calm head a teacher should have every right to discipline their pupils, a smart open hand smack, ruler on the palm of the hand may be old fashioned but it used to do the trick in my school days.

Unfortunately, school discipline of this nature can promote a hero image, making the uncool dude/ess famous with their peers for their 5 minutes of fame.

There may be a more effective way; Education Authorities putting in place a round the table venue - offending pupils meeting together with teachers, PTA reps, students and interested parents, an open forum during the school day, yes some parents couldn't make the working hours fit, but it would in my view be worth a try.


Teachers can be awful bullies if one should strike a child they should be dismissed. However this may not have been the case here.