kid faces explulsion for organising protest against budget

Guy:Incognito

turbot wrote: »

It's appauling that young people, showing initiative, are treated in such a manner. .

So as long as kids come up wth a good enough excuse, they should be allowed wonder out of school durein gthe day in a group at their own convenience?

Moomoo1 wrote: »

He also 17, so almost an adult. Many people of his age in the UK go to sixth form colleges where you attend lessons when you feel like it (like lectures in uni). To throw the book at him for that seems odd at the very least.

Almost an adult is not an adult. What does it matter what kids in the UK do. A lot of people in America cant drink till they are 21.

Sergeant

Member of the socialist party at 17? He should be out drinking cheap cider and trying to get his rocks off. Will definitely be seen handing out newsletters in front of the GPO in future years. May be wearing a wool jumper and sporting a beard by then.

Moomoo1

Stekelly wrote: »

So as long as kids come up wth a good enough excuse, they should be allowed wonder out of school durein gthe day in a group at their own convenience?

yes. As long as the excuse is really, truly 'good enough'.

This one certainly is, imho.

starviewadams

Good auld Moyler,we decided to ''support our teachers'' who were protesting about something or other when I was a student there back in 2001,of course we didn't want to join our teachers striking when we had a day off because of it,we wanted to protest during school hours instead,it was hillarious.TV3 even sent a camera crew down and we were all threatened with expulsion if we didnt go back inside.Some things never change!

Jim

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

No. That kid should have respect for his teachers and not walk out of class like that. If i was a teacher I would have felt like beating him for being such an overly confident celtic-tiger minded pup. So un-irish :rolleyes:

The students were just protecting their interests, as would anyone else. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with fees being raised. The issue isn't about what they were protesting about, but rather their right to protest and if the school acted in the proper manner in this situation.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

A lot of people have completed a year of college before they turned 18, myself included. So I think claiming hes a child is irrelevant in my opinion. Also I dont think school walkouts would be very effective on a saturday.

jackiebaron

upandcumming wrote: »

Locking the students in the school? Isn't that some form of unlawful imprisonment?
Imprisonment isn't the right word but I can't think of the right one!

A bouncer locked up a lad in the when he was acting up in a club and he got €25k damages iirc.

It can't be construed as unlawful detention OR kidnapping depending on how good your lawyer is.

28064212

Moomoo1 wrote: »

The guy went to exercise his democratic right to protest.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

yes. As long as the excuse is really, truly 'good enough'.

So provide a list of 'approved' reasons that are reasonable for students to protest against... oh, you can't? No shit

If he wants to exercise his "democratic right to protest", he can do so on his own time. If you don't agree with that, can I leave work whenever I want to protest against stuff? I'm sure there's a protest going on tomorrow I can join, I don't really want to work

marglin

he and any other students should have been given their right to protest with one vital condition, signed parental/guardian consent forms to both walk out of their classess and leave school grounds, all this could have been organised far more efficiently and with much less drama.

im sure the school would've happily let a whole bunch of l.c.s feck off for the day once they were guaranteed non-liability im sure alot of teachers, the principal etc would've even commended the students.

the reason for the disciplinary action is not that he was protesting the budget, do you really think the school gives a fiddlers about their students political views(or for the majority lack thereof)?

whole thing being blown out of proportion, having said that i hope he doesnt get expelled, naievty not really an expellable crime tbh

Noreen1

marglin wrote: »

he and any other students should have been given their right to protest with one vital condition, signed parental/guardian consent forms to both walk out of their classess and leave school grounds, all this could have been organised far more efficiently and with much less drama.

im sure the school would've happily let a whole bunch of l.c.s feck off for the day once they were guaranteed non-liability im sure alot of teachers, the principal etc would've even commended the students.

the reason for the disciplinary action is not that he was protesting the budget, do you really think the school gives a fiddlers about their students political views(or for the majority lack thereof)?

whole thing being blown out of proportion, having said that i hope he doesnt get expelled, naievty not really an expellable crime tbh

+1.

That teachers felt they had to resort to locking students in a classroom speaks volumes! Quite apart from the questionable legality of such an action, it doesn't reflect well on their leadership ability.

A more appropriate course of action would have been a quick call to the parents. Where parents gave consent, the students should have been allowed to leave. Where parents refused consent, and the students left, anyway, then appropriate disciplinary action would be reasonable.

Fair play to the lad for showing initiative. His mistake was not arranging parental consent,which was counterbalanced by teachers showing a complete lack of leadership IMO.

Noreen

Wagon

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Anyway, he's 17, which I think means that once he's on school grounds, he's the schools responsibilty. If college students wanted to protest, fair enough. That's their problem. But secondary school is different and if the school told him he couldn't go and protest, he should have sat down and shut up. Unless his parents said it was okay, the school had to stop them from leaving. If the students has just behaved and did what they were told, there wouldn't be a problem. ****ing troublemakers is what they are

bitch bitch bitch whinge ****in bitch

"sit down and do as your told!" is a life philisophy for the middle aged and the elderly. if you want to get bum raped by the government, thats your business.

thebigbiffo

Wagon wrote: »

bitch bitch bitch whinge ****in bitch

"sit down and do as your told!" is a life philisophy for the middle aged and the elderly. if you want to get bum raped by the government, thats your business.

what a f'uckin childish attitude. did you ignore all the posts where we've established that teachers in fact do have a responsibility to parents whos kids they are in charge of? are you aware that teachers love a good protest and would probably go with the little upstart if he'd got his s'hit in order and got permission from his parents?

juvenile poster is juvenile

Penn

Wagon wrote: »

bitch bitch bitch whinge ****in bitch

"sit down and do as your told!" is a life philisophy for the middle aged and the elderly. if you want to get bum raped by the government, thats your business.

He had a choice. He could stay in school, get on with his work, and protest on his own time with his parents approval, or he could disobey school orders and risk getting expelled. He chose the latter and is now possibly facing expulsion. In my opinion, he chose the wrong option.

In no way am I saying that everyone should sit down and let the government do whatever they want. But if you are not an adult and do not have your parents permission to leave school and go protest, then he shouldn't have tried to. He is possibly facing expulsion now. And he is in his leaving cert year, so expulsion or moving schools at this stage could seriously damage his chances in his exams. Like I said in other posts, I admire him for trying to stand up for what he believes in, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to break rules. You can't steal something because you don't agree with the rate of inflation. You can't speed because you're protesting against speed cameras. And you can't leave school when you're underage to go protest, no matter what it's for. And more importantly, the school can't let him leave whether or not they agree with his reasons for protesting.

What if he was only 13? If you were a teacher, would you knowingly allow him to leave school grounds to go to a protest without any adult supervision or written consent from his parents? Even if he was the brightest student and you knew he had a real passion about it. Would you let him walk out, just because "Yeah, he's not taking it from the Man! Fight the Power!"? Same thing applies to the 17 year old. The 17 year old may be older and wiser, but the school still has a responsibility to keep him there, and he as a student has a responsibilty to follow the rules until he reaches the age where he can make those decisions for himself.

So yes, he should have sat down and shut up. When he turns 18 or leaves school, fight the power all he wants to. But he can't complain about possibly being expelled when he broke the rules.

Zombrex

Moomoo1 wrote: »

But what if people have a problem with every major party?

What then?

Don't vote for them, as I said.

Moomoo1 wrote: »

Anyway, I think the school is out of order here. The guy went to exercise his democratic right to protest.

He doesn't have a democratic right to protest, he is a minor. He is the legal responsibility of the school, if anything happened to him while off school property they would be responsible for this.

Moomoo1

28064212 wrote: »

So provide a list of 'approved' reasons that are reasonable for students to protest against... oh, you can't? No ****

If he wants to exercise his "democratic right to protest", he can do so on his own time. If you don't agree with that, can I leave work whenever I want to protest against stuff? I'm sure there's a protest going on tomorrow I can join, I don't really want to work

I would say that any reason that draws large crowds of people out would be a good enough reason. These huge protests don't happen every day.

I would leave the workplace to protest, yes. My rights as a citizen are more important.

Moomoo1

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't vote for them, as I said.

but by not voting for A you are making life easier for B? So in essence you are still helping them? etc etc

Wicknight wrote: »

He doesn't have a democratic right to protest, he is a minor. He is the legal responsibility of the school, if anything happened to him while off school property they would be responsible for this.

Everyone has a democratic right to protest. He went for a walk down the street and back, not exactly the most hazardous of environments. Yes, the school is in a difficult position, but once again, the right to protest should trumps I am afraid...

phasers

That school is a kip full of scumbags, should be locked up everyday tbh.


"Protest against the budget" ... more like "mitching for the craic"

orourkeda

He's too young to vote. I just think to run the risk of jeopardising his education on something he has no real say in is short sighted to put it mildly.

(Did he actually get expelled in the end)

TheDriver

I get the feeling most posters here are not involved in schools where workings of the school are much different to a business or a 3rd level college. Students are considered underage and in the care of the school whilst their parents sent them there. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the protest, it has to do with Students blatently disobeying School instruction and direction, organising other students to leave school without parental permission and undermining the general rules that schools organise themselves by. Furthermore if anything happened to those Children or they brought the name of the school into disrepute. And its so easy to start giving a school a bad name.
If the Parents were more than happy for him to protest, they could have given him a note to leave school.
Lastly, how many here would protest outside the Dail with a banner saying we are from Spar/Intel/HP/Ulster Bank and get away with it from their boss after being told they cannot represent their workplace at it?

CDfm

Students doing a school protest ,no matter how ludicrous I think it is (and I do), are only doing what they have seen teachers do over the years with threats of industrial action etc.

Monkey see, monkey do.

No matter how immature I think his action was - nonetheless -school is a total environment and in his mind he was sticking it to the man.

If a headmaster cant handle a bunch of teens he should do the decent thing and resign.

28064212

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I would say that any reason that draws large crowds of people out would be a good enough reason. These huge protests don't happen every day.

How many people? 10,000? 1,000? 500? In this instance, the number of people at the protest was 20, was that enough?

Moomoo1 wrote: »

I would leave the workplace to protest, yes. My rights as a citizen are more important.

And you would have to take a day's annual leave and clear it with your employer. You don't have the right to just leave your job whenever you feel like it, just as he doesn't have the right to walk out of school whenever he feels like it

Dravokivich

i went to that school. all teachers are key holders. locked doors arent a problem.if fire occurs. but to be honest, its like sea world, the place has been on fire several times before, the fire doesnt spread.

in regards to the disicplinary action, why do the students have to do this during class time?

10 years ago, students decided to take a half day for themselves to support the teachers striking. clondalkin got wrecked as a result of it. the actions taken now is to tell other students that acting in a mob is stupid, which is all they were doing.

it wasn't a protest... anyone who thinks it was is a fool.

Does anyone remember when the school strikes happened a few years back because of the ASTI strikes? I was in junior certificate. Good times, plus our principal allowed us all to strike on the first day and then striked again next week, but anyone who wasn't in an exam year that went on strike would have been suspended.

CDfm

kids are influenced by adults. I had a situation 2 years ago with my daughter in school which was fairly badly handled.

I am a divorced Dad and dont really get involved , but, I had to and it took all of my patience to deal with the school.

It is totally ridiculous that this is not being treated as either a misguided action or a merry jape for the parents to sort out.

Schools throughout the country will be closed on 24 November, after teachers voted in favour of industrial action against cutbacks.

Schools throughout the country will be closed on 24 November, after teachers voted in favour of industrial action against cutbacks.
The result of the ballots was announced by the three main teacher unions today.
A fourth union has already received a mandate for action.
The result means all schools, primary and second-level, as well as further education and third level colleges, will close on the day.
In a joint statement, the primary and second-level teaching unions said they were taking action because members had never before faced such a threat to pay, pensions and terms and conditions.
They say they fully recognise the serious national problem but want more of an emphasis on taxation as well as cuts.
This means the country's 65,000 teachers will withdraw their labour on 24 November and schools will have to close.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1113/education.html

Another really silly incident was 70 kids sent home after the summer break for "highlights".

When I read the links it sounded like a badly made prison drama like " Prisoner in Cell Block H" - lock down in D wing.

This must be one of the silliest incidents of the year.

They must grow up sometime -and thats the teachers.

Parents responsibility it to look after the kids interests -not political parenting - some common sense needs to prevail.

Do you know what kids can be easily influenced but its important that the next generation learn to stand up for themselves given that the current lot are more then willing to be taken up the hole by the people who run this country.

CDfm

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know what kids can be easily influenced but its important that the next generation learn to stand up for themselves given that the current lot are more then willing to be taken up the hole by the people who run this country.

OK - we do not know why any of this happened.

We do know that schools work on discipline and that 17/18 year olds are men.

As a parent your job is to make the road easier and not harder.

I imagine what may have seemed like a good idea at the time ,seems less so now , and the parents focus should be on the kids education and back in school and leaving cert results than this.

You can be damn sure that any of the politicians have more interest in their dinner than this kid.

This whole thing is too silly for words.

AntiMatter

phasers wrote: »

That school is a kip full of scumbags, should be locked up everyday tbh.


"Protest against the budget" ... more like "mitching for the craic"

The kid was one of the speakers at the Dail protest, the other evening. He didn't at all seem like a scumbag, in it for the craic.

Was good to see someone so young who cares whats happening at the minute.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

Was good to see someone so young who cares whats happening at the minute.

Yet doesn't care enough to organise his protest on his own time

Wagon

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

He had a choice. He could stay in school, get on with his work, and protest on his own time with his parents approval, or he could disobey school orders and risk getting expelled. He chose the latter and is now possibly facing expulsion. In my opinion, he chose the wrong option.

In no way am I saying that everyone should sit down and let the government do whatever they want. But if you are not an adult and do not have your parents permission to leave school and go protest, then he shouldn't have tried to. He is possibly facing expulsion now. And he is in his leaving cert year, so expulsion or moving schools at this stage could seriously damage his chances in his exams. Like I said in other posts, I admire him for trying to stand up for what he believes in, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to break rules. You can't steal something because you don't agree with the rate of inflation. You can't speed because you're protesting against speed cameras. And you can't leave school when you're underage to go protest, no matter what it's for. And more importantly, the school can't let him leave whether or not they agree with his reasons for protesting.

What if he was only 13? If you were a teacher, would you knowingly allow him to leave school grounds to go to a protest without any adult supervision or written consent from his parents? Even if he was the brightest student and you knew he had a real passion about it. Would you let him walk out, just because "Yeah, he's not taking it from the Man! Fight the Power!"? Same thing applies to the 17 year old. The 17 year old may be older and wiser, but the school still has a responsibility to keep him there, and he as a student has a responsibilty to follow the rules until he reaches the age where he can make those decisions for himself.

So yes, he should have sat down and shut up. When he turns 18 or leaves school, fight the power all he wants to. But he can't complain about possibly being expelled when he broke the rules.

Alright fair enough, i see your point. Give him a few detentions maybe but expulsion? He only walked out the front gate with 20 others, he didn't try and set fire to the place.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

what a f'uckin childish attitude. did you ignore all the posts where we've established that teachers in fact do have a responsibility to parents whos kids they are in charge of? are you aware that teachers love a good protest and would probably go with the little upstart if he'd got his s'hit in order and got permission from his parents?

juvenile poster is juvenile

You're gay!

Son Of A Vidic

I was suspended for a week in 1986(or possibly 1987) for walking out of class to support the leaving Cert students a the time. They were protesting about disruption to their exam preparations, caused by the teacher/government dispute. When I returned to the class I walked out on a week later, the teacher came down to my desk and shock my hand. My parents also fully supported me in my actions, thank feck I wasn't reared to be a 'sheep'.

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

Yet doesn't care enough to organise his protest on his own time

That he cares enough to protest at all, is admirable, in my book.

That in doing so, in the manner he did, he was willing to face the wrath of the school authorities, makes his protest that bit more commendable, in my eyes.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

That he cares enough to protest at all, is admirable, in my book.

That in doing so, in the manner he did, he was willing to face the wrath of the school authorities, makes his protest that bit more commendable, in my eyes.

So if I walk out of my job anytime I want to protest, I'm more commendable because I'm running the risk of being fired? No, that's just stupid

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

So if I walk out of my job anytime I want to protest, I'm more commendable because I'm running the risk of being fired? No, that's just stupid

Allowing the country to be sold to the IMF, to cover private institutions debt, whilst the politicians, developers and bankers line their nests, and getting away with it because very few are willing to stand up and be heard, is what's stupid.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

Allowing the country to be sold to the IMF, to cover private institutions debt, whilst the politicians, developers and bankers line their nests, and getting away with it because very few are willing to stand up and be heard, is what's stupid.

:pac: Yeah, leaving our jobs will sort that out.

Where did I say don't protest? I said it's stupid to walk out on your school or job without permission. You want to protest on their time, you get permission from them, or else you do it on your own time

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

Where did I say don't protest?
I said it's stupid to walk out on your school or job without permission. You want to protest on their time, you get permission from them, or else you do it on your own time

Was he not protesting on his own time? What contract did he break?

melekalikimaka

AntiMatter wrote: »

Allowing the country to be sold to the IMF, to cover private institutions debt, whilst the politicians, developers and bankers line their nests, and getting away with it because very few are willing to stand up and be heard, is what's stupid.

not quite true.kid just going through rebel stage i guess

Dravokivich

AntiMatter wrote: »

Was he not protesting on his own time? What contract did he break?

he walked out of school within school hours and incited other pupils to do so, from other schools as well.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

Was he not protesting on his own time? What contract did he break?

Ehhh... no? Have you read the article? He left school to do it, without permission

AntiMatter

Dravokivich wrote: »

he walked out of school within school hours and incited other pupils to do so, from other schools as well.

28064212 wrote: »

Ehhh... no? Have you read the article? He left school to do it, without permission

I got that bit.

Dravokivich

AntiMatter wrote: »

I got that bit.

right... so you do know, that's what the problem is?

what he did after walking out is irrelevant.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

I got that bit.

Ah, so you think school hours are his own time. So he can do whatever he wants during school hours? He decides a class isn't interesting so walks out and goes to the cinema, that's perfectly fine in your eyes?

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

Ah, so you think school hours are his own time. So he can do whatever he wants during school hours? He decides a class isn't interesting so walks out and goes to the cinema, that's perfectly fine in your eyes?

I'm not really sure about that one, tbh. I understand there's a legal obligation to attend school until the age of 16. After that I'm not sure if school hours are his own time or not.

It's not what he's being expelled for, however. They have him up on health and safety issues, not for non-attendance.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

I'm not really sure about that one, tbh. I understand there's a legal obligation to attend school until the age of 16. After that I'm not sure if school hours are his own time or not.

It's not what he's being expelled for, however. They have him up on health and safety issues, not for non-attendance.

So if he did exactly what he did in the article, but they went to the cinema instead of the protest, would it make any difference to where he'd be now? What he did after he left school grounds is completely irrelevant

Sir Gallagher

AntiMatter wrote: »

I'm not really sure about that one, tbh. I understand there's a legal obligation to attend school until the age of 16. After that I'm not sure if school hours are his own time or not.

It's not what he's being expelled for, however. They have him up on health and safety issues, not for non-attendance.

If you leave school at 16 thats all well and good but if you choose to stay in school you have to play by their rules or else face the consequences, pretty simple really.

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

So if he did exactly what he did in the article, but they went to the cinema instead of the protest, would it make any difference to where he'd be now? What he did after he left school grounds is completely irrelevant

LIke I said in the previous post I'm not all that knowledgable about the minutae of school attendance after the age of 16.

That the protest took place during school hours, served to highlight the protest, and is that not the point of protest, to bring attention to the issues at hand?

I stand by my initial admiration, and if more people engaged in wildcat strikes of this nature, the government might have been a little less hesitant to sell us out.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

LIke I said in the previous post I'm not all that knowledgable about the minutae of school attendance after the age of 16.

Apparently

AntiMatter wrote: »

That the protest took place during school hours, served to highlight the protest

How? You might have had a valid point if the protest was against the fact that students don't have a right to leave school whenever they want, but that wasn't what they were protesting against.

AntiMatter wrote: »

I stand by my initial admiration, and if more people engaged in wildcat strikes of this nature, the government might have been a little less hesitant to sell us out.

No, it wouldn't. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the bailout, wildcat strikes would have shown that people:

1. don't care enough about the issue to use their own time, they just want to use their employer's time
2. are too stupid to even consider listening to

freckly

This was not a wildcat strike against something that had just happened in school and had to be dealt with there and then. If this child (that's what he is from an insurance point of view) wanted to protest fair play to him. The cuts will have a serious impact on the students and it's time parents and society as a whole recognise this. However, the kids involved just had to not turn up to school that day, be marked absent and hey presto problem gone!

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

Apparently

Possibly. Probably.

How? You might have had a valid point if the protest was against the fact that students don't have a right to leave school whenever they want, but that wasn't what they were protesting against.

The manner in which they protested didn't bring more attention to the point which they were protesting about?

No, it wouldn't. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the bailout, wildcat strikes would have shown that people:

1. don't care enough about the issue to use their own time, they just want to use their employer's time
2. are too stupid to even consider listening to

The government have, and continue to, take advantage of the fact that there is little actual action in relation to the bailouts/related scandals.

Of course you're right that if somebody undertakes to work certain hours they should honour their word, and nor am I necessarily advocating wildcat strikes (organised strikes would be preferable, imo), but given the sustained apathy of the Irish populace I am compelled to support the nature of the actions of this schoolkid and his counterparts.

My original point, concerning my admiration for the protest, stands, and that admiration supercedes any consternation I may have that the protesters took a day off school to make it.

28064212

AntiMatter wrote: »

The manner in which they protested didn't bring more attention to the point which they were protesting about?

Has anywhere focused fact that "hey they might have a point"? No, it's all been about the fact that he may be expelled for it. Whether the protest was against the IMF, the EU or McDonalds, the coverage would not have changed at all. What the protest was against has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. He would have gained exactly the same attention for his cause if he had done the protest after school

AntiMatter wrote: »

My original point, concerning my admiration for the protest, stands, and that admiration supercedes any consternation I may have that the protesters took a day off school to make it.

By your rationale, he could have gotten even more attention and been even more effective by murdering the guy whose office they protested outside. Would that have been preferable?

Hey, if he wants to martyr himself to further something he really believes in, good for him. But he shouldn't get any special treatment just because it's apparently a "big issue", anymore than he would have got it for protesting against Mary Byrne losing in the X-factor

AntiMatter

28064212 wrote: »

Has anywhere focused fact that "hey they might have a point"? No, it's all been about the fact that he may be expelled for it. Whether the protest was against the IMF, the EU or McDonalds, the coverage would not have changed at all. What the protest was against has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. He would have gained exactly the same attention for his cause if he had done the protest after school


By your rationale, he could have gotten even more attention and been even more effective by murdering the guy whose office they protested outside. Would that have been preferable?

You're seriously asking me if I think murder is preferable to peaceful protest?

Hey, if he wants to martyr himself to further something he really believes in, good for him. But he shouldn't get any special treatment just because it's apparently a "big issue", anymore than he would have got it for protesting against Mary Byrne losing in the X-factor

I doubt my admiration would be the same had it been a protest against Mary Byrne losing a singing contest.