Should Private Schools be Closed?

Arcade_Tryer

seamus wrote: »

More information on this coming out from the journalist who started the story.

The incident happened on Friday. The school was alerted, and they suspended nine boys involved.

On Tuesday morning, parents of the accused boys came to the victim's parents looking to do a deal to make the incident go away and let them move on. "Somebody" then contacted the journalist to raise the alarm.

Tbh, this seems slightly more reasonable given those facts. The school or the child contacted his parents. And the school took action. The school does not have an obligation to report the incident to the authorities unless they believe it is not being reported/handled. Especially at 13 years of age, there has to be a balance somewhere between what is appropriate for a school to report, and what is best left up to the parents to report. It's a tough line to walk; what is best left to parents to report and what should always be reported?

But either way, we have this odd situation where someone becomes aware of a situation and instead of contacting the relevant authorities, goes running to a journalist to complain that the authorities aren't being contacted. What's that about?

Satire surely?

steddyeddy

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It seems the reporting of serious crime is now at the discretion of school management.

That isn't the case in every school is it?

whoopsadoodles

4ensic15 wrote: »

The school was given legal advice to report the incident immediately which it ignored.
If this school was fully private with no lower middle-class parents scraping together money to pay fees for their offspring there, most likely this incident would never have happened.

Never happened, or "never happened"?

Annasopra

steddyeddy wrote: »

That isn't the case in every school is it?

No. See my post above.

The schools have legal child protection obligations since 2011.

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. See my post above.

The schools have legal child protection obligations since 2011.

Sorry J. That's good to know.

josha1

Grayson wrote: »

Social Welfare brigade.... Suppose you tar every person in receipt of benefits the same way. The disabled, the sick, the people trying to find work, the people on supplemental allowance... They're all the same.

Clearly not. The country provides a fallback net for people who unfortunately find themselves out of the job out of no fault of their own. Clearly I don't think that we should follow the UK's system of basically harassing disabled people to work, when they are in no position to do so. Clearly if someone is sick, either temporarily or long term, we shouldn't throw them under a bus like they effectively do in America. Clearly families who are simply unable to get by, living week to week deserve all that they can get from the government. None of them are the same, they are all however equally deserving of the tax money going into the state.

But to say that someone who has never contributed to the taxation system of the government in a meaningful way, i.e. none of the above, should be categorised as a taxpayer the same as the squeezed middle who pay extortionate taxes being imposed in the country on only about 50% of the country is ludicrous.

The poster was claiming that VAT should not be seen as any different from PAYE etc, they still 'pay tax'. And 23% tax apparently. So effectively I must be paying about 95% tax if we add up every since tax and charge, just by percentage without any sort of weight on the money or any consideration of where it came from.

josha1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yeah they let only a select few in. Like the old concept of the deserving poor. So the ones they deem "undeserving" are basically kept out.

What exactly are the undeserving poor? No one is undeserving of a chance to go to a particular school. You seem to think that they completely cherry pick students based on the latter of those criterion, which is simply not true. They choose anyone and everyone (contrary to what the other poster was saying, that they should only let in 'intelligent' people.

steddyeddy

josha1 wrote: »

What exactly are the undeserving poor? No one is undeserving of a chance to go to a particular school. You seem to think that they completely cherry pick students based on the latter of those criterion, which is simply not true. They choose anyone and everyone (contrary to what the other poster was saying, that they should only let in 'intelligent' people.

They choose anyone and everyone?

josha1

steddyeddy wrote: »

They choose anyone and everyone?

? For the scholarship program they choose people from all walks of life, not sure what the question is?

Bridge93

steddyeddy wrote: »

They choose anyone and everyone?

If you are willing to pay the fees for your child's education and the waiting lists are not extortionately long (they aren't anymore) than your kid can go to that school. This idea that there are selection criteria is not true

eviltwin

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The school has clear obligations under the Children First Guidelines 2011

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Child_Welfare_Protection/ChildrenFirst/WhatResDoesOrgsHave.htm

The Ombudsman for Children Niall Muldoon pointed to clear guidelines that put an onus on schools to notify authorities without delay.

"In line with Children First 2011 Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children, every school was obliged to have a child protection policy.

"Where there is a child protection concern, the designated liaison person should be notified immediately and Túsla should be contacted without delay. Any delay would not be in the best interests of the child or children involved," he said.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/garda-fear-evidence-compromised-after-a-delay-in-reporting-alleged-sex-assault-35261734.html

Thats why I am completely confused at the suggestion above that they don't.

Children's First are only guidelines. There isn't mandatory reporting yet.

Annasopra

josha1 wrote: »

What exactly are the undeserving poor? No one is undeserving of a chance to go to a particular school. You seem to think that they completely cherry pick students based on the latter of those criterion, which is simply not true. They choose anyone and everyone (contrary to what the other poster was saying, that they should only let in 'intelligent' people.

It's a Victorian ideological concept towards poverty that has a very socially stratified view of dividing poor basically into strivers and scroungers

http://www.experiencewoodhorn.com/part-2-deserving-or-undeserving-poor/
http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/culture/work/deserving.html
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/the-return-of-the-undeserving-poor/

You just outlined yourself they have criteria on who they will give a scholarship to - on who "deserves" a scholarship

josha1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It's a Victorian ideological concept towards poverty that has a very socially stratified view of dividing poor basically into strivers and scroungers

http://www.experiencewoodhorn.com/part-2-deserving-or-undeserving-poor/
http://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/culture/work/deserving.html
https://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/the-return-of-the-undeserving-poor/

You just outlined yourself they have criteria on who they will give a scholarship to - on who "deserves" a scholarship

To say that Ireland has any true sort of class system akin to the Victorian times is a bit ridiculous.

While I personally feel that those who 'strive' may be more deserving (in some cases), the schools, or at least the two schools that I'm thinking about in particular don't require people to meet them criteria, it was a direct response to the person who said that only academics should be considered. The schools effectively don't have criteria other than you wouldn't have the opportunity to go there without the scholarship.

There are plenty of scholarship students who simply float in and out and don't take part in school activities or the 'extras' that previous posters were talking about, as they are entitled to.

evolving_doors

4ensic15 wrote: »

The school was given legal advice to report the incident immediately which it ignored.
If this school was fully private with no lower middle-class parents scraping together money to pay fees for their offspring there, most likely this incident would never have happened.

It shouldn't even have gone as far as 'seeking legal advice'. It would appear that the school did not report the incident straight away.

Instead (going by what was on RTE news last night) they rang tusla and put forth different scenarios and hung up the phone (as if they were just asking innocent hypothetical questions), so they failed to notify the proper authorities in a timely manner. This is important in terms of evidence gathering.

Not only this, they then went on to tell the parents (or suggest to them!) that they HAD notified tusla... when in fact they just had a chat with Tusla about hypothetical situations. They were giving the parents the impression that it had been reported. If they had been misleading with the truth to the parents then it shows that they were actively trying to 'manage the situation'.

steddyeddy

Bridge93 wrote: »

If you are willing to pay the fees for your child's education and the waiting lists are not extortionately long (they aren't anymore) than your kid can go to that school. This idea that there are selection criteria is not true

So in other words they choose the kids of those who are willing or able to pay fees. In other words something the kid has no control over.

Bridge93

steddyeddy wrote: »

So in other words they choose the kids of those who are willing or able to pay fees. In other words something the kid has no control over.

No kid has any control over what school they go to fee paying or not.

It's similar to kids who's parents have them on private healthcare plans. They didn't choose to be or not to be. In both scenarios the parents choose.
Should we have no private healthcare system either?

jackofalltrades

Firstly poor kid, that's an absolutely terrible thing to happen to someone.
Even worse if it turns out that someone recorded it.

Secondly I can't fathom how someones first reaction is to not immediately contact the Gardaí on hearing that something like this happened.

Thirdly I think it a bit tasteless, and that's putting it mildly, to use this incident to push the agenda of closing private schools.

thebaz

I just wonder is the 12 year old best interests served by the mass media headlines of the horrific event - let the appropriate authorities investigate and prosecute , but privately rather than in the glare of the public media , don't think this can be good for the victim as he tries to recover and re-build his esteem and life, after such a horrible attack.

There must have been some incompetent in charge that night. The incident would have been reported to the most senior staff member and they should have taken charge by informing the parents and the authorities. What may have happened is the parents asked them to hold off until they spoke to the kid, hence the delay. Or the kid may have been very distressed (understandably) and refused to cooperate, denying th incident perhaps.

Either way, googling and asking vague questions of the relevant agencies shows a complete lack of charge of the situation and the protocol that is certainly in place for dealing the serious incidents wasn't followed.

Either way, bullying happens everywhere and whether this happened in a dorm or on a school trip or on a school bus is beside the point. The child is the important part of this story, not the school.

Poor kid.

Walter2016

thebaz wrote: »

I just wonder is the 12 year old best interests served by the mass media headlines of the horrific event - let the appropriate authorities investigate and prosecute , but privately rather than in the glare of the public media , don't think this can be good for the victim as he tries to recover and re-build his esteem and life, after such a horrible attack.

Do you REALLY think the hysterical sensationalist media give a damn about anyone's feelings?

Media, esp indo group, have one aim and one aim only. You to read the article and see the adverts.

Journalism, feelings and truth play no part in it.

josha1

Walter2016 wrote: »

Do you REALLY think the hysterical sensationalist media give a damn about anyone's feelings?

Media, esp indo group, have one aim and one aim only. You to read the article and see the adverts.

Journalism, feelings and truth play no part in it.

I think they mean how the story got out in the first place.

It's completely bizarre really - the school wouldn't want it to get out because of bad publicity, the victim's parents wouldn't want it to get out due to harm to the innocent victim, the accused's parents wouldn't want it to get out because of the angry mob, I really struggle to see who leaked it. The whole thing has been handled quite poorly, having said that I don't think there is a proper way to deal with such a disgusting incident.

steddyeddy

josha1 wrote: »

I think they mean how the story got out in the first place.

It's completely bizarre really - the school wouldn't want it to get out because of bad publicity, the victim's parents wouldn't want it to get out due to harm to the innocent victim, the accused's parents wouldn't want it to get out because of the angry mob, I really struggle to see who leaked it. The whole thing has been handled quite poorly, having said that I don't think there is a proper way to deal with such a disgusting incident.

Call the police if an assault has been reported.

josha1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Call the police if an assault has been reported.

I mean in terms of should the parents be contacted first, should the accused be expelled immediately, should tusla or the guards be contacted first, should the school release a statement, should the victims parents go to the press, should other parents go to the press, should the supervisor be fired etc etc. It's not that simple. The entire incident is completely unprecedented.

IvyTheTerrible

josha1 wrote: »

I mean in terms of should the parents be contacted first, should the accused be expelled immediately, should tusla or the guards be contacted first, should the school release a statement, should the victims parents go to the press, should other parents go to the press, should the supervisor be fired etc etc. It's not that simple. The entire incident is completely unprecedented.

Apart from the media attention, in what way do you think it's unprecedented? Do you think sexual assault has never happened in a school before?

IvyTheTerrible

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Apart from the media attention, in what way do you think it's unprecedented? Do you think sexual assault has never happened in a school before?

Even if it's unprecedented in that school, there would be detailed protocols in place to deal with assaults, serious bullying, accidents, thefts, burglary, fire and sexual assaults too. It doesn't matter if it was unprecedented or not, there would be a plan to set the wheels in motion to deal with it.

There was a massive failure on the part of whoever was in charge that night, and by the school thereafter in that unacceptable delay in informing the relevant authorities.

At the very least, there should be resignations over this incompetence.

ted1

Candie wrote: »

Even if it's unprecedented in that school, there would be detailed protocols in place to deal with assaults, serious bullying, accidents, thefts, burglary, fire and sexual assaults too. It doesn't matter if it was unprecedented or not, there would be a plan to set the wheels in motion to deal with it.

There was a massive failure on the part of whoever was in charge that night, and by the school thereafter in that unacceptable delay in informing the relevant authorities.

At the very least, there should be resignations over this incompetence.

Sexual abuse isn't unprecedented in that school.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/orourkes-sex-shame-26200056.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/swim-coachs-sex-abuse-victims-win-fight-for-damages-26422066.html

evolving_doors

ted1 wrote: »

Sexual abuse isn't unprecedented in that school.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/orourkes-sex-shame-26200056.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/swim-coachs-sex-abuse-victims-win-fight-for-damages-26422066.html

Did he Sexually advise anyone during his tenure at the school?
In fairness though that was a swimming club who subsequently used the school's facilities (did students attend that club?) When the school found out about him they asked him to resign his post with the school ASAP. The club brought him back unbeknownst to the school.

BoatMad

Candie wrote: »

Even if it's unprecedented in that school, there would be detailed protocols in place to deal with assaults, serious bullying, accidents, thefts, burglary, fire and sexual assaults too. It doesn't matter if it was unprecedented or not, there would be a plan to set the wheels in motion to deal with it.

There was a massive failure on the part of whoever was in charge that night, and by the school thereafter in that unacceptable delay in informing the relevant authorities.

At the very least, there should be resignations over this incompetence.

In fairness 4 days passed and the authorities were informed. I presume the child reported it at some stage or informed his parents.

I would not cast aspersions until we know the details of how the incident cane to light.

ted1

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Did he Sexually advise anyone during his tenure at the school?
In fairness though that was a swimming club who subsequently used the school's facilities (did students attend that club?) When the school found out about him they asked him to resign his post with the school ASAP. The club brought him back unbeknownst to the school.

In fairness to the courts the found the school was in the wrong and awarded they pay the victims several hounded thousand euro.
As a result of they case the school should have been on the ball this time around.

evolving_doors

ted1 wrote: »

In fairness to the courts the found the school was in the wrong and awarded they pay the victims several hounded thousand euro.
As a result of they case the school should have been on the ball this time around.

Ok I see that the school had known of allegations made against him.
the procedure is to pass it on to Gardai or tusla ASAP. They didn't do this.

Annasopra

josha1 wrote: »

I mean in terms of should the parents be contacted first, should the accused be expelled immediately, should tusla or the guards be contacted first, should the school release a statement, should the victims parents go to the press, should other parents go to the press, should the supervisor be fired etc etc. It's not that simple. The entire incident is completely unprecedented.

How is it unprecented? Serious assaults have happened many many times in schools

Annasopra

BoatMad wrote: »

In fairness 4 days passed and the authorities were informed. I presume the child reported it at some stage or informed his parents.

I would not cast aspersions until we know the details of how the incident cane to light.

The point is why did the school wait 4 days to report this?

josha1

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

How is it unprecented? Serious assaults have happened many many times in schools

I don't know about you but I'd consider a boy being sexually assaulted with a hockey stick to be unprecedented.

4ensic15

josha1 wrote: »

I don't know about you but I'd consider a boy being sexually assaulted with a hockey stick to be unprecedented.

Why! is it usually with a hurley?

pickarooney

Del.Monte wrote: »

Where are the men of '98 when you need them?

Zidane and Barthez?

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

Sexual abuse isn't unprecedented in that school.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/orourkes-sex-shame-26200056.html

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/swim-coachs-sex-abuse-victims-win-fight-for-damages-26422066.html

My point was that it wouldn't matter if it was; there are protocols in place in schools for dealing with these eventualities.

I was a boarder myself (elsewhere), and there's no way 15 kids in one dorm watching a fight would have gone unnoticed for the period of time we seem to be talking about here.

Annasopra

josha1 wrote: »

I don't know about you but I'd consider a boy being sexually assaulted with a hockey stick to be unprecedented.

The exact detail might be. But overall the fact it happened is not. And that is why we have laws and guidelines on child protection. Sexual abuse and assault of children has happened many many times before. I dont know why some people in the thread are acting as if it has never happened before and as if we havent developed a child protection system to deal with such invidents.

steddyeddy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The exact detail might be. But overall the fact it happened is not. And that is why we have laws and guidelines on child protection. Sexual abuse and assault of children has happened many many times before. I dont know why some people in the thread are acting as if it has never happened before and as if we havent developed a child protection system to deal with such invidents.

It has also been covered up many times before. It's ridiculous they didn't go to the Garda first.

steddyeddy

josha1 wrote: »

I mean in terms of should the parents be contacted first, should the accused be expelled immediately, should tusla or the guards be contacted first, should the school release a statement, should the victims parents go to the press, should other parents go to the press, should the supervisor be fired etc etc. It's not that simple. The entire incident is completely unprecedented.

Well the law supercedes school policy.

evolving_doors

Jeez to think those 13yr old kids had to go to bed that night and pretend to themselves that what happened was normal. They probably thought that that's how to 'be a man' in this world.

Sure it could happen anywhere, but how did someone not notice or hear 15kids in a small bedroom? Although it could have all taken place in the space of 20mins while the supervisor was doing rounds or being distracted.

Del.Monte

It sounds strange that nobody saw what was going on and in a school like KH I would have thought that the prefects would be in control. I wonder if they still have a system of prefects or has it been replaced by something more PC? I know in the school I was at the prefects ran the place (in terms of discipline) and were answerable to their respective House Masters and the 'Warden' - a tight ship.

byhookorbycrook

http://www.kingshospital.ie/sites/go2kingshossite/files/Child%20protection%20policy_0.pdf
Pretty clear they didn't even follow their own policy.

"The School aims to create an atmosphere that encourages pupils to disclose and discuss incidents of bullying behaviour, sexual harassment or racism. "

4ensic15

It seems now that all that happened was his arse was touched with a hockey stick. You would think he was gang-raped with all the fuss.

IvyTheTerrible

4ensic15 wrote: »

It seems now that all that happened was his arse was touched with a hockey stick. You would think he was gang-raped with all the fuss.

Source?

4ensic15

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Source?

Newspaper.

IvyTheTerrible

4ensic15 wrote: »

Newspaper.

This is like pulling teeth. Which newspaper, in case in of us might like, I don't know, to read the article too?

maudgonner

There are more details here in the Indo. Which, to be honest, I'm not sure I needed to read - there's a fine line between informing the public and publishing unnecessary details.

Suffice to say that it was not 'just touching his arse with a hockey stick'. Poor kid, I hope he's doing ok.

seamus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Sorry what?

Where on earth are you getting information that the school is not obliged to report such an incident?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

"Where there is a child protection concern, the designated liaison person should be notified immediately and Túsla should be contacted without delay. Any delay would not be in the best interests of the child or children involved," he said.
Thats why I am completely confused at the suggestion above that they don't.

So, I was just parroting what had been said in an interview. And the words used there are interesting. He doesn't state that a Tusla must be notified immediately, but that they should. Child protection guidelines and the law don't necessarily match up. My understanding is that the law doesn't oblige the institution to report the incident, unless they believe it is not being reported by another authority (parents in this case).

I'm really confused here. Are you saying it is reasonable the school or another childs parents tried to get this covered up?

I'm saying that context is key. We have no evidence really that anyone tried to cover anything up beyond a 4-day delay in reporting. That something having been reported to the school authorities or the child's parents on Friday morning not being reported until the Tuesday has several explanations that don't require an intentional cover up to be taking place. Or even incompetence.

Which, given that this would now be a matter of aggravated assault and not sexual assault, would be even more understandable why someone might take some time to consider what they wanted to do about it.

It's a tough line to walk; if this had just been a scrap in the dorm between two pupils, the Gardai probably wouldn't have been called. This has a more sinister aspect to it, but thankfully with no actual harm done to the child.

I'm not saying it's reasonable; we don't have enough information to say that. I'm saying it is understandable if we take the reported facts at face value.

josha1

seamus wrote: »

So, I was just parroting what had been said in an interview. And the words used there are interesting. He doesn't state that a Tusla must be notified immediately, but that they should. Child protection guidelines and the law don't necessarily match up. My understanding is that the law doesn't oblige the institution to report the incident, unless they believe it is not being reported by another authority (parents in this case). I'm saying that context is key. We have no evidence really that anyone tried to cover anything up beyond a 4-day delay in reporting. That something having been reported to the school authorities or the child's parents on Friday morning not being reported until the Tuesday has several explanations that don't require an intentional cover up to be taking place. Or even incompetence.

Which, given that this would now be a matter of aggravated assault and not sexual assault, would be even more understandable why someone might take some time to consider what they wanted to do about it.

It's a tough line to walk; if this had just been a scrap in the dorm between two pupils, the Gardai probably wouldn't have been called. This has a more sinister aspect to it, but thankfully with no actual harm done to the child.

I'm not saying it's reasonable; we don't have enough information to say that. I'm saying it is understandable if we take the reported facts at face value.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at. There are so many other considerations and things that we don't yet know/will never know. It's clearly not simple with regards to the guidelines in place.

The only thing that took away from your post was this "but thankfully with no actual harm done to the child." I think being bear hugged, stripped to being naked, touched by 3 people with a hockey stick while exposed, and then forced to fight in front of 15 classmates would be very hard to deal with.

seamus

josha1 wrote: »

The only thing that took away from your post was this "but thankfully with no actual harm done to the child." I think being bear hugged, stripped to being naked, touched by 3 people with a hockey stick while exposed, and then forced to fight in front of 15 classmates would be very hard to deal with.

Yep, but a lot less so than if he'd been sexually assaulted.

In another school he would have been held down and told that if he doesn't fight, then all 15 of them are going to beat the crap out of him.

It is certainly not OK that he was subject to serious threats and intimidation in this way. But the fact that it was just that - a nasty, menacing threat, and not an actual assault - changes the context of the whole incident from what occurred to how it was dealt with.