Should Private Schools be Closed?

steddyeddy

seamus wrote: »

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.

Seamus I went to a kip of a school most of the time and I'm still shocked by that behaviour. It's a nasty experience and we don't know how the child reacted to it.

The Draugan

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is what winds people up. Children from all backgrounds care about education. Even if their parents don't. It's not confined to a class.

Some kids do , in my experience allot of this has do with their upbringing and the level of interest their parents have. If kids are sent to private school with their parents paying for it that's a good indication that their parents are pretty interested in their education.

I would only be interested in all schools being community schools if streaming was involved to ensure weaker or disruptive kids were filtered out and didn't affect the stronger , better behaved kids negatively.

seamus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Seamus I went to a kip of a school most of the time and I'm still shocked by that behaviour. It's a nasty experience and we don't know how the child reacted to it.

Ultimately how the child reacted to it isn't relevant in terms of how, where & when the incident should be reported. What will have one kid seeing a psychologist for 20 years might be shrugged off by another kid.

That means the seriousness of the incident shouldn't be understated nor overstated, but just dealt with appropriately.

I would say I'm less shocked about the incident with this new information. I've never seen anything like this, but I have seen how vicious and crazy children can get in groups. All it takes is one influential little sh1thead to come up with an "idea" and group psychology to make the rest of the group go with the flow. It's rare things go this extreme, but every now and again a properly vicious little sh1t gets themselves into this position.

We can't forget that the perpetrators are children themselves, incapable of properly understanding both the seriousness of what they're doing, but also the full meaning of what they're doing.
We all did incredibly stupid things as teenagers, which we thought seemed like harmless or appropriate ideas at the time.

Anyway, all that aside the issue here is the timeliness of reporting (or not) of the incident. Which is directly informed by the seriousness of the incident and the appropriateness of reporting it. Now that we know no actual physical sexual assault took place, that changes context quite a bit.

Glenster

maudgonner wrote: »

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.

Article says
"King's Hospital, one of Dublin's most prestigious boarding schools"
so I wouldn't put too much credence in it.

thebaz

seamus wrote: »

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.

that was my understating of events after weekend , that it was just a threat, and not a sexual assault - don't think the media did any favours by playing it all out in public , particuly when the facts were sketchy at best , more importantly don't think this did victim any favour , whom will be trying to build his confidence back as a normal teenager - in fact the media handled this thing horribly, trying to be the moral police without the full facts.

steddyeddy

thebaz wrote: »

that was my understating of events after weekend , that it was just a threat, and not a sexual assault - don't think the media did any favours by playing it all out in public , particuly when the facts were sketchy at best , more importantly don't think this did victim any favour , whom will be trying to build his confidence back as a normal teenager - in fact the media handled this thing horribly, trying to be the moral police without the full facts.

Threathening people with sexual assault isn't OK either.

Glenster

steddyeddy wrote: »

Threathening people with sexual assault isn't OK either.

They were only nippers though.

Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup, really.

The issue here isn't about sexual abuse, which didn't happen and wasn't likely to happen.

Its about unsupervised kids having a fight. Which I'm against, but not overly bothered about.

foggy_lad

seamus wrote: »

We have no evidence really that anyone tried to cover anything up beyond a 4-day delay in reporting.

Surely the School telling parents that they had been in contact with TUSLA was meant to reassure tham that the incident had been reported? If I had been the parent told this I would not be thinking "oh they rang anonymously to find out their own position and obligations", I would be thinking that they had reported the incident properly and had acted as proper teaching professionals!

By telling the parents they had been in contact with TUSLA they led them to believe that they had reported the incident when they had not! This was an attempt to defer any action and cover up a serious and sexual assault!

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 was a lot more than a scrap or "Horseplay"!

What happened was a serious sexual assault where a young boy who may well have been the target of those bastards before was stripped and threatened with anal rape using a hockey stick if he did not do whatever the baying mob of future doctors lawyers and politicians told him to do!

How do you know that there is no harm done to the boy who was assaulted? he may suffer for years over what has been done to him!

Trivialising a serious sexual assault by declaring that "thankfully with no actual harm done to the child" is exactly how the Catholic paedophile priests were able to get off with so many of their assaults and get moved around as they did not see any harm in what was done.

Jawgap

Glenster wrote: »

They were only nippers though.

Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup, really.

The issue here isn't about sexual abuse, which didn't happen and wasn't likely to happen.

Its about unsupervised kids having a fight. Which I'm against, but not overly bothered about.

Reading the account in the Irish Times would suggest otherwise.

Subsequently, in an account given by the suspended boy, a hockey stick was taken out and three pupils separately touched the 13-year-old’s coccyx/tailbone with it before he was given a choice of having it inserted into his body or agreeing to fight another boy.

I know boys are going to fight and at that age a lot of us probably got into more scraps than we'd like to admit for reasons that were petty and trivial, but there does seem to be an 'edge' to this whole event that is disturbing.

EDIT: The para before the one quote above.....

According to one of the eight boys suspended from the school since the alleged incident, the 13-year-old was bear-hugged onto a bed by one boy and had his pants taken down by another.

foggy_lad

Jawgap wrote: »

Reading the account in the Irish Times would suggest otherwise.



I know boys are going to fight and at that age a lot of us probably got into more scraps than we'd like to admit for reasons that were petty and trivial, but there does seem to be an 'edge' to this whole event that is disturbing.

EDIT: The para before the one quote above.....

According to one of the eight boys suspended from the school since the alleged incident, the 13-year-old was bear-hugged onto a bed by one boy and had his pants taken down by another.

This "witness" was out to save his own skin so can't be relied upon to tell the truth about what happened!

It would be more believable to hear that the entire incident was recorded on a number of phones but that the delay in reporting to the Gardai and Tusla gave privileged assailants time to cover their tracks and delete the footage.

There may well be no expulsions or just one to appease the parents of the victim but I can see all those suspended back in school after the Christmas break, they will most likely even be allowed to attend for Christmas assessments or tests if required.

Just so there is no doubt this crowd of 15 boys/young men grabbed this 13 year old boy and held him down as they stripped his clothes off him, then they held a hockey stick to his anus and threatened to rape him with it unless he did what they wanted!

How is that not a serious sexual assault?

josha1

Glenster wrote: »

They were only nippers though.

Seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup, really.

The issue here isn't about sexual abuse, which didn't happen and wasn't likely to happen.

Its about unsupervised kids having a fight. Which I'm against, but not overly bothered about.

To be honest I think this is a lot more severe than what some people are making it out to be. We've gone full circle really on the severity of it. The perpetrators should be punished not for having a fight. Boys will be boys. But stripping a boy naked on its own is bad enough, especially in front of 15 classmates. To then touch him with a hockey stick and threaten 'inserting' it, is sadistic and deserves to be punished severely, and should have been dealt with.

I'll leave this here. http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1771832/original/?width=630&version=1771832

Jawgap

foggy_lad wrote: »

This "witness" was out to save his own skin so can't be relied upon to tell the truth about what happened!

It would be more believable to hear that the entire incident was recorded on a number of phones but that the delay in reporting to the Gardai and Tusla gave privileged assailants time to cover their tracks and delete the footage.

There may well be no expulsions or just one to appease the parents of the victim but I can see all those suspended back in school after the Christmas break, they will most likely even be allowed to attend for Christmas assessments or tests if required.

Just so there is no doubt this crowd of 15 boys/young men grabbed this 13 year old boy and held him down as they stripped his clothes off him, then they held a hockey stick to his anus and threatened to rape him with it unless he did what they wanted!

How is that not a serious sexual assault?

My reading of it is that there seems to have been an element to the assault that could be construed as sexual.....but that's really a matter for the courts to decide.

Saying that, I'm not sure it should go to court, which is not to say the victim shouldn't get the justice he deserves (or the perpetrators the punishment they deserve), only that some strong consideration should be given to initiating a process that results in kids having such a conviction logged against them - I'm sure it will be given a lot of consideration.

Del.Monte

foggy_lad wrote: »

Surely the School telling parents that they had been in contact with TUSLA was meant to reassure tham that the incident had been reported? If I had been the parent told this I would not be thinking "oh they rang anonymously to find out their own position and obligations", I would be thinking that they had reported the incident properly and had acted as proper teaching professionals!

By telling the parents they had been in contact with TUSLA they led them to believe that they had reported the incident when they had not! This was an attempt to defer any action and cover up a serious and sexual assault!

This was a lot more than a scrap or "Horseplay"!

What happened was a serious sexual assault where a young boy who may well have been the target of those bastards before was stripped and threatened with anal rape using a hockey stick if he did not do whatever the baying mob of future doctors lawyers and politicians told him to do!

How do you know that there is no harm done to the boy who was assaulted? he may suffer for years over what has been done to him!

Trivialising a serious sexual assault by declaring that "thankfully with no actual harm done to the child" is exactly how the Catholic paedophile priests were able to get off with so many of their assaults and get moved around as they did not see any harm in what was done.

Your entire posting in this thread from your OP onwards would have some credibility if you could only shed that enormous class chip that you have on your shoulder.

Regarding the incident in question, as thus far revealed, which seems to be no more than a very, very serious bullying incident in which the ring leaders should probably face expulsion. It doesn't seem that the Gardai should have been involved at all, but that is without knowing the exact details of the incident.

BoatMad

Just so there is no doubt this crowd of 15 boys/young men grabbed this 13 year old boy and held him down as they stripped his clothes off him, then they held a hockey stick to his anus and threatened to rape him with it unless he did what they wanted!

How is that not a serious sexual assault?

clearly its not sexual assault , its also clearly " threatening sexual assault ", however if we jailed teenage boys everytime they mentioned potential sexual assault " Do that jimmy, or you'll have a boot in your ar$e" etc, jails would be packed . The issue is one of bullying and from all accounts the schools aptly promptly and appropriately.

currants

Jawgap wrote: »

My reading of it is that there seems to have been an element to the assault that could be construed as sexual.....but that's really a matter for the courts to decide.

Saying that, I'm not sure it should go to court, which is not to say the victim shouldn't get the justice he deserves (or the perpetrators the punishment they deserve), only that some strong consideration should be given to initiating a process that results in kids having such a conviction logged against them - I'm sure it will be given a lot of consideration.

I disagree, forcibly removing his clothes and then threatening him with rape with an object is definitely sexual assault, in fact going by the link below if what has been reported is correct then it would come under aggravated sexual assault. These are teenagers, not little children who cant comprehend what they're doing. Interestingly there's a maximum 14 year sentence for under 17s. Not that any of these bullies will ever see a cell.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

A lot of schools try to minimise assaults on kids, especially when wealthy parents with easy access to big bucks barristers are involved. If that poor boy was my son I would have reported the incident to the Gardai, then Tusla. The ringleader (and there's always a ringleader)must be a right dangerous individual. That's a very disturbed child and this type of behaviour doesn't come from nowhere. If he was in the courts system at least he would be getting the treatment he needs, a teen who instigates this type of assault is clearly seriously mentally unwell. The rest of them should be expelled.

steddyeddy

If stripping someone naked and threaten to rape them with a foreign object isn't sexual assault what is?

The Draugan

steddyeddy wrote: »

If stripping someone naked and threaten to rape them with a foreign object isn't sexual assault what is?

I don't think anyone even the staunchest defenders of private schooling agree with what happened to that kid in Kings Hospital , it was disgusting and those who carried out the attack should be punished accordingly , expulsion for starters and criminal charges to come later would be my suggestion.

But what happened at Kings Hospital is no reason to suggest closing all private schools , bullying occurs in nearly all school environments , in this case it was extreme , but i believe it is very much an isolated case.

Glenster

josha1 wrote: »

To be honest I think this is a lot more severe than what some people are making it out to be. We've gone full circle really on the severity of it. The perpetrators should be punished not for having a fight. Boys will be boys. But stripping a boy naked on its own is bad enough, especially in front of 15 classmates. To then touch him with a hockey stick and threaten 'inserting' it, is sadistic and deserves to be punished severely, and should have been dealt with.

I'll leave this here. http://img2.thejournal.ie/inline/1771832/original/?width=630&version=1771832

I went to boarding school myself, and I think maybe some people are a bit naïve as to the kinds of things kids get up to.

Kids get into fights all the time, and there is a certain teenage boy predilection to threaten to shove things up each others holes in a fight situation. I've definitely heard it said before, to such a degree that I find it hard to believe that no-one else has. I've seen it said on TV too.

A fight is a fight and its wrong and they shouldn't be doing it, but the issue here is not that these kids are sickos or anything, its that they were so unsupervised that they were able to do this.

steddyeddy

The Draugan wrote: »

Some kids do , in my experience allot of this has do with their upbringing and the level of interest their parents have. If kids are sent to private school with their parents paying for it that's a good indication that their parents are pretty interested in their education.

Some parents do. We can more confidently assign that motive to those who struggle to send their kids to private school than those who are loaded and just see it as the done thing. Likewise we cannot assume that parents who cannot afford to pay for these schools care any less.

Then neither of those scenarios tell anything about the capability, intelligence or natural curiosity of the child. All children like to learn. I think the school the school the child is sent to largely determines how they'll learn.

I would only be interested in all schools being community schools if streaming was involved to ensure weaker or disruptive kids were filtered out and didn't affect the stronger , better behaved kids negatively.

Yes I agree with you. As I said the school a child's sent to will make a huge difference to his/her learning.

steddyeddy

Glenster wrote: »

I went to boarding school myself, and I think maybe some people are a bit naïve as to the kinds of things kids get up to.

Kids get into fights all the time, and there is a certain teenage boy predilection to threaten to shove things up each others holes in a fight situation. I've definitely heard it said before, to such a degree that I find it hard to believe that no-one else has. I've seen it said on TV too.

A fight is a fight and its wrong and they shouldn't be doing it, but the issue here is not that these kids are sickos or anything, its that they were so unsupervised that they were able to do this.

It might be a boarding school thing as I was never stripped and threatened with sexual assault.

The Talking Bread

BoatMad wrote: »

clearly its not sexual assault , its also clearly " threatening sexual assault ", however if we jailed teenage boys everytime they mentioned potential sexual assault " Do that jimmy, or you'll have a boot in your ar$e" etc, jails would be packed . The issue is one of bullying and from all accounts the schools aptly promptly and appropriately.

You do realise that threats of sexual assault is legally sexual assault. If you don't, you do know.

Obviously the extent of the threat, the seriousness of it and the context as to whether the recipient of the threat genuinely believed it or had reasonable reason to believe it to be a "real threat" comes into play. But that is a separate matter. But a "threat" of assault falls under the legal basis of assault.

BoatMad

Yes I agree with you. As I said they school a child's sent to will make a huge difference to his/her learning.

Ask any teacher, The primary motivating factor in kids ( and their schools ) doing well is the parental influences on children. Kids that come from backgrounds, where learning is valued, where acquired knowledge is valued, and where parents make an effort to help their kids acquired such skills, ( and pressure them from time to time) do well. If these kids are in the majority in a school, the school does well. The standard of the treaching is almost irrelevant.

ireland shows that private schools are not a gateway to better learning or a gateway to worse learning, you can achieve the same thing in the public or charter-style schooling systems once the parental resolve is there. Closing private schools would have no impact one way of the other on the results. We live in a society where wealth buys you things, that applies to all levels, I see no reason why private schools shouldn't exist in that regard. what would be problematic , would be if private schools were consistently at the top of all educational attainments to the detriment of other schools, but there is no evidence of that . Criticism often just boiled down to simple begrudery

BoatMad

The Talking Bread wrote: »

You do realise that threats of sexual assault is legally sexual assault. If you don't, you do know.

Obviously the extent of the threat, the seriousness of it and the context as to whether the recipient of the threat genuinely believed it or had reasonable reason to believe it to be a "real threat" comes into play. But that is a separate matter. But a "threat" of assault falls under the legal basis of assault.

I believe that is not the case in all cases, its up to a court to decide

I refer to http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Policy%20on%20the%20Investigation%20of%20Sexual%20Crime,%20Crimes%20Against%20Children%20and%20Child%20Welfare%202014%2002%2024%20HQ%20Dir%2048%2013.pdf for reference

"Threatening a person with a view to coercing them into performing some indecent/sexual act may also constitute a sexual or indecent assault.


However, where words alone are used they may not constitute an assault unless accompanied by some overt act or gesture. Any threat must raise in the mind of the victim a fear of immediate and unlawful personal violence."
( my underlines )

Im not condoning the actions that happened, but to listen to the media , you d think he had been raped by them all. If the case is brought to court , it will be up to a judge to decide what the severity of the punishment and no doubt upto the DPP to decide what exact charges to bring

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

You do realise that threats of sexual assault is legally sexual assault. If you don't, you do know.

Obviously the extent of the threat, the seriousness of it and the context as to whether the recipient of the threat genuinely believed it or had reasonable reason to believe it to be a "real threat" comes into play. But that is a separate matter. But a "threat" of assault falls under the legal basis of assault.

and even stripping someone naked against their will in a threatening situation is sexual assault, no matter how you (no pun intended) dress it up. The hockey situatation in this case didnt even need to be factored in. T

Glenster

steddyeddy wrote: »

It might be a boarding school thing as I was never stripped and threatened with sexual assault.

I'm not sure if I was ever stripped, we used to streak a lot, get naked at the drop of a hat.

Its probably just me, but if I was that little lad I probably would have been a little scared when it happened, but I would have never for a second thought that anyone would bum me with a hockey stick.

Its like an initiation.....

The Talking Bread

BoatMad wrote: »

I believe that is not the case in all cases, its up to a court to decide

I refer to http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/Policy%20on%20the%20Investigation%20of%20Sexual%20Crime,%20Crimes%20Against%20Children%20and%20Child%20Welfare%202014%2002%2024%20HQ%20Dir%2048%2013.pdf for reference

"Threatening a person with a view to coercing them into performing some indecent/sexual act may also constitute a sexual or indecent assault.


However, where words alone are used they may not constitute an assault unless accompanied by some overt act or gesture. Any threat must raise in the mind of the victim a fear of immediate and unlawful personal violence."
( my underlines )

Im not condoning the actions that happened, but to listen to the media , you d think he had been raped by them all.

Hence, sexual assault in this case. There isn't a doubt that this is sexual assault. I can't believe people can't acknowledge that. Put into the context of a girl or even a woman being the victim here.

Just because they are kids, probably hetrosexual (presumption), doesn't take away anything from the context here.

The Talking Bread

Glenster wrote: »

I'm not sure if I was ever stripped, we used to streak a lot, get naked at the drop of a hat.

Its probably just me, but if I was that little lad I probably would have been a little scared when it happened, but I would have never for a second thought that anyone would bum me with a hockey stick.

Its like an initiation.....

so why the fk did he fight then!! And put himself in physical or even punitive danger!!

Jesus! People are answering there own questions by attempting to negate it as a sexual assault!

BoatMad

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Hence, sexual assault in this case. There isn't a doubt that this is sexual assault. I can't believe people can't acknowledge that. Put into the context of a girl or even a woman being the victim here.

Just because they are kids, probably hetrosexual (presumption), doesn't take away anything from the context here.

I am very leery of acting as judge jury and executioner here , as the media seem to want to be. I accept that a serious incident occurred , as to what actual statues were broken and the exact nature of the crimes committed, Im happy to leave that to the authorities

Whats clear is the school acted promptly and appropriately in my view and that is in comparison with other incidences in our past where inordinate delays occurred ( or never was reported )

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It might be a boarding school thing as I was never stripped and threatened with sexual assault.

What? It never happened you, so its a boarding school thing?

No, it's not a 'boarding school thing'. It's a scumbag thing. It could have happened in a day school behind the bikes after GAA practice, or in the toilets during break.

I went to boarding school and was never stripped or threatened with sexual assault.

BoatMad

No, it's not a 'boarding school thing'. It's a scumbag thing. It could have happened in a day school behind the bikes after GAA practice, or in the toilets during break.

+1, in reality nothing to do with the type of school and I suspect we only know about it because preciously in happened in a well managed school as opposed to the back of the GAA pitch or some random field or something

whats incredible of course , is the self incriminating nature of mobile phone pictures.

Glenster

Candie wrote: »

What? It never happened you, so its a boarding school thing?

No, it's not a 'boarding school thing'. It's a scumbag thing. It could have happened in a day school behind the bikes after GAA practice, or in the toilets during break.

I went to boarding school and was never stripped or threatened with sexual assault.

Here, there's a real holier than thou attitude here.

I don't know if people don't remember their childhoods, or what.

I know that I drank and smoked and fought and did a drug or two (in my late teens), was bullied, did some bullying, pulled pranks, snuck out of school at night to go to parties and see girls, maybe threw an empty bottle on the ground, got off with a girl who was hammered (When I was a teenager and also hammered).

I'm not proud of it, just realistic. An article in the Irish times about any of those things would look bad.

The event could have been as dark as it is described in the Irish Times, but it could easily have not been and leading with the story as some kind of sexual abuse story seems irresponsible.

BoatMad

I know that I drank and smoked and fought and did a drug or two (in my late teens), was bullied, did some bullying, pulled pranks, snuck out of school at night to go to parties and see girls, maybe threw an empty bottle on the ground, got off with a girl who was hammered (When I was a teenager and also hammered).

I'm not proud of it, just realistic. An article in the Irish times about any of those things would look bad.

while this is true, it doesnt change the fact that many of these thing you did are or could be viewed as unlawful and hence the subject of reporting and prosecution

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

Here, there's a real holier than thou attitude here.

I don't know if people don't remember their childhoods, or what.

I know that I drank and smoked and fought and did a drug or two (in my late teens), was bullied, did some bullying, pulled pranks, snuck out of school at night to go to parties and see girls, maybe threw an empty bottle on the ground, got off with a girl who was hammered (When I was a teenager and also hammered).

I'm not proud of it, just realistic. An article in the Irish times about any of those things would look bad.

The event could have been as dark as it is described in the Irish Times, but it could easily have not been and leading with the story as some kind of sexual abuse story seems irresponsible.

It's not holier than thou to point out that very few kids threaten each other with sexual assault. There's a difference between sneaking out and threatening to insert a hockey stick in a kids anus.

Stripping a kid and threatening to put a stick in him is a sexual assault. No matter what anyone else has done and no matter how you frame it. If I was stripped, held down, and threatened with rape with an object, there's no way thats not sexual assault.

I don't see what anyone has to gain by downplaying this incident, it shouldn't have happened and I'm sure the kid is traumatised by it.

The Talking Bread

Glenster wrote: »

Here, there's a real holier than thou attitude here.

I don't know if people don't remember their childhoods, or what.

I know that I drank and smoked and fought and did a drug or two (in my late teens), was bullied, did some bullying, pulled pranks, snuck out of school at night to go to parties and see girls, maybe threw an empty bottle on the ground, got off with a girl who was hammered (When I was a teenager and also hammered).

I'm not proud of it, just realistic. An article in the Irish times about any of those things would look bad.

The event could have been as dark as it is described in the Irish Times, but it could easily have not been and leading with the story as some kind of sexual abuse story seems irresponsible.

Doesn't demerit the actual context of the assault though!. Fair enough if the kid acknowledged it wasn't a serious threat but that is simply considerations to be taken into account in the aftermath.

I think people are focusing too much on the "laddishness" of the situation!

Would yo do that to a girl! Obviously not!

osarusan

Glenster wrote: »

Its probably just me, but if I was that little lad I probably would have been a little scared when it happened, but I would have never for a second thought that anyone would bum me with a hockey stick.

The fact that the boy chose to fight would suggest that he took the threat of sexual assault seriously. Would you agree?

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

What? It never happened you, so its a boarding school thing?

No, it's not a 'boarding school thing'. It's a scumbag thing. It could have happened in a day school behind the bikes after GAA practice, or in the toilets during break.

I went to boarding school and was never stripped or threatened with sexual assault.

Well tell that to the self proclaimed boarders who are trivializing is. I think it's a scumbag thing to do.

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

The fact that the boy chose to fight would suggest that he took the threat seriously. Would you agree?

On top of the fact he was threatened with sexual assault if he didn't fight.

steddyeddy

BoatMad wrote: »

+1, in reality nothing to do with the type of school and I suspect we only know about it because preciously in happened in a well managed school as opposed to the back of the GAA pitch or some random field or something

whats incredible of course , is the self incriminating nature of mobile phone pictures.

No it's not.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

On top of the fact he was threatened with sexual assault if he didn't fight.

well the group dynamics amongst a group of boys is a very complex thing, we dont really know the story. boys threaten each other with " sexual violence" every day or have you not listened to their conversations recently

Again, a serious incident occurred, the school acted promptly and the rest is for the authorities to decide. we weren't there , and we dont really know what actually happened.

BoatMad

steddyeddy wrote: »

No it's not.

no its not what , self incriminating ?, it is if any of this were party to the acts or urged on those acts

The Talking Bread

BoatMad wrote: »

well the group dynamics amongst a group of boys is a very complex thing, we dont really know the story. boys threaten each other with " sexual violence" every day or have you not listened to their conversations recently

Again, a serious incident occurred, the school acted promptly and the rest is for the authorities to decide. we weren't there , and we dont really know what actually happened.

you could apply that to every single assault situation. A threat of sexual non consensual assault which is reasonably believed to be impending by the recipient of the threat is sexual assault.

FIN.

Again, you are focusing too much on the laddishness and age profile of the situation.

Glenster

BoatMad wrote: »

while this is true, it doesnt change the fact that many of these thing you did are or could be viewed as unlawful and hence the subject of reporting and prosecution

See, that's the attitude I'm talking about.

People act as though kids should be doing their homework and playing with a cup and ball and then spending all Sunday praying.

Is there not some grey area for kids? If two ten year olds get into a fight I don't think it should be treated like when two adults get into a fight.

When someone gets pantsed in school I don't think that's the same as sexual assault.

When a teenager threatens to shove his foot up someone elses ar*e I don't think that's a sexual threat.

This shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but its a failing of supervision rather than anything particularly deviant from the kids.

CountingCrows

BoatMad wrote: »

Again, a serious incident occurred, the school acted promptly and the rest is for the authorities to decide.

:rolleyes:

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

When a teenager threatens to shove his foot up someone elses ar*e I don't think that's a sexual threat.

It is if one kid has him immobilized while another one strips him and you put your foot to his anus and threaten him with penetration unless he fights, while 15 other kids are watching.

The whole thing is a lot more sinister than one kid telling another he'd shove his foot up anothers behind.

The Talking Bread

Glenster wrote: »

See, that's the attitude I'm talking about.

People act as though kids should be doing their homework and playing with a cup and ball and then spending all Sunday praying.

Is there not some grey area for kids? If two ten year olds get into a fight I don't think it should be treated like when two adults get into a fight.

When someone gets pantsed in school I don't think that's the same as sexual assault.

When a teenager threatens to shove his foot up someone elses ar*e I don't think that's a sexual threat.

This shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but its a failing of supervision rather than anything particularly deviant from the kids.

"You are only a kid, you have no reason to be traumatised. Get over it but if it happens when you are 17, we will take it serious........ Now lads, continue on you little rascals, he'll be grand!"

Glenster

Candie wrote: »

very few kids threaten each other with sexual assault.

If I was stripped, held down, and threatened with rape with an object, there's no way thats not sexual assault.

I don't see what anyone has to gain by downplaying this incident, it shouldn't have happened and I'm sure the kid is traumatised by it.

You have your head in the sand, they do it all the time.

If you were, yes, this is a different context though.

I don't submit my opinion to gain things, I just don't think framing this as a sexual assault is correct.

The Talking Bread

Glenster wrote: »

You have your head in the sand, they do it all the time.

If you were, yes, this is a different context though.

I don't submit my opinion to gain things, I just don't think framing this as a sexual assault is correct.

Put it into the context of adults then, or even university situation. Where do you promote it to sexual assault, definitively! What about the gender profiles! Does that allow it to fall into sexual assault bracket.

I just dont get the nature of the defence of a pretty obvious definitive situation here......

Punitively, that is a different matter. But definitively. It is sexual assault.

Jawgap

currants wrote: »

I disagree, forcibly removing his clothes and then threatening him with rape with an object is definitely sexual assault, in fact going by the link below if what has been reported is correct then it would come under aggravated sexual assault. These are teenagers, not little children who cant comprehend what they're doing. Interestingly there's a maximum 14 year sentence for under 17s. Not that any of these bullies will ever see a cell.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

A lot of schools try to minimise assaults on kids, especially when wealthy parents with easy access to big bucks barristers are involved. If that poor boy was my son I would have reported the incident to the Gardai, then Tusla. The ringleader (and there's always a ringleader)must be a right dangerous individual. That's a very disturbed child and this type of behaviour doesn't come from nowhere. If he was in the courts system at least he would be getting the treatment he needs, a teen who instigates this type of assault is clearly seriously mentally unwell. The rest of them should be expelled.

Disagree all you want, but as I said, the courts will decide, if it gets that far, not the internet on the basis of accounts published in the Irish Times.

Jawgap

Glenster wrote: »

See, that's the attitude I'm talking about.

People act as though kids should be doing their homework and playing with a cup and ball and then spending all Sunday praying.

Is there not some grey area for kids? If two ten year olds get into a fight I don't think it should be treated like when two adults get into a fight.

When someone gets pantsed in school I don't think that's the same as sexual assault.

When a teenager threatens to shove his foot up someone elses ar*e I don't think that's a sexual threat.

This shouldn't have been allowed to happen, but its a failing of supervision rather than anything particularly deviant from the kids.

There's an absolute world of difference between one person threatening to shove their boot or anything else up someone else's arse when that person is fully dressed and their arms are free to defend themselves and they have line of retreat......

......completely different - and much more sinister - when someone says it and the person is restrained, with their trousers down and the object they are being threaten with has been brandished and placed in contact with them.

The Draugan

Jawgap wrote: »

There's an absolute world of difference between one person threatening to shove their boot or anything else up someone else's arse when that person is fully dressed and their arms are free to defend themselves and they have line of retreat......

......completely different - and much more sinister - when someone says it and the person is restrained, with their trousers down and the object they are being threaten with has been brandished and placed in contact with them.

+1 world of difference between saying i'm going to put my boot up your arse etc in a scrap or whatever to pinning a lad to his bed pulling down his kacks and putting a hocky stick to his hole like that is just beyond fcuked up ... the kids who did that need a serious serious fking lesson , expulsion , criminal charges simple as.

No ones going to loose it too much over two young lads getting in a scrap or expects kids to conform to the 1950's vision of the world outlined in the other post , but what those lads did to that other kid was next level disturbed.