London Oratory complete mobile phone ban even on long commutes

I’m not remotely offended, why on earth would I be? It’s hardly the time and place, though. Bragging about your ds winning industry awards has little relevance here, and makes you look a little foolish if you imagine it furthers your argument in any way.

Right, let’s hope you’re not a litigator either.

Sucks to be your client, when one’s supposedly qualified agent calls a letter before claim a “legal letter”.

Jesus wept.

I did not report anything @Piglet89!!

For the avoidance of doubt, I am interested in school policy making primarily in my capacity as a governor and as a parent. Nothing wrong with that, especially when it comes to a new development. We are all allowed to discuss and question on a public forum.

@mnhqunacceptable to delete that post I made, clearly just because @Araminta1004 reported it - without actually critically examining whether it is valid and should stand.

It did not break talk guidelines. I mean, she’s CLEARLY not a lawyer. Any fool can see that.

@KilkennyCats - it is a fact. I am sorry it is so offensive to you?
Please elaborate why.

Yes you were @Piglet89 - and consistently. Right from the start.
And I am a lawyer, that is a fact. I never said I was a public law lawyer.

Award winning…. You just can’t help yourself, can you? 😁

@ParentOfOne - if you read through the thread, @Piglet89 has been having a dig throughout the thread at me. However, is now explaining things nicely, in a coherent and common sense way.
I am female. What are you? I thought you were male? Is that right?
No @KilkennyCats - the Oratory for us was way down the CAF. DS1 got his grammar school place years ago and is in tech now, award winning and in mid 20s so years ago.
Anyone mentioned Euan Blair yet? Rather ironic as didn’t he make it biggish in a tech related education industry?

This clears it all up imo. Have people not seen school kids walking home after school all staring at their phone, no one talking to each other? It's so sad.

Why are you so invested in slagging off the Oratory? It’s quite fascinating, from someone who allegedly wouldn’t dream of sending her child there. Or did you not get a place?
There’s a definite air of disgruntlement there.

@Araminta1004 You quote:

“When designing a policy to prohibit the use of mobile phones during the school day, schools should consider the impact on children travelling to and from school, where not having a mobile phone poses a risk or the perception of a risk. Schools are encouraged to consult with parents to develop such a policy, considering ways to mitigate specific concerns and build support for this approach.”

Well, the guidance does not state that schools MUST allow kids on long commutes to carry a phone. Nor is there any explicit law stating that.
The guidance states that schools SHOULD consider the impact.

The Oratory may well say that they considered the impact, concluded that the pros outweigh the cons, that commuting to a school in Fulham is not the same as commuting to a rural school in the middle of nowhere, that they discussed it with families, and that most families support the policy.

All that is left is, then, for a family to sue the school, in the hope that a judge will agree with them and disagree with the school.

I do not have a legal training, so I'd welcome it if those who do could jump in and help me understand how correct or not my understanding is, but I think that generic guidance is not worth much: only explicit guidance or explicit laws on what schools MUST do truly have teeth.

Eg it was always in the guidance that schools should have regard for the cost of uniforms etc. But only when explicit guidance that schools MUST not require more than 3-4 branded items, did that guidance finally have some teeth.

Pretty confident I would wipe the floor with you in real life, in about 2 seconds, but there you go.

When I hear this [mods, it should be clear I am quoting this, not saying this myself!!!] I think that this forum should really have a mute button.
I'd also be curious: is this a woman against another woman? Woman against man? There cannot be many contexts where a man saying this to a woman would be received well.

@Piglet89 As I said before - the more fruitful line of challenge is probably the extent to which the Oratory may over reach into students’ lives beyond the school gates by prohibiting them even to travel to and from school with a phone.

Something I wondered about Ashcroft's policy of giving you a detention if you cycle to school.

@Araminta1004many assume departure from statutory guidance requires exceptional circumstances, but usually it doesn’t. The ordinary position is that the decision-maker must have regard to the guidance and give cogent reasons if it chooses a different approach. The legal test is not:
"Can you prove exceptional circumstances?"
but rather: “Was it lawful and rational to depart from the guidance?" Those are very different questions.
A school may be able to justify departure simply because the pupil cohort differs, safeguarding or operational considerations differ or its educational philosophy differs. None of those necessarily amounts to "exceptional circumstances".

Also, “burden of proof” isn’t the correct concept. In judicial review, courts do not generally approach matters by asking whether the public body has discharged a formal burden of proof.

Where statutory guidance applies, schools should normally follow it. However, they may depart from it if they have considered the guidance and have a rational, lawful reason for adopting a different approach. Exceptional circumstances are not usually required, although the more significant the departure, the more persuasive the justification will generally need to be.

As I said before - the more fruitful line of challenge is probably the extent to which the Oratory may over reach into students’ lives beyond the school gates by prohibiting them even to travel to and from school with a phone.

School governing bodies tend to follow the statutory guidance unless there are exceptional circumstances as the burden of proof is on them to substantiate deviation with evidence. But you would surely know that @Piglet89

The harrassment point and taking girls in the Sixth Form is another interesting point. I did not look too deeply into the policies but do they really not relax it for Sixth Form at all?

The expression is: “The pot calling the kettle black” - but don’t know how that applies here.

Someone who doesn’t even know guidance isn’t binding is unlikely to wipe the floor with me, but whatever keeps you happy, I guess. 👍

There is no downfall @Piglet89 - usually the more sophisticated a person, the less the need to insult and the easier they tend to find explaining complex issues in a common sense way.
Pretty confident I would wipe the floor with you in real life, in about 2 seconds, but there you go.

What is the expression “kettle calling the pot” or is it “the pot calling the kettle”?

Yes, I ‘popped up’ here with my telephone box comment 12 days ago 😊

But I did want to reply and congratulate you on a fantastic job being a more resilient teenager than I was, having better strategies when being harassed and for suggesting that phone boxes were too vandalised and sparse to be a thing?

That’s bizarre. Yes they stank of piss, sometimes were out of order, but let’s be honest, people used them every day in their thousands and they were absolutely part of daily life. Congratulations on what a great kid you were though.

TBH I think you make a lot of stuff up @Araminta1004No lawyer worth their salt would ever use the term “legal letter”, for instance. Nor would they be likely to express so unsophisticated a view as “law is common sense”.

Unless you’re a Canon lawyer? Mind you, that law’s about as far from common sense as you can get.

Bit of a Walter Mitty, overall.

Law is common sense.

And that would be your downfall, were you to take any action in a case like this. Which you would presumably initiate by sending a “legal letter”.

In the name of God, stop using ad hominem as an argument when you clearly don’t actually know what it is: I think you’ve referenced it about 3 times with me on three separate threads. It’s embarrassing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phones-in-schools/mobile-phones-in-schools#about-this-guidance

And unlike some, I do believe that most people can read some statutory guidance and draw their own conclusions. Rather than having to throw my own expertise around. Law is common sense ultimately and people should just read it, that would be my view.

“When designing a policy to prohibit the use of mobile phones during the school day, schools should consider the impact on children travelling to and from school, where not having a mobile phone poses a risk or the perception of a risk. Schools are encouraged to consult with parents to develop such a policy, considering ways to mitigate specific concerns and build support for this approach.”

The use of PERCEPTION OF A RISK is wide, for example.

And yes, I am a lawyer, a governor, a parent and a practising Roman Catholic so not sure why you keep trying to stick the boot in @Piglet89
Looked at this school many years ago, but don’t have a DC there. Not that I ever pretended that I did, nor do I answer to you.

I don’t know why you keep resorting to the ad hominem @Piglet89

And since the statutory guidance only came in end of June with effect from 1st September nobody is an expert yet anyway. So not sure what you are trying to achieve here, yet again.

It is new guidance, the OP is discussing it and questioning it. There are specific references to Sixth Form independence and eg young carers which I could not see in the LOS policy.
It is specifically stated in the guidance to work with parents etc. None of what I said is factually incorrect.
And in my last post, I made it pretty clear that I was referring more widely to @ParentOfOne ’s point.