Aibu to want this boy excluded from school.

[dementedmumof6]

There is a boy in my highschool aged dd year at school, that is currently on police bail for threatening to rape a younger girl he knows. Who has sent inappropriate sexual texts to my daughter and who told one of her friends that as soon as he gets the chance he was going to rape her and that she would enjoy it.

For the last month he has been in seclusion, enters school after everyone else , is taught on his own and leaves early,

However the friend that he threatened to rape has been told that as of Monday he will be back in class as normal until it goes to court and that to keep her safe she is to make sure that she doesn't go anywhere in the school without someone with her at all times , when she asked them to clarify was told that she was to have one of her friends with her (so not even an adult ) even to go to the toilet,so that he can't approach her.

So the question is would I be unreasonable to go into school and insist that this isn't appropriate that if they are worried about the boys behaviour he should either have a teacher with him at all times or be excluded , and he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any of the girls in the school.

[winklewoman]

NeartheWindmill, exactly. The head should be feeling guilty not the OP. Heaven help the head if any further trouble ensues from this blatant disregard of safeguarding procedures.

[NearTheWindmill]

dementedmum I wouldn't feel guilty. In your shoes I would have asked the head to go and get my daughter from her class and I would have taken her home with me until such time as the school was able to evidence an adequate duty of care for her.

[unlucky83]

I agree - he does have problems and needs help which hopefully he will get (maybe not and he will grow up into a rapist but maybe the behaviour being flagged up at this point may stop that) - but my point is that the school/ police in possession of all the facts might be in a better position to assess whether he is likely to do anything physically...whether the girls are at risk...
As to the not expecting the 14 yo etc - that's why I said it could be worse - it could have been someone who is more manipulative and clever... and the parents may very well feel responsible and I didn't say they didn't...but it made me think when was the last time I checked DDs phone etc...

[santandhishappybandofelves]

Yeah let's blame the parents of victim.

Do you have any idea what you are implying.

[LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot]

Threatening to rape a girl suggests he has some serious boundary issues.

And do you not think the parents of the girls dont already feel responsible, although most parents dont expect that a 14 year old boy would be asking a 12 year old girl for naked pictures, nor he threatening to rape a girl.

[unlucky83]

I have to disagree - I would take some responsibility - because she isn't worldly wise - and I know it...
and we are talking about a 14 yo boy....sending texts saying 'bet you look hot naked' and 'do you want to have sex' hardly sounds like grooming...definitely doesn't make him look clever or manipulative ...

[santandhishappybandofelves]

If your dd was sending naked pictures to someone tos not because the parents failed.

That is how child abusers work - they are incredibly clever and manipulative.

How sad.

[unlucky83]

I'm not victim blaming ...honestly - when I read that I thought about my 12 yo DD...
Firstly I don't think she would send them (and she isn't very worldly wise) but I could be wrong...and secondly would I know? I check her phone -so I would...whether in time or not is another matter...
If that happened to her - I would be the other side of furious - but also I would feel I should have been more on the ball...protected her more from the dangers of modern life and as I said it could have been worse...
(A bit like if she had run into the road and was hit by a speeding car as a toddler - it wouldn't have been her fault - it would have been the drivers - but it would also have been mine for letting her run into the road)
If you read the OP's posts a lot of the 'evidence' against this boy is hearsay...everything is as reported by OP's DD and friends - only solid evidence OP has is a few dodgy texts...and the fact he is on bail...
If it didn't cross their minds he might be threat why does the OP's DD's friend say she has been told to always be accompanied...

[LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot]

The victim was 12, thats why shes not very worldly wise, would you say that about another 12 year old who was groomed. He threatened to rape a girl. He should be around them while the case is in the air.

Bloody victim blamers boil my piss.

[santandhishappybandofelves]

That is so victim blaming.

Also the fact this is being allowed does not mean they don't think he is a threat - it probably means it didn't cross theie minds at the time.

It's another appalling example of the rights of a perpetrator over and above the well being of his victim.

[unlucky83]

So did the head say your DD had to be accompanied at all times? Or that her friend did?
I'm not sure ...like I said I think the boy needs help - but also maybe the police/school know all the facts do not consider the boy to be a danger.
It might all be bluster on the part of the boy. A very misplaced attempt to be cool, funny or fit in etc...(not appropriate or right and needs dealing with - but nothing that the girls should be really afraid of...).
The photos of the 12 yo - he asked for them - she sent them ...by the sounds of that the girl's parents need to be more on top of what she is up to - I'm not victim blaming here just saying she obviously isn't very worldly wise - and it could have been something/to someone much worse ...

[AchyFox]

Are there witnesses to the alleged threats ?

Has he been in trouble before ?

[AchyFox]

Surely she should be able to get a restraining order if this is going to trial ?

The parents should be talking with the CPS and officer in charge.

[TheFantasticFixit]

This is abhorrent! YANBU

[Whistleblower0]

This sounds all wrong op, and it seems like the school is trying it on? There is no way he should be in a classroom with your dd.
Dont accept what the school are telling you. Take it further..

[santandhishappybandofelves]

Also his bail conditions are I think a matter of public record?

[santandhishappybandofelves]

It's not good enough there is no way he should be sharing a classroom with potential witnesses in a trial in which he is the defendant.

[dementedmumof6]

I had the meeting moved forward as he was taken out of isolation and was in my dd first class this morning.

I went to see the head where he told me that without going into specifics or breaching data protection they are aware of some issues and the teachers are keeping an eye on the boy.

However I feel incredibly guilty as I have told the head I do not want the boy paired with my dd in any subject and that if he approaches her she will walk away, and if the school have a problem with that to phone me, however the reason I feel guilty is because this protects my dd but not the other girls in the class but don't know what else to do as I have been told its being addressed.

[friday16]

They can. Giving heads the confidence that their decisions will be backed up unless they are manifestly unreasonable would be a very good idea.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Don't forget that a complainant can also complain about the Head/teacher/issue/problem to higher authorities and a head/teacher can be removed from their post with no hint of a criminal conviction.

[friday16]

and the second half would be good for all schools, but heads are running scared from governors, governments, Ofsted, papers, parents, pupils and legal action etc.

I think the problem is one of process.

If you're an HR director, and you get threatened with an ET, your initial response is to laugh. Assuming you're running a competent ship where your record keeping and process are basically sound, and you're reasonably confident of your ground, you do nothing until the employee actually brings the action (most don't). You then show up at the tribunal, which is more than the complainant probably will, make your case, and if it looks like the complainant has something on you, you use a compromise agreement to make the whole thing go away. You don't need to trouble the CEO, in anything other than the broadest terms, unless you're getting involved in some scary discrimination case or there's otherwise an exceptional circumstance. And as fighting ETs is more interesting than checking expenses claims, your typical HR director around town is quite happy to get involved in them.

But if you're a school headteacher, and you get a letter written on the back of an old betting slip in which someone claims to have once met someone who walked dogs for someone who used to do the cleaning for a legal secretary, you're probably going to have to inform your governors, your LEA/trust and Uncle Tom Cobley and all. So unlike in a business, where a stroppy employee can't cause any serious trouble until they're actually stood in the ET and looking like they're winning, in schools they can make the head's life a misery just by making the vaguest threat. So the head will do anything they can to prevent them even getting to the stage of vaguely threatening an action. So for a head, losing a couple of grand at a hearing, or even winning at a hearing, is such a major thing that it's worth spending huge amounts of time and money to avoid it happening. Court and tribunal cases acquire a disproportionate power, because the value assigned to them is unrealistically high.

The solution would be to give heads the power to settle small cases, and a clear understanding that losing court cases is, within reason, a risk worth taking. If heads' response to a threat of a tribunal/court action was "Go ahead, make my day", matters would be rather different.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Friday

I don't disagree with your last post, the first half is what I have been posting for a while (I may not have been clear enough)

and the second half would be good for all schools, but heads are running scared from governors, governments, Ofsted, papers, parents, pupils and legal action etc.

[friday16]

your example of someone being fired for violence in the workplace steps over the fact that the workplace would still have to abide by the rules set down

As would a school. The head teacher, with the support of the governors, can issue a permanent exclusion on the basis of the evidence that they themselves collect, to a civil standard of proof, of the child's behaviour. After six days the LEA is responsible for providing education, which can be in a PRU, and the parents have no choice in the matter other than via appeal or court action. There's a perfectly good process for that. The parents are entitled to bring such actions, but in the meantime the child would remain at the PRU. The parents would need to show that the school's behaviour was unreasonable: the burden of proof would be with them to show this. The school would have the evidence that it collected. Where's the problem in this?

several have found themselves at the rough end of tribunals where huge amounts of money

The median settlement for unfair dismissal where the ET finds for the complainant is about six grand. Only 8% of cases get to this stage. I doubt that legal actions against schools are either more lucrative or more successful.

Yet again, we see the problem that schools are like rabbits in the headlights of the threat of legal action. So a parent might sue? So what? They probably won't win, and if they do, the sums of money involved are trivial and almost certainly covered by insurance. It's about time that schools stopper pretending that the threat of legal action was the same as losing in the Supreme Court, and stopped cowering in corners.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

My repeated references to "the real world" are to show that the same instances that happen in school are happening outside of school.

read here

full publication here

or what about the history of how slut walks came about?

My reaction to a threat of rape to my child does not change the fact that schools are part of the real world and have to deal with real world problems, and have to deal with them as part of a set framework, your example of someone being fired for violence in the workplace steps over the fact that the workplace would still have to abide by the rules set down and several have found themselves at the rough end of tribunals where huge amounts of money have been paid out due to the situation being badly handled.

[friday16]

then point me to a post where a teacher has posted that a threat of rape is acceptable.

Your repeated references to "the real world" is either implying that it's a fact of life that should be accepted or, well, or what?

Are you really running that low on arguments that you have to resort to that?

Suppose your child was threatened with rape at school. Would your response be "well, it's the real world, and there's nothing teachers or schools can do?" If yes, at least you're consistent. In no, why is it different for other people's children?