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.

[MrsCakesPremonition]

It sounds very peculiar - surely it is logistically simpler for the school to supervise the boy than it is to put the emphasis on the girls to protect themselves. Surely all the girls are at risk - regardless of whether they have been previously threatened? He sound like he is the sort of predator who would simply move to another victim if the first was not available.

[TheCrackFox]

This boy does have a right to an education and the LA should provide tutors in his own home.


Why the hell should the OP's DD have to be chaperoned (and lose her freedom) when the boy in question is the one who has been accused of some very serious crimes?

[pigletmania]

Yanbu at all, the school are not doing enough to protect other female students. If he does rape on their premises on it be their head. He should be in isolation for the definite.

[ImATotJeSuisUneTot]

The texts came from his phone, doesn't mean he sent them - he'd say.

I've taught an accused rapist - we couldn't exclude until he was found guilty. And our message from SLT was that it was absolutely confidential, so no warning the girls he was chatting to, no nothing.

I don't work there anymore.

[Quoteunquote]

When similar happened recently at a school near here, the parents got together, and most the children in the school were kept off school, with letter explaining why, the child who had assaulted, was removed from the school within two days, when the head released none of the parents were going to relent.

[lljkk]

Has he made the same threats to all the girls or is he targeting only some?

[CaroBeaner]

In your shoes I would be deeply concerned that my own dd had been made responsible for being one of the friends accompanying the girl under threat, and communicating with the school and police along the following lines:

This is too much responsibility for a 14 yo girl
Have the girls friends been asked if they are willing to take this responsibility?
Have their parents been informed that they are being asked to take on this responsibility? And agreed?
Being assigned chaperoning duties could be stressful at best and make them vulnerable (to the boy) at worst.

The school have no right to take it for granted that other children will be responsible for her protection against this boy.

If I was the parent of the girl concerned I would be communicating with the school, governors and police via a lawyer by now!

Outrageous.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

By all means seek legal advice(please)
do send emails, letters, to the education and safety agencies.

But do not go mob handed to the school or go to the papers, the boy could use this in his defence.

Remember that due to his age his name will be kept out of the papers, and that (contradiction that it is) he is still covered by the same safeguarding polices in the school that the pupils in danger from him are.

The school has a very fine balancing act to perform.

[perfectstorm]

The texts came from his phone, doesn't mean he sent them - he'd say.

Which ones - to OP's dd, or the 12 year old? Because he was proudly showing them around the school, according to the OP. Joking over it. Including to the 12 year old's brother.

Bloody mess, and I think a mass walkout by the other kids, instigated by their parents, is the only way to force the school's hand here. They can teach the little shit in isolation then, all right. And yes I appreciate he has issues and needs help, and probably comes from a very frightening home situation which set these behaviours off, but that should be bloody well dealt with by professionals and not shuffled off into school for fellow teenagers to cope with.

[CaroBeaner]

BoneyBack makes good points.

[LuciusMalfoyisSmokingHot]

Thinking about it, the girls safety is paramount, but then the school should consider his safety too, i could imagine, a few boys primed to give his boy a beating for what hes done, school would be to blame immensely if either girls or the boy got hurt on their grounds.

[friday16]

The school has a very fine balancing act to perform.

But one which will, if not handled carefully, rip a school to pieces. The recent saga of Saltley School in Birmingham, which culminated in the resignation of an otherwise inspirational head, shows how toxic this sort of thing can be. The full story isn't yet public, but it looks as though the governing body became too focussed on the rights of one pupil and failed to look at the wider implications of their actions.

[MrsNoodleHead]

Write to the head and each and every one of the governors.

Put them on notice that they are in fundamental breach of their duty of care to your daughter, the other pupils and their staff. Also that they may be liable for breaches of the Health and Safety legislation and potentially liable to criminal prosecution if there is an attack.

Demand that they rectify the position immediately, failing which:

(a) they will be personally liable for anything that happens as a result of their inactivity;

(b) you have no alternative but to remove your child; and

(c) they will be liable for the costs you will suffer as a result - eg for time off work, private tuition etc.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Friday
The governors overturned the permanent exclusion because the police took no further action.

The head wasn't backed by the governing body, which when linked to this thread if the child is not found guilty could be exactly the same.

The governing body has to act within the law (even if the law is an ass)

[NigellasLeftNostril]

be very sure of the facts and then kick up the almightiest stink ever, this is disgusting, as others have said, victim blaming....

[friday16]

The governing body has to act within the law (even if the law is an ass)

It's probably apocryphal, but President Andrew Jackson's response to the Supreme Court's judgement in Worcester v Georgia in 1832 was supposedly words to the effect of "The courts have made their decision; now let them enforce it".

Had the governing body simply refused to overturn the exclusion, what would have happened? Well, for a start off, they'd probably still have a head of whom Ofsted had written a few months earlier that the decision to point him was inspired. The boy's parents could have pursued an action against the school, but it would have been lengthy and messy and had the LEA offered alternative provision it's unlikely that even if action had been started that it would have got anywhere.

Criminal courts are "beyond reasonable doubt". Exclusions will, if pursued, end up in civil courts on "balance of probabilities". That the police did not take further action does not prevent (I'm not a lawyer, but I wish I were just so I could at this point write something involving the wonderful word estoppel) the same events being used in an alternative forum and reaching a different conclusion.

[JohnnyBarthes]

I missed that there were witnesses.

And not that it's entirely relevant, but I'm not a man. I can however imagine a situation where an innocent person becomes the victim of a witch hunt. This doesn't appear to be the case here, however.

[unlucky83]

At the risk of being flamed...this is all hearsay.
Not saying I would like a boy like that anywhere near my DD ...I think he definitely needs help but 'threatened to rape'...may not be as extreme as it seems. (Not appropriate or acceptable but not a genuine threat). They may well be no possibility of him actually doing anything physically inappropriate and the police/school should be in possession of all the facts.
Not saying anyone is not telling the truth - more than a 14 yo girls version of what she was told and the actual version may be slightly different. Ie 'He won't do anything, but if it makes you feel happier don't go around on your own' - becomes 'you must be accompanied at all times'
I would speak to the school, your DD's friend's parents and see what they say...

[NearTheWindmill]

The child in Birmingham should have been permanently excluded. Had that happened at my dd's state school (from which we removed her after 2 years due to lack of discipline, lack of expectations in relation to behaviour and sustained low level disruption) I would have kicked up merry hell with the head, the governors, the la, the diocese and ofsted if a child who had used a knife to threaten other children had been allowed to set so much as a toe or a hair back in the school.

The fact that this sort of conduct is being excused and teachers and governors are pretending all over the country that those with criminal/violent tendencies are the victims and need help and are as much entitled to an education as those who want to learn and pose no threat beggars belief. It is why I have no respect for or faith left in the state education system. If parents aren't teaching right from wrong, somebody has to and the children who really suffer are those who live on the edge receiving guidance neither at home nor at school.

It is a disgrace and it cannot continue.

[friday16]

teachers and governors are pretending all over the country that those with criminal/violent tendencies are the victims

You can see this tendency at work here.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Friday the problem is that the boy in question could use the same probabilities to argue that he wasn't infact a threat, and that he was victimised by the school and that it was teenaged angst etc. and the school would (in all probability) end up paying out to him.

The school is in a very poor situation.

[ForalltheSaints]

A school has a duty of care. If a teacher or member of staff was on police bail after being questioned about a serious offence that person would not be on school premises. Neither should the boy on bail be at school.

As well as the Police I would suggest the chair of Governors is contacted, and indeed if you are really concerned perhaps keep your child off school until the matter is resolved.

[youarewinning]

The boy does have a right to an education in a safe environment, the girls also have the right to an education in a safe environment - neither party is getting this right now.

If the boy poses a risk to pupils he should be the one provided with 1:1 support and the girls too if it's deemed necessary along with his support.

He is a 14 yo boy displaying terrifying behaviour sexually. This has come from somewhere and needs to be explored and proper boundaries need to be taught to him. Making the girls travel in pairs is not teaching him his behaviour is wrong - rather teaching him girls are safer in groups.

I would contact the school as they are not dealing with any of the pupils correctly.

[perfectstorm]

Good post youarewinning.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

teachers and governors are pretending all over the country that those with criminal/violent tendencies are the victims

No, teachers are Having to teach those with "criminal/violent tendencies" because of the inclusion policy of the government.