To be unhappy my child's phone was confiscated?

[Phoneproblems]

I have no issues with the phone itself being confiscated but apparently it is only to be returned on Friday - surely this cannot be right?

Theft needs an intention to permanently deprive someone of property.

DB doesn't know the law then.

Fuck me! Jazzy is actually a teacher! 😬🤥🤣. I can imagine which one she is in staff meetings!

Anyway, this is a whole load of bollocks. The phone is the child’s.

@JazzyBlues

Dediniton of THEFT as per the Theft Act 1968 requires the appropriation of an item with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.

There's the law you want. And you're wrong.

Basic definition of theft.

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

That's straight from the mouth of DB, who is a very, very senior police officer.

Tell him to read up on the legislation then before he makes a fool of himself again.

Who will schools listen to: the massive document from the government outlining the laws and their powers or an angsty person who seemingly doesn't understand the meaning of theft?

Hmmm. I wonder.

That's straight from the mouth of DB, who is a very, very senior police officer.

Bull.shit.

@JazzyBlues I was "only" a Detective Constable, but a school confiscating contraband property is not theft under any definition of law. I suspect your DB, if he is a copper, has forgotten his definitions and is too used to sitting in an ivory tower.

The criminal law of theft is only one aspect of the potential legal ramifications. The school would also be wide open to a civil claim for damages for loss of access to property, as well as the much more serious potential breach in their duty of care to the DC.

Or the kids could you know erm actually follow the rules.

I’m intrigued that someone would post sixteen times on a thread about schools and teachers before happening to mention that they are a teacher themself.

My uncle’s cousin is the King of Police and he says that Jazzy is talking shit.

And my mum is the judge who wrote the rules on confiscation and she says the school is legally entitled to sell the phone and use it to fund wine for the teacher whose sorry duty it was to deal with this miscreant.

We can all play this game. What Jazzy isn’t doing is providing links to documents/legal cases that actually support what she is saying.

I see Jazzy also says on another thread that she leaves school every day by 3.30.

School: Your DC has an after school detention.
Jazzy: I will support the school and they will be punished further at home.
School: That's good.
Jazzy: What I will not have, however, is my children being stolen and held against my wishes.
School: Oh for fcuk sake. Face palm.

Keep my kids.
Just don't touch my tech!

That's straight from the mouth of DB, who is a very, very senior police officer.

I emailed this to my BiL last night who is also a senior police officer (sergeant) in the Met and he emailed back with laughing emojis.

We have to be out by 4(3.55 in practice, as the doors are locked at 4). There's plenty of time to do work later at home to prepare, and I'm out the door by 3.30 9 times out of 10.

(Post from Jazzy) This would never happen in any school - most meetings, for example, take place after school.

Just that one posts loses you all credibility, never mind the rest of the nonsense you've posted.

The criminal law of theft is only one aspect of the potential legal ramifications.

There are no potential ramifications from this at all. I find it worrying that a teacher lacks the comprehension skills to understand this. Not as worrying as a police officer not understanding it, granted, but worrying nonetheless.

The school would also be wide open to a civil claim for damages for loss of access to property

A claim yes. Anyone can put in a civil claim. Unfortunately, the school is allowed to confiscate property.

as well as the much more serious potential breach in their duty of care to the DC.

What breach would that be exactly? Allowing children to take photos where there are other children about and when they have the ability to put those photos onto internet...?

noble
Whereas many of us HAVE linked to the documents
The school would also be wide open to a civil claim for damages for loss of access to property
No they wouldn't. In law schools are not liable for any damage occuring to confiscated property
as well as the much more serious potential breach in their duty of care to the DC.
Them not having a phone is not a breach in their duty of care

Plus (and it pains me to state the obvious), if a student's route home was so dangerous they require a phone then they surely wouldn't have it out in school when it's not allowed and the rules are clear?

feenie I saw that thread. Makes you think they're talking bollocks.

By the way everyone. I'm also a head teacher and my DH is a top criminal lawyer.

Well, it’s clear Jazzy doesn’t sanction any of her students at the end of the day and nor does she support them if they need help, after school either, if she legs it out the door, as soon as she can.