Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

I hate the phrase 'political correctness gone mad' but this is plain daft

38 replies

edam · 07/04/2006 08:11

A ten year old boy is being prosecuted for calling another boy racist names; story \link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4886014.stm\here}

Anyone think this is an appropriate way to treat a ten year old? Or a good use of court time? Because I'd really like to know how it can be justified...

OP posts:
GDG · 07/04/2006 08:33

I don't think it's 'just boys in the playground' and I think his attitude to the issue is a little blase. However, I agree, that this does not warrant prosecution and court time - it could be easily addressing by teaching staff and parents. He's only 10 and he's still learning.

harpsichordcarrier · 07/04/2006 08:35

I just heard this on today. I can't imagine anything more ludicrous and counterproductive

anguathewerewolf · 07/04/2006 08:47

well, i actually think its a good idea. this kid was bullying this child over an extended period of time. i think the teachers/school respoonsible adults around etc would have worked through whatever sanctions they could. obviously they wouldnt beat up the boy. but he definitly needs to know that his bullying iisnt acceptable behaviour. i think this is actually a very good use of court time. if they can scare this kid into knowing that he cant act like this, then perhaps he wont offend when he is older.
prevention is always better than punishment.

anguathewerewolf · 07/04/2006 08:50

gdg, the poinnt is that the staff and parents were not able to stop his behaaviour. they felt they needed someone with more clout to make him listen.
a ten year old is considered old enough to know about criminal right or wrong. i dont know the correct legal terminology, but a ten year old is legally responsible for his actions in the sense that he cant say he didnt know it was wrong to steal, or wrong to beat up and kill someone. whereas a five or six year old wouldnt be expected to know it was wrong.

Original poster
edam · 07/04/2006 09:23

But does it really need a court case to tell him that racist insults are wrong, for heaven's sake? And how on earth has this got to court when case of physical violence against pupils and staff are 'kept in the school'? I understand that is normal policy within schools - have heard teachers complaining about it but in a resigned 'this is the way it is' manner.

OP posts:
GDG · 07/04/2006 09:23

Agree with you edam

Caligula · 07/04/2006 10:24

totally agree with you Edam.

There's something very odd about this. Apparantly, the two boys are now firm friends and play together regularly.

It strikes me that if a case of bullying needs to go to court, the school must have been highly ineffective in dealing with it. Either that, or there's a lot more to this than is being reported, because it just doesn't add up.

hulababy · 07/04/2006 10:27

I suspect if it has gotton as far as court there is a lot more to this story than has been so far repoorted. before it got that far I am sure it'll have had to go through lots of other channels.

Pity a stern word from a police officer couldn't have been more effective for him, but some children need a good sharp shock to make them see what is wrong.

expatinscotland · 07/04/2006 10:29

'a ten year old is considered old enough to know about criminal right or wrong. i dont know the correct legal terminology, but a ten year old is legally responsible for his actions in the sense that he cant say he didnt know it was wrong to steal, or wrong to beat up and kill someone.'

Then do you suggest lowering the age at which a person can stand trial as an adult to 10?

B/c children of this age have committed murder in the past. Shall we subject all 10-year-olds to the maximum extent of the law, then? Say, life imprisonment for egregious offenses such as murder?

hulababy · 07/04/2006 10:29

I also think haelf the problem would be that the school would have had little power left, as it has been eradicated so much, to do much about it and the parents obviosuly weren't doing enough for it to go this far. Someone must have pushed for charges.

JoolsToo · 07/04/2006 10:30

I wonder if this boy has even been made to apologise to his victim?

That would be a starting place.

Caligula · 07/04/2006 10:31

Well he must have done I suppose, for them to be friends now. I can't see the boy's parents allowing him to play with their son unless he had apologised to him.

zippitippitoes · 07/04/2006 10:35

don't prosecution cases say between July 2005 and January 2006 although there might only have been two incidents it deosn't mean that he was bullying and making remarks all the time does it, just that they can't pinpoint exact dates so they decalre a period of time?

I'm not sure if I can comment on whether it should have gone to court. You can never know the whole story

quanglewangle · 07/04/2006 11:10

Children select the insult most likely to hurt - ginger, four eyes, fatty, skinny and a racist insult could well be chosen for the same reason and not necessarily mean the child is racist. He may have been fully aware that is is unacceptable but be unaware of the potentially serious consequences.
I think prosecuting him is heavy handed.

Caligula · 07/04/2006 11:12

Agree QW. To be frank, there shouldn't be such serious consequences as the criminal bloody justice system, for an insult.

Caligula · 07/04/2006 11:13

And it also seems very bizarre to me that if you persecute a child for being ginger, you aren't threatened by the criminal justice system, but if you persecute them for being black, or white or Asian, or whatever, you are.

MrsBigD · 07/04/2006 11:21

agree with that there is probably more going on in the background history otherwise it wouldn't have gone to court. Though it all seems a bit surreal.

Yes it's horrible that he is calling that other kid all these horrible names... but he's 10 ffs... you should have heard the things that flew around my school when I was that age... o.k. we didn't have any 'dark' (no offense!) people in our school at that time, but children are cruel and will tease, be it for colour/creed/looks/brains etc.

So imho he should be 'pulled up' for bullying plain and simple. To make a 'racism case' out of it and take it to the courts I find a bit ott.

oh and agree with edam.

wannaBe1974 · 07/04/2006 12:31

they were talking about this on radio five just now. Apparently it wasn't just a one-sided affair and the other boy responded by calling the offender "white trash". The question was asked, if this boy had been the first to say "you're white trash", would it have ended up in court? somehow I think not.

MrsBigD · 07/04/2006 12:35

I dare say most likely not :)

Imho all this political correctness seems to be going one-way iykwim. e.g. I'm German... but who would make a major fuss about it if someone shouted 'abuse' at me like 'Nazi' or 'Kraut'? Not many I'm sure. I for my part don't really care what people call me... if they are so narrow minded to feel the need they have to hurl abuse then they're best to be ignored anyhow.

Though a child of course doesn't have the 'thik skin' or distance required to deal with any kind of bullying, be it verbal or physical.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating everybody the same (with respect etc.) but the pc trend sort of nearly 'forces' us to treat some more same than others for fear of repercussion

ruty · 07/04/2006 12:37

perhaps he should have called the white kid George Bush as a retort.

flutterbee · 07/04/2006 12:41

I don't think it should have gone to court, but if that was my son he would have been begging to go to court compared to the punishment I would have dished out to him.

wannaBe1974 · 07/04/2006 12:54

Agree with MrsBigD, the trend in this country is a little one-sided, and people daren't say anything for fear of repercussion. If a white man is beaten up in the street by a group of men of asian/african descent, it is seen to be a mugging/attack, if a black/asian man is beaten up by a group of white men, it is seen as a racist attack. I agree that racism is a very serious thing, and that there are white racists in this country, however, there are also racists of other origins here too, but racism against white people just isn't taken seriously.

Blu · 07/04/2006 13:00

I think the judge has mixed up two things.It isn't 'poiticlly correct' to want to prevent 10 year-old boys from racially abusing people - it is protecting people from racism!

Whether the court is the right place to sort it out is another matter.

But racism is the issue here, not 'political correctness'.

anguathewerewolf · 07/04/2006 13:02

i agree with the people who say there must be more to this than is being reported..

expat, what an absurd suggestion ! a ten year old is still a child. by any definition. but the law does recognise the difference between a two year old walking out of a sho p without paying for sweeties, and a twelve year old.or even a seven year old and a twellve year old.
i believe there was a great deal of debate on this a decade ago when the horrible case of jamie bulger happened.

quanglewangle · 07/04/2006 13:36

ruty Grin
blu, I agree