Accused of trespassing for helping a child

[tatt]

anyone know if there is more to this story or is it health & safety gone mad again? health&safety

No, headteachers do not always tell the truth, but they usually cannot get 5 year old boys to lie to their mothers for them.

Feenie you and others have decided this woman is a "loon " and the staff at the school are unimpeachable. OK the head was not there to witness events nor was the boy's mum. The woman may have overreacted . The head is always going to side with staff in a case like this. Nighby is right ,involving the Police and Press was riduculous and does credit to neither side. And I still satnd by what I say re the menace of the Health and Safety legislation, I wont apologise because I have nothing to apologise about I have not attacked you personally!

@Falafel I totally supported that Head at Lydd it was bloooy ridiculous and so unecessary for the public pillorying

Common sesnse tells me that the child must have told his mother what happened, that 5 year olds cannot be induced to cover up for headteachers, and that therefore the boy's mother's version of events is closer to the truth.

And whatever, bernadette.

Feenie: it seems strange that you are quick to take offence, on behalf of teachers, at inoffensive (yet critical, there's a difference see) comments but think that leaving a 5 y.o. outside in danger of falling from a tree / being accosted by "loons" is the proper way to carry on.
Shows where your priorities lie.

I would love someone to organise a mass sit-up on Monday where all kids in the land go and sit in a tree at the end of break and refuse to come in.

He wasn't in the fucking tree. But thanks for the assumption about my career priorities.

I too doubt very much he would cover up for staff but I think it likely he would want to downplay his tree climbing escapade if he knew his mum would be cross (I am not sure if all 5 year olds are totally truthful with dps). And ok lets agree to disagree on this Feenie no one was hurt and life rolls on, "And whatever Bernadette." sounds like my dd's14 response to a debate, always her last two words really

But his cover up story would be unlikely to match the school's.

That's three words, bernadette.

Maybe been asked but if the school was observing from 3 places why did they not stop a perfect stranger from entering the play area and approaching a child - up a tree or not ?

Good point, but how do you stop someone climbing over the gate? They challenged her straight away, so they must have seen her.

feenie: "He wasn't in the f**king tree."

the school: "our policy when a child climbs a tree is for staff to observe the situation from a distance so the child does not get distracted and fall."

It sounds like he was in the tree. Why else leave him outside? - because they fear he might fall from, er, the ground?

OK Feenie point taken dd skips the "and" and just says "whatever woman!" usually, I don't think shae has rumbled my Mnet name

Read the school's and the mother's statement on the website, purits.

Right had a little think in the branches and can see the whole thing clearly now. If you read the school's letters closely and the Guardian report you will see that 1. the school admitted the boy had climbed "the lower branches of the tree" so he WAS "in the fucking tree" and 2. You have all assumed because the school reported the 3 "incidents" to the Police she had been hanging around twice before. The 3 "incidents" are what the school has construed as 3 ""offences the woman may have committed that day. Firstly trespass, then "accosting" the child and finally "becoming agressive" to staff after being requested to leave. So to all teachers and others on here who reproached som mnetters for having the baying slavering lynch mob mentality of the DM readership I suggest you re READ the statements. Seems like a load of ares covering and over reaction to me.I am linking this to DB who is a lawyer and see what he reads into it,

I repeat, why did they leave him outside? Is it normal policy if a child says "shan't/won't" then the teachers say, "that's OK. You stay outside and miss lessons and we'll dedicate three members of staff to watch-duty because they have got nothing better to be doing with their time."

Totally agree, bernadette. And I think that getting the police involved was an over-reaction and they therefore deserve all the bad publicity they get.

Imagine if you were a parent at that school - would you ever dare raise a word of complaint over anything for fear of having the rozzers set on you.

DB says the SCHOOL decided that the woman had committed an offence with 3 contributory factors. Trespass, which can still be a grey area, "accosting" a child. Did she use physical force to accost the child? You would have to gather sound evidence on that one, and finally her "agressive" manner, if she swore at staff and became physically violent with them she could have committed a genuine offence and again sound proof would be needed if this crap were ever to make it to court. DB says on the face of it it looks like the woman was a little over zealous in her approach but terrific over reaction from all sides. Says what I said at least child was not injured! look I hope someone gets back to me on this, it is very lonely and spiky up in my tree.

Where have they all gone purits? Tis v.quiet all of a sudden

The mother got the police involved, purits, and I believe I've said before. The child stayed out to play with 130 other children and they were all supervised by 7 teaching assistants. Maybe you could read the relevant statements, before commenting further? Wouldn't want you looking like someone who jumps to conclusions without knowing all the facts, after all.

The mother posted on the DM site that this woman had tried to access the school many times - 'not the once that she would have you believe'.

The school maintains that the child 'was standing on the path,having exited the tree'.

I would like to make it clear that I am reading between the lines, and suspect that this woman is slightly bonkers.

I am not necessarily siding with the school, although I do believe their versions of events, I am siding with the mother and her statement(s). Therefore I don't believe that this child was 'left' up a tree, and that this view comes from hysterical DMlike over-reaction.

I dislike ridiculous Health and Safety rules as much as anyone here. But there is hysterical overreaction there too - for example, no one, in my 16 year teaching career, has ever told me I can't comfort small children, and so I have never stopped. I do, however, believe that children should be protected from random members of the public climbing over fences to accost them. My primary interest here, first and foremost, is for the safety of the child, and all of the children in my care - that's my priority, purits. But thanks for judging me without bothering to find this out - one of the many conclusions you have jumped to on this thread.

Aaah so now you believe all the ranters and "loons " in the DM use them to qualify your argument. Er and if you "exit" a tree (strange jargon) it implies you have been up it or on the branches. Also, (I will check this) the second group did come out to play but it was not sequential I believe there was a short interval, but I will check it. As I say I do not believe everything I read in the press I doubt that WAS the child's mum as she made her feelings about the press known through the school new letter and if she wanted to give a statement she would have approached the News Desk surely? That is a rogue posting IMHO and is unfair to the "loon". but Feenie I am impressed you have come back on to answer, so good on you at least you have courage! Where are th "heavy" brigade? I would love to hear what they have to say.

Feenie, the school states there was a 10 minute interval between the 2 break times, so he was not surrounded by a load of people at all times, that much is obvious. I think too many people have jumped in here and accused the woman of being a "loon" which is their right, but they should get the facts straight first FFS. I am now quite
ABOUT THIS and I was feeling so "chilled" this morning!

Not all the DM ranters, just one! ut okay, fair point. Even if that one isn't her, she definitely makes it clear in her school statement that she would rather loons didn't approach her son on school premises, and that at no time was her son stuck in the tree. I bet she's grilled him pretty thoroughly on the whole debacle and knows exactly what happened - wouldn't you?