Head teacher abused in Croydon school gates smoking row

[fataddick]

We have known smoking causes cancer since I was a kid in the fifties. I grew up with both my parents smoking, in fact my Dad died of lung cancer aged 78.

Fair point. The health threat of 'passive smoking' being widely acknowledged is a far more recent thing though (80s maybe?) and (with regard to children with smoking parents) is what I am primarily referring to here.

 

[BN9 BHA]

People presumably didn't know when you had your kids what they know now about smoking. I'm not suggesting this retrospectively. Just saying that today, in 2013, anyone with children who continues to smoke is committing (a form of) child abuse, and should be regarded accordingly. IMHO.

Nothing wrong with smoking in the garden/shed/garage away from the kids, or on a night out without the kids.
I don't smoke but I know others that do this.

 

[GreersElbow]

The question I ask is 'When does a schoolteachers responsibility override the the law?'

The answer is that it does not. If you believe different then try a test case?

Override the law? Are you serious? What law would they be overriding. There is no law that permits you to smoke outside, only convention. There IS law that states a teacher's obligations, as Goldstone Rapper has pointed out whom I believe works with children would also understand.

So question that's most relevant is when does that teacher's obligations end in regards to the welfare of their pupils.

 

[wellquickwoody]

No. Whatever her personal opinion, the head is legally required to adhere to the welfare requirements of the Statutory Framework of the EYFS, which clearly state:

But those responsibilities DO NOT override the law of the land.

 

[BigGully]

No. Whatever her personal opinion, the head is legally required to adhere to the welfare requirements of the Statutory Framework of the EYFS, which clearly state:

Your interpretation of that is the outside street is it, how about cars, the park, where would you align your border to stop doing this smoking lark ??

 

[Barrel of Fun]

It's all about standards. She's making a polite request to cease from smoking on the perimeter of the school grounds.

I'm amazed that there are so many ****tards wishing to debate this topic, let alone offer support to the parents.

It's not about civil liberties. It's not about human rights. It's about being a decent human being.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Your interpretation of that is the outside street is it, how about cars, the park, where would you align your border to stop doing this smoking lark ??

The article clearly states the school gates, so the kids would walk through a wall of smoke. Why are you trying to fudge the issue by bringing other areas into it?

 

[GreersElbow]

But those responsibilities DO NOT override the law of the land.

WHAT LAW. You keeping talking about this law, but refusing to give us the statutory name of this law. From my interpretation, you're talking about smoking outside, which is not a law but a convention.

Law = Bills passed through the legislature to become an Act of Law.
Convention = generally accepted norms.

There's a stark difference in the two, and you appear to be getting very confused about the two of them.

 

[wellquickwoody]

It's all about standards. She's making a polite request to cease from smoking on the perimeter of the school grounds.

I'm amazed that there are so many ****tards wishing to debate this topic, let alone offer support to the parents.

It's not about civil liberties. It's not about human rights. It's about being a decent human being.

No mention of civil liberties, or human rights from me. Just the law.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Fair point. The health threat of 'passive smoking' being widely acknowledged is a far more recent thing though (80s maybe?) and (with regard to children with smoking parents) is what I am primarily referring to here.

You're right, passive smoking is more recent.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

The question I ask is 'When does a schoolteachers responsibility override the the law?'

The answer is that it does not. If you believe different then try a test case?

You are missing the point. Just because smoking is legal, it does not follow that you can do it anywhere. Similarly, drinking alcohol is not illegal but it does not follow that this legally entitles you to do so within sight of the pitch at the Amex.

 

[GreersElbow]

No mention of civil liberties, or human rights from me. Just the law.

No mention of what the said law is actually called, either...

 

[BN9 BHA]

It's all about standards. She's making a polite request to cease from smoking on the perimeter of the school grounds.

I'm amazed that there are so many ****tards wishing to debate this topic, let alone offer support to the parents.

It's not about civil liberties. It's not about human rights. It's about being a decent human being.

Good points, some on here are bloody minded and would argue about the colour of orange juice!

 

[willyfantastic]

I think you have a warped idea of private education. Of course, parents are going to expect so much, since they pay extra for their children to be educated, but, in my experience, it has never been about client/customer.

If anything, it's about paying for opportunities and longer school hours.

Having just teacher trained, state schools manage to fit in about 3 hours of learning, give or take. Private schools manage to squeeze in 6 hours, plus evening school.

i think the clue is in his username - he's trying to be subtle about his inverted snobbery and clearly hasn't got a clue how private education works against state education......

 

[wellquickwoody]

Override the law? Are you serious? What law would they be overriding. There is no law that permits you to smoke outside, only convention. There IS law that states a teacher's obligations, as Goldstone Rapper has pointed out whom I believe works with children would also understand.

So question that's most relevant is when does that teacher's obligations end in regards to the welfare of their pupils.

Night night, fool.

 

[GreersElbow]

Night night, fool.

Fool? Incredible coming from the moron who questioned someone's knowledge of law, then fails to understand what a law actually is. Night,

 

[Berty23]

It is not against the law to swear either, but if parents were swearing outside the primary school gates, I would hope the head would have a word too.

 

[GreersElbow]

It is not against the law to swear either, but if parents were swearing outside the primary school gates, I would hope the head would have a word too.

Absolutely, it's a matter of convention.

 

[BigGully]

The article clearly states the school gates, so the kids would walk through a wall of smoke. Why are you trying to fudge the issue by bringing other areas into it?

Because I do not wholly accept your view, however I have stated that I do think this request should be accepted by the parents and the alleged abuse is of course totally wrong..

Speaking as a non smoker I too would not expect a headteacher to encroach very far into my activities away from the school, the term 'school gates' is likely to be a broad sweep of a bigger area around the school rather than the actual entrance, so it can by some be deemed an unnecessary interference and outside of the schools jurisdiction anyway.

 

[Worthingite]

It's all a bit mumsnet this conversation?!?!?