Head teacher abused in Croydon school gates smoking row

[BigGully]

That was my mental image regardless of the location (unfortunately)

The following abuse kinda cements that prejudice, whereas the loafer wearing, comfy jean brigade would have had a coup on the schools governing body, before getting the headteacher sacked and re-establishing 4*4 double parking and wanton menthol cigarette smoking.

 

[drew]

courteously phrased yes but that doesnt make it right or less manipulative. in fact it makes it more snidey in my eyes. she is putting pressure on people to do her will totally outside her jurisdiction simply because she holds a certain view.

Could you give an example of exactly how you think she should have phrased it then on the basis that everyone accepts that it is not illegal to smoke outside the school gates but that perhaps for the benefit of the children it would be better if they could refrain from it.

I'll stick my twopennies worth in. Judging from what has already been posted, the Head does have some responsibility outside of the School grounds. Conversely, she cannot prevent parents from smoking outside of the School grounds.

Therefore she has made a polite request, thus fulfilling her own responsibilities and also recognising that legally she cannot stop parents from smoking outside the School gates. I think her approach has been entirely reasonable.

Couldn't agree more.

thats where we disagree. bet shes the sort of person who does over the top coughing and waving away of imaginary smoke in public. its hectoring and I Know Best. asking nicely doesnt make it right. yes smoking is dangerous and idiotic but I bet she hasnt told the parents or her teachers to stop driving their kids to school as the cars belch out utter filth.

i wouldnt smoke outside the school gate but its still very normal in our society for people to smoke, and as long as its not being blown in a kids face its doing almost zero harm. she is of the opinion children actually seeing people smoke is damaging for them and will set them on the road to ruin. that is total bollocks and hysterical and way way outside of anyones remit - currently. in my opinion.

Why don't you smoke outside a school gate then as you seem to be banging on the most about why the Head should keep her nose out of it. Your latest comments seem about comparing driving a car with smoking is plain ludicrous. Cars today are considerably less polluting than they were 30 years ago. Not perfect but a lot better. Who knows, in the next 30 years we might all be driving electric which, from a pollution point of view would be even better.

I don't smoke, never had. Perhaps if my dad, his brother and their father hadn't, they might well have all survived longer than than their 50s. However, I accept that there are people that are addicted to it and can't stop. However, even the majority of those would still not want their own children to go down the same route. But that doesn't seem to worry you. I note you won't smoke outside a school gate but do you smoke at home in front of your children. Did you smoke in the car when your kids were little. What about in front of your pregnant wife? Did she smoke when she was pregnant? It's not illegal, obviously, but surely you can see the immorality of ignoring the rights of others not to smoke just to exercise what you perceive as your right to puff away. That was the problem with the 70s and 80s when smokers were probably the majority. The majority would turn up and light up without even asking politely if anyone minded if they smoked. No doubt the smoking advocates will bleat on about it not being against the law and if you didn't like you should move on, even if the non smokers were there first.

The tide has turned and, to be fair, most smokers seem to accept that and are far more considerate than their predecessors.


But there still seem some people stuck in the 40s and 50s!!!!!

 

[User removed 4]

You think what you like. If disapproving of people smoking over 4 year olds and frightening them with their attack dog makes me a snob then I'll happily admit to it. The first of those two points being the real issue here. We'll see which one of us makes assumptions about people being on benefits the next time there's a Daily Mail thread.

I actually agree with you about the dog, though I suspect 'attack dog' is an overreaction, as for ' blowing smoke in 4 year olds faces' unless he's a dwarf,the 4 year olds are over 5 ft 5" tall or he is deliberately bending down to aim at the 4 year olds faces i suspect that is too.

 

[fat old seagull]

No idea who said what to who but I know that I wouldn't tell a client not to smoke outside my office as they are the client. Working for the client is something the teaching profession is in the early stages of learning with free schools competing with each other. The teachers will however catch the rest of us up one day I would like to think.

I really am unable to get my head around your your comparison of teacher/parent/client ? A mystery to me.

 

[footychick]

Good point, I am not sure how this discussion has ended up being about the law. The head teacher made a polite and reasonable request and copped a load of abuse for it. She did not bring the law into the discussion, she didn't tell people they had to stop she just made a polite request in the best interests of the students. The law, human rights and civil liberties are irrelevant here. This is about being able to deal with an issue without resorting to abuse.

Something sadly lacking in today's society echoed on NSC quite beautifully.

Really if parents can't leave their smoking for 20 minutes until they are away from the school they need to take a long hard look at themselves.

This

 

[c0lz]

7 pages and national news headlines about a teacher politely asking parents to stop smoking outside a school. Speaks volumes about UK society.

Not only did she receive abusive messages the parents involved hatched plans to hold a "smoking picket" to block the pavement. FFS

And those going on here its lawful, this is about protecting 4-11 years olds on their way to and from school. have you every experience walking into some ones smoke its very unpleasant for a non-smoker let alone for a 4-11 yr old's

 

[wellquickwoody]

Just because the law allows you to smoke in a public place, it doesn't mean you're obliged to.

But you're still missing the point.

I think the head was making a perfectly reasonable request.

I also believe the parents are legally entitled to decline her request.

End of topic in my view.

 

[The Large One]

I think the head was making a perfectly reasonable request.

I also believe the parents are legally entitled to decline her request.

End of topic in my view.

Nice hand-wringing.

The parents didn't just 'legally decline her request', they sent abusive messages. That's the central point you're overlooking.

 

[The Spanish]

Fair enough, however even given this view surely you don't condone the abuse and petition part of the story?

If I was asked to do something I disagreed with like this I think my stance would be to either ignore the request and carry on the activity or to do what I could to accommodate it and understand another's point of view. In this case having a smoke before you pick the kids up and then waiting until you are home again, (or even away from the school gates) is hardly a big ask is it?

Like I said before the reaction to a reasonable and polite request is surely over the top however much you disagree with it?

of course i am very much in favour of backing teachers publicly - at least in front of children. the behaviour towards this woman is disgusting.

the request is at first glance polite - reasonable is another thing entirely. she is passive aggressively imposing her will and personal beliefs. its an incredibly frustrating and underhand tactic. and it takes people in, as amply demonstrated here.

 

[BigGully]

Nice hand-wringing.

The parents didn't just 'legally decline her request', they sent abusive messages. That's the central point you're overlooking.

I dont think anyone has condoned the abusive response by them, not one.

Its whether it is correct for a headteacher to sanction a parents legal entitlement outside of school.

Most including me would have quietly accepted her judgement, but even as a non smoker I can see why some might not entirely agree with this request.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

All she did was ask them not to tab away on a narrow pavement directly outside the school gate. She can't enforce it but a polite request is reasonable. If parents can't hold off having a fag for the Two minutes that they're dropping off their kids off then they're being completely unreasonable.

The school has failed inspections and has been put in special measures so, clearly, the parents should be trying to support the head who's there to improve things for their kids not slagging her off on Facebook.

 

[c0lz]

I actually agree with you about the dog, though I suspect 'attack dog' is an overreaction, as for ' blowing smoke in 4 year olds faces' unless he's a dwarf,the 4 year olds are over 5 ft 5" tall or he is deliberately bending down to aim at the 4 year olds faces i suspect that is too.

Primary schools are for 4- 11 yr old's.

 

[The Large One]

I dont think anyone has condoned the abusive response by them, not one.

Its whether it is correct for a headteacher to sanction a parents legal entitlement outside of school.

Most including me would have quietly accepted her judgement, but even as a non smoker I can see why some might not entirely agree with this request.

I don't think 'not agreeing with the request' has any real value.

She is obliged to consider the welfare of the children within the vicinity of the school. And people standing at the school gates waiting for children falls within that obligation.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

All she did was ask them not to tab away on a narrow pavement directly outside the school gate. She can't enforce it but a polite request is reasonable. If parents can't hold off having a fag for the Two minutes that they're dropping off their kids off then they're being completely unreasonable.

The school has failed inspections and has been put in special measures so, clearly, the parents should be trying to support the head who's there to improve things for their kids not slagging her off on Facebook.

100%, all of this.

For those bleating about, the Head 'pushing her beliefs at the expense of the parent's legal rights' and other such bullshit - here's another example.

At my lads' primary school, as with many, there was a problem with parking. Because it was a faith school, quite a lot of kids were from a fairly wide area, so inevitably a lot of parents did need to drive them. There are very few parking restrictions around the school, so people parked everywhere, especially when running late, etc. The situation with the parked cars was getting dangerous, and the Head was forced to request, politely, that people try not to park within 100m of the gates, to spread them out, and keep the immediate area clearer.

People were (mostly) parking legally, but together they posed a risk. Do the people criticising the Croydon Head, also think this one was out of order?

 

[User removed 4]

Primary schools are for 4- 11 yr old's.

I know they are silly bollox, and you know I know they are , I was responding to another poster claiming that someone was ' blowing smoke down 4 year olds lungs ', perhaps you should read posts before making condescending, supercilious comments , and perhaps the poster i was responding to should stop parodying the catherine tate middle class yummy mummy ' we're all going to die' character.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

All she did was ask them not to tab away on a narrow pavement directly outside the school gate. She can't enforce it but a polite request is reasonable. If parents can't hold off having a fag for the Two minutes that they're dropping off their kids off then they're being completely unreasonable.

The school has failed inspections and has been put in special measures so, clearly, the parents should be trying to support the head who's there to improve things for their kids not slagging her off on Facebook.

Very much this. Utterly pathetic from the parents. Even more pathetic are the bell ends on this thread defending the parents right to smoke where they like. I am an occasional smoker and have been asked to refrain from smoking from time to time. Not so much these days but certainly prior to the ban. No big deal. It might be my right but I prefer to respect people and their space and their right to lead their life without me bothering them with fag smoke.

 

[c0lz]

I know they are silly bollox, and you know I know they are , I was responding to another poster claiming that someone was ' blowing smoke down 4 year olds lungs ', perhaps you should read posts before making condescending, supercilious comments , and perhaps the poster i was responding to should stop parodying the catherine tate middle class yummy mummy ' we're all going to die' character.

quote first line you thought was a overreaction then said overblowing smoke in 4 year olds faces' unless he's a dwarf,the 4 year olds are over 5 ft 5" tall or he is deliberately bending down to aim at the 4 year olds faces i suspect that is too. well I have a 10 yr old grand daughter who is 5ft 4" So did not understand your Sarcasm.

 

[Dr. Notthenineo'clocknews]

apologies for taking this off track a bit and it's purely hypothetical (I promise) but i'm intreged by this 'off school property'/none of her business etc. What if I was standing at the school gate (in the public street) every afternoon at 3pm putting away a can of Special Brew? [EDIT waiting to collect my OWN child!]now providing there was no by law preventing street drinking, I was compus mentus (spelling? you know what I mean) and was causing no harm (i.e keeping my mouth shut) This scenario has the benefit that I'm not "blowing smoke into a four year olds lungs". What would be the outcome here?

 

[User removed 4]

apologies for taking this off track a bit and it's purely hypothetical (I promise) but i'm intreged by this 'off school property'/none of her business etc. What if I was standing at the school gate (in the public street) every afternoon at 3pm putting away a can of Special Brew? now providing there was no by law preventing street drinking, I was compus mentus (spelling? you know what I mean) and was causing no harm (i.e keeping my mouth shut) This scenario has the benefit that I'm not "blowing smoke into a four year olds lungs". What would be the outcome here?

you'd get nicked for being a nonce ?

 

[wellquickwoody]

apologies for taking this off track a bit and it's purely hypothetical (I promise) but i'm intreged by this 'off school property'/none of her business etc. What if I was standing at the school gate (in the public street) every afternoon at 3pm putting away a can of Special Brew? now providing there was no by law preventing street drinking, I was compus mentus (spelling? you know what I mean) and was causing no harm (i.e keeping my mouth shut) This scenario has the benefit that I'm not "blowing smoke into a four year olds lungs". What would be the outcome here?

Good question, probably the correct answer from Bushy.