Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Get a grip, when are people going to stop blaming schools for all the problems in society. The buck stops with parents if more of them took their responsibility seriously then tragic cases like this would not happen as frequently as they do.

lbsmith73 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Get a grip, when are people going to stop blaming

> schools for all the problems in society. The buck

> stops with parents if more of them took their

> responsibility seriously then tragic cases like

> this would not happen as frequently as they do.


But schools still do 'morality' type classes (you know

where you role play victim and bully etc.)


It used to be RE with us (as RE was compulsory but we

did the God bit in 3 weeks)

When the most recent stats on knife crime in London came out Scotland Yard representatives were interviewed:


"Duncan Ball said: ?This is not an issue we will ever arrest or enforce our way out of,? adding that police, schools, parents and communities would need to tackle the underlying causes of what Ball described as young people seeing life as cheap on Britain?s street."


So, who is to blame? The police identify themselves, schools, parents and, er, communities.


What was also interesting in the article is this:


"Police estimate there are fewer than 300 who carry a knife on a regular basis in London and Haydon said police would be helped by a new law introduced this summer which jails those caught carrying a knife twice."


So, the police reckon on around 300 people "regularly" carrying knives. Even allowing for the fact that some people carry knives on an adhoc basis, or indeed resort to the mysterious "other weapons" asserted by a previous poster, this is a tiny percentage of the current London secondary school population of 488,160 pupils.



I don't underestimate the impact of knife crime on young people and I do agree that there are far too many deaths and injuries and that this is absolutely unacceptable.


But demonising young people and asserting such arrant nonsense about most of them carrying weapons is wrong.


I'm very sorry that the teacher who has posted about this feels so upset by their work (which, one hopes at least, isn't teaching Maths or any kind of subject that deals with statistics).

I am not demonising our children at all. Far from it.


I think most children are not aware of the dangers or not actually aware of the value of life. Neither am I saying they are ignorant - just a different context to their lives, as they are so young.


I think bringing the subject to the front of discussion is a good thing, which I don't think happens enough. There are a number of things communities suffer and don't talk about enough.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They all think that everyone else

> has got one so they need to have one. This is, to

> some extent, true.


It's 100% true some of the time?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
    • Hey, I am on the first floor and I am directly impacted if roof leaks. We got a roofing company to do repair work which was supposed to be guaranteed. However, when it started leaking again, we were informed that the guarantee is just for a new roof and not repair work. Each time the company that did the repair work came out again over the next few years, we had to pay additional amounts. The roof continues to leak, so I have just organised another company to fix the roof instead, as the guarantee doesn't mean anything. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...