Teacher's say mobile phones are weapons

The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), a UK teaching union, is calling for mobile phones to be classified as ‘potentially offensive weapons.’

Chris Keates, their general secretary said that pupils were using them to bully their teachers and they should be banned from school premises on those grounds.

She had evidence of over 100 teachers being bullied by phone, email, or online and is worried that sites such as Ratemyteacher and Bebo which, provide a vehicle for false allegations and abuse by pupils which can damage teachers' self esteem and careers.

Stating: "These sites are fed by pupils' misuse of mobile phones. The time has come for mobiles in schools to be placed in the category of a potentially offensive weapon and action taken to prevent their use by pupils while on school premises.”.

I don’t imagine anyone reasonable would take issue with preventing their “use by pupils while on school premises”. Use of phones in class would not appear, at first sight, to be exactly conducive to learning.

However given the fact that the government is cracking down on cyber bullies and has given teachers the power to confiscate mobile phones, also one presumes individual schools could and should make use of the phones in class against the rules any way - why are the NASUWT raising the matter in this way?.

One also wonders what practical use this would all be anyway. How would it stop bullying outside of school hours? A site can probably be more easily be accessed from home than school?

As for ‘offensive weapons’. UK law already classifies anything that is used as an offensive weapon as an offensive weapon. Though in this case the phones are not actually really being used as a weapon in the normal sense at all, but then there is also the offence of ’Harassment’ that would be applicable.

Still, one can understand teachers might be reluctant to use the law to handle what they may see as a matter of discipline and one has some sympathy for the NASUWT. They always opposed the abolition of corporal discipline in schools.

From recollection, whatever your ‘moral’ stance on the subject, this was a teacher’s only actually effective means of control in their arsenal. Just knowing it was there was enough 99% of the time. Now pupils know teachers have no real sanctions, from their point of view.

Unfortunately for the NASUWT, after vigorous and vocal campaigning against corporal discipline by the ‘Fluffy Bunny Squad’ - particularly the teachers' pressure group STOPP (Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment), abetted by the National Council for Civil Liberties and around half of NUT (National Union of Teachers) branches, a ban was imposed in all UK state schools in 1986, it was extended to private schools in 1998.

A survey, carried out by FDS International for The Times Educational Supplement has found that a significant majority of parents believe pupil behaviour had declined since then and over half were in favour of the return of corporal discipline in schools.

It is worth noting, that the argument against corporal discipline, was largely along the lines that; if you treat children violently (and opponents classified corporal discipline as violent), it will produce a violent society.

Interestingly, though corporal discipline has not really been used in schools since 1987, violence and discipline problems appear to have become much worse since then and to a greater problem now than ever.

One has to wonder how still apocalyptically worse it might have become, had the cane not been banned…

Too much translation, bad for the nation - Says Ruth Kelly

The UK ‘Communities’ Secretary Ruth Kelly told the BBC's Politics Show that:

”I do think translation has been used too frequently and sometimes without thought added to the consequences.”

"So, for example, it's quite possible for someone to come here from Pakistan and elsewhere in the world and to find that materials are routinely translated into their mother tongue and therefore not have the incentive to learn English."

She pointed out that the evidence was that if someone did not begin to learn English within their first six months in the UK, they were never likely to learn it.

Former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, predictably disagreed.

"If you do not provide that material for them to be aware of what's happening in the society or issues of particular help, they will remain sort of isolated.

"They will not really get the benefit, nor will they be able to contribute in a positive way".

The immediate thought that occurs is “No they probably won’t - but will they ever anyway? Not if they never bother to make any effort to acquire the language of the country they live in they won’t”

A BBC study showed that over £100,000,000 of public money was spent on translation services in the UK 2006. Apparently, in one instance, refuse collection guidelines – were translated into 15 languages - and one-to-one smoking sessions incurred costs because translation was provided.

Now I can understand that we may be obliged to provide translation, in certain Languages, in certain circumstances:

There is the Welsh Language Act 1993.

The UK is part of the EC. The business of the EC is generally conducted in English, French and German.

The full list of official EU Languages is: Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, Gaelic, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish and Swedish.

In criminal cases the UK is obliged in the interests natural justice to provide translation into any language, also under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I fail to see why the UK should be routinely providing translations for other languages, in other circumstances. Someone who can’t be bothered to learn the language is surely demonstrating a negative, or at best, zero commitment to their adopted country. If people can’t be bothered to help themselves in the most elementary way why should the State be obliged to take up the shortfall?

Why on earth waste public money providing translations for one-to-one smoking sessions for instance?

People who go to any country to reside there on a long term basis are stupid, or lazy, if they fail to make some effort to acquire the language. Even Tourists would be well served to learn a few basics such as; “please”, “thank you”, “how much?”, etc. It is a matter of sensible self interest if nothing else.