Teacher Harvey.

29 Apr 2010

Quote by Mr-Powers
I think that teacher crossed the line,try be in the police and see how teen thugs insult and treat you,a teacher attempting to kill a school kid what a horrible thought

Police train for riots and such sitiuations...teachers are just trying to give you an education...big difference, lets hope you are never pushed to breaking point!
Teachers get training to deal with unruly kids dont they?,but Mr Harvey returned to teaching far too early....that poor kid has a permanent hearing problem

29 Apr 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

Any person can use that and yes it IS a get out clause by the human rights act,

This defense predates the HRA by 300 years.......and some believe it goes back further.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant though wink

Dave_Notts
I cannot find anything that says it goes back that far, and usually it was believed they were mentally ill, not of diminished responsibility.
A good rant? I dare not rant Davey as the Mods are on a mission at the moment and I do not want to be next. :wink:

29 Apr 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

Any person can use that and yes it IS a get out clause by the human rights act,

This defense predates the HRA by 300 years.......and some believe it goes back further.
Please don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant though wink

Dave_Notts
I cannot find anything that says it goes back that far, and usually it was believed they were mentally ill, not of diminished responsibility.
A good rant? I dare not rant Davey as the Mods are on a mission at the moment and I do not want to be next. :wink:
Mentally ill, diminished responsibility, mad as a badger, etc. are all the same in law. If you are acting out of character because you do not have mental control of your actions then it is a perfectly good defence that has a precedence in law that goes back hundreds of years.
Dave_Notts

29 Apr 2010

I don't see any mention of him being cleared because he was mad or because he was not in command of his senses or that he was provoked. The charges of which he was cleared require proof of intent. The jury decided that there was no such proof.
This is one of the sicker and more objectionable threads of late.

30 Apr 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

Brilliant news.
I bet the little shits who give their teachers hell on a daily basis had better take stock. For next time it could be one of their teachers that "lose it " because of extreme provocation from horrid kids.
I am laughing my head off here, to think a jury in 2010 actually sided with a teacher over some teenage thug.
Nothing to do with Labour secretly getting involved with the legal system, as it is bad publicity? Forever the cynic me.
But for me a great day for British justice, and I do not see that very often.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Christ on a bike! Kent, just when I think I've got used to you, and take just about everything you say with a pinch of salt, you come out with something that just completely throws me? confused

They didn't 'side with a teacher over some teenage thug' at all. The jury decided that Peter Harvey was more than likely suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and so was not fully responsible for his actions when he fractured a 14 year old boy's ((( A boy to which he had a duty of care, yadda yadda ya ))) skull with a 3 kilogram weight, and hospitalised him. They accepted that he was in no fit state to deal rationally and reasonably with the provocations of those under his 'care'.
This is not a ringing endorsement of yer Daily Mail's feral youth agenda mate. It's nothing to crow about. It's not even remotely funny? :?
N x x x ;)
More than likely????
They experts on mental illness now then?
Let me believe just for a second that the jury decided that the teacher was provoked to such a degree, that he was within his rights to act as he did.
As for your pinch of salt comment.....bovvered?
You believe what you like Kenty, but provocation is not a defence to so the jury would have erred if they did rely on it. The jury's decision appears to be that they did not believe the defendant formed the specific intent required to convict on , and therefore they could not convict of the attempted murder either. The defence appear to have wisely steered clear of issues of capacity, bearing in mind that the penalty for being insane in law is worse, arguably, than the penalty for or attempt murder, and relied on the lack of specific intent, hence the plea to guilty of S20.
But you believe what you like

30 Apr 2010

Quote by Phuckers
I think that teacher crossed the line,try be in the police and see how teen thugs insult and treat you,a teacher attempting to kill a school kid what a horrible thought

Police train for riots and such sitiuations...teachers are just trying to give you an education...big difference, lets hope you are never pushed to breaking point!
Teachers get training to deal with unruly kids dont they?,but Mr Harvey returned to teaching far too early....that poor kid has a permanent hearing problem
so it seems
when the teacher said "please put that burner down or your going to get thick ear "
he well and truly failed to hear that :giggle::giggle:
i think he had a problem with his sight as well as he didn`t see it coming either :giggle::giggle:

30 Apr 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I think that teacher crossed the line,try be in the police and see how teen thugs insult and treat you,a teacher attempting to kill a school kid what a horrible thought

Police train for riots and such sitiuations...teachers are just trying to give you an education...big difference, lets hope you are never pushed to breaking point!
Teachers get training to deal with unruly kids dont they?,but Mr Harvey returned to teaching far too early....that poor kid has a permanent hearing problem
so it seems
when the teacher said "please put that burner down or your going to get thick ear "
he well and truly failed to hear that :giggle::giggle:
i think he had a problem with his sight as well as he didn`t see it coming either :giggle::giggle:
what?

30 Apr 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
I think that teacher crossed the line,try be in the police and see how teen thugs insult and treat you,a teacher attempting to kill a school kid what a horrible thought

Police train for riots and such sitiuations...teachers are just trying to give you an education...big difference, lets hope you are never pushed to breaking point!
Teachers get training to deal with unruly kids dont they?,but Mr Harvey returned to teaching far too early....that poor kid has a permanent hearing problem
so it seems
when the teacher said "please put that burner down or your going to get thick ear "
he well and truly failed to hear that :giggle::giggle:
i think he had a problem with his sight as well as he didn`t see it coming either :giggle::giggle:
:laughabove:

30 Apr 2010

Quote by awayman

Brilliant news.
I bet the little shits who give their teachers hell on a daily basis had better take stock. For next time it could be one of their teachers that "lose it " because of extreme provocation from horrid kids.
I am laughing my head off here, to think a jury in 2010 actually sided with a teacher over some teenage thug.
Nothing to do with Labour secretly getting involved with the legal system, as it is bad publicity? Forever the cynic me.
But for me a great day for British justice, and I do not see that very often.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Christ on a bike! Kent, just when I think I've got used to you, and take just about everything you say with a pinch of salt, you come out with something that just completely throws me? confused

They didn't 'side with a teacher over some teenage thug' at all. The jury decided that Peter Harvey was more than likely suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and so was not fully responsible for his actions when he fractured a 14 year old boy's ((( A boy to which he had a duty of care, yadda yadda ya ))) skull with a 3 kilogram weight, and hospitalised him. They accepted that he was in no fit state to deal rationally and reasonably with the provocations of those under his 'care'.
This is not a ringing endorsement of yer Daily Mail's feral youth agenda mate. It's nothing to crow about. It's not even remotely funny? :?
N x x x ;)
More than likely????
They experts on mental illness now then?
Let me believe just for a second that the jury decided that the teacher was provoked to such a degree, that he was within his rights to act as he did.
As for your pinch of salt comment.....bovvered?
You believe what you like Kenty, but provocation is not a defence to so the jury would have erred if they did rely on it. The jury's decision appears to be that they did not believe the defendant formed the specific intent required to convict on , and therefore they could not convict of the attempted murder either. The defence appear to have wisely steered clear of issues of capacity, bearing in mind that the penalty for being insane in law is worse, arguably, than the penalty for or attempt murder, and relied on the lack of specific intent, hence the plea to guilty of S20.
But you believe what you like
It seems you are only guessing too.:shock:
Unless you was there and are privy to the juries decision??
But......you believe what you like !

30 Apr 2010

Excellent result for Harvey - I hope the memory of this stays with the thug/pupil and will make him a better person. Although he'll probably get millions in compensation taken from the education budget and a free house as well.

30 Apr 2010

Quote by kentswingers777

Brilliant news.
I bet the little shits who give their teachers hell on a daily basis had better take stock. For next time it could be one of their teachers that "lose it " because of extreme provocation from horrid kids.
I am laughing my head off here, to think a jury in 2010 actually sided with a teacher over some teenage thug.
Nothing to do with Labour secretly getting involved with the legal system, as it is bad publicity? Forever the cynic me.
But for me a great day for British justice, and I do not see that very often.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Christ on a bike! Kent, just when I think I've got used to you, and take just about everything you say with a pinch of salt, you come out with something that just completely throws me? confused

They didn't 'side with a teacher over some teenage thug' at all. The jury decided that Peter Harvey was more than likely suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and so was not fully responsible for his actions when he fractured a 14 year old boy's ((( A boy to which he had a duty of care, yadda yadda ya ))) skull with a 3 kilogram weight, and hospitalised him. They accepted that he was in no fit state to deal rationally and reasonably with the provocations of those under his 'care'.
This is not a ringing endorsement of yer Daily Mail's feral youth agenda mate. It's nothing to crow about. It's not even remotely funny? :?
N x x x ;)
More than likely????
They experts on mental illness now then?
Let me believe just for a second that the jury decided that the teacher was provoked to such a degree, that he was within his rights to act as he did.
As for your pinch of salt comment.....bovvered?
You believe what you like Kenty, but provocation is not a defence to so the jury would have erred if they did rely on it. The jury's decision appears to be that they did not believe the defendant formed the specific intent required to convict on , and therefore they could not convict of the attempted murder either. The defence appear to have wisely steered clear of issues of capacity, bearing in mind that the penalty for being insane in law is worse, arguably, than the penalty for or attempt murder, and relied on the lack of specific intent, hence the plea to guilty of S20.
But you believe what you like
It seems you are only guessing too.:shock:
Unless you was there and are privy to the juries decision??
But......you believe what you like !
Why do you think I'm guessing? The defendant struck the blow, and admitted as much in court. So we have the actus reus of GBH being admitted by the defendant. S18 GBH is distinguished from S20 GBH by the degree of intent required. The defendant pleaded guilty to S20 GBH, by the way. So, with those facts, and the jury's decision in front of us, it is reasonable to conclude that the jury decided he hadn't formed the specific intent required to convict of S18, which would also rule out attempted murder.
That's not guesswork Kenty; it's law. Look it up. Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. Enjoy.

30 Apr 2010

beat them all into insensibility.......bloody kids
Excepting your own obviously....cos they are of course little angels

30 Apr 2010

All guess work. lol

30 Apr 2010

Whilst that lad was winding his teacher up i bet nothing crossed his leery mind
(apart from a 3kg dumbell that is) that he would end up getting 'happy slapped' himself for it.
I would also bet that the rest of the class think twice before they wind another teacher up.
Probably not though.
Peter Harvey's teaching career, however, is now over after many good years as an educator.
I can remember a time in the 60's when a teacher would give you a slap that would knock you off your feet for giving him cheek or insolence. 'KES' style.

1 May 2010

Quote by Rob_hood
Whilst that lad was winding his teacher up i bet nothing crossed his leery mind
(apart from a 3kg dumbell that is) that he would end up getting 'happy slapped' himself for it.
I would also bet that the rest of the class think twice before they wind another teacher up.
Probably not though.
Peter Harvey's teaching career, however, is now over after many good years as an educator.
I can remember a time in the 60's when a teacher would give you a slap that would knock you off your feet for giving him cheek or insolence. 'KES' style.

I did not do very well in school, in fact I found it very difficult, as the teachers would not help me (far more interested in teaching the children which found it easy to learn) I found myself winding them up. In fact, in the end it seamed the only way to make school life bearable. I do now regret make several teachers life a misery.... There but for the grace of god go I!

1 May 2010

I feel for your distress blue and admire your candid regret. I am sad that your experience is neither unique nor consigned to history.

2 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Whilst that lad was winding his teacher up i bet nothing crossed his leery mind
(apart from a 3kg dumbell that is) that he would end up getting 'happy slapped' himself for it.
I would also bet that the rest of the class think twice before they wind another teacher up.
Probably not though.
Peter Harvey's teaching career, however, is now over after many good years as an educator.
I can remember a time in the 60's when a teacher would give you a slap that would knock you off your feet for giving him cheek or insolence. 'KES' style.

I did not do very well in school, in fact I found it very difficult, as the teachers would not help me (far more interested in teaching the children which found it easy to learn) I found myself winding them up. In fact, in the end it seamed the only way to make school life bearable. I do now regret make several teachers life a misery....There but for the grace of god go I!
things are much different now blue there is plenty of help available for those who struggle and thankfully we live in more civilized world where children are nurtured and pampered and show only the utmost respect to their peers
or so i`m constantly reminded on here loon

now i think children no longer respond to idle threats and smacking a child and the ruler/cane also being abolished means each generation will become more unruly so against the grain of the know all, childless do gooders lets reinstate a little common sense and overturn one of the most stupid of modern laws and allow smacking and the return of the cane and the ruler in our schools and give our teachers a small upper hand innocent

2 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Whilst that lad was winding his teacher up i bet nothing crossed his leery mind
(apart from a 3kg dumbell that is) that he would end up getting 'happy slapped' himself for it.
I would also bet that the rest of the class think twice before they wind another teacher up.
Probably not though.
Peter Harvey's teaching career, however, is now over after many good years as an educator.
I can remember a time in the 60's when a teacher would give you a slap that would knock you off your feet for giving him cheek or insolence. 'KES' style.

I did not do very well in school, in fact I found it very difficult, as the teachers would not help me (far more interested in teaching the children which found it easy to learn) I found myself winding them up. In fact, in the end it seamed the only way to make school life bearable. I do now regret make several teachers life a misery....There but for the grace of god go I!
things are much different now blue there is plenty of help available for those who struggle and thankfully we live in more civilized world where children are nurtured and pampered and show only the utmost respect to their peers
or so i`m constantly reminded on here loon

now i think children no longer respond to idle threats and smacking a child and the ruler/cane also being abolished means each generation will become more unruly so against the grain of the know all, childless do gooders lets reinstate a little common sense and overturn one of the most stupid of modern laws and allow smacking and the return of the cane and the ruler in our schools and give our teachers a small upper hand innocent

Not sure how best to do it, but in my view the balance of power needs to be returned to the teacher.

2 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
Whilst that lad was winding his teacher up i bet nothing crossed his leery mind
(apart from a 3kg dumbell that is) that he would end up getting 'happy slapped' himself for it.
I would also bet that the rest of the class think twice before they wind another teacher up.
Probably not though.
Peter Harvey's teaching career, however, is now over after many good years as an educator.
I can remember a time in the 60's when a teacher would give you a slap that would knock you off your feet for giving him cheek or insolence. 'KES' style.

I did not do very well in school, in fact I found it very difficult, as the teachers would not help me (far more interested in teaching the children which found it easy to learn) I found myself winding them up. In fact, in the end it seamed the only way to make school life bearable. I do now regret make several teachers life a misery....There but for the grace of god go I!
things are much different now blue there is plenty of help available for those who struggle and thankfully we live in more civilized world where children are nurtured and pampered and show only the utmost respect to their peers
or so i`m constantly reminded on here loon

now i think children no longer respond to idle threats and smacking a child and the ruler/cane also being abolished means each generation will become more unruly so against the grain of the know all, childless do gooders lets reinstate a little common sense and overturn one of the most stupid of modern laws and allow smacking and the return of the cane and the ruler in our schools and give our teachers a small upper hand innocent

As someone who tries to do good while admitting that he doesn't know everything and struggles to be the best dad he can be, can I register my complete disagreement with your advocacy of corporal punishment? All it ever taught me was that pain is not that awful, and that power abused is contemptible.
Every generation is always the worst behaved and least meritorious in the eyes of previous generations.

2 May 2010

i dont seem to remember groups of kids kicking dads to death when challenged over menial things like damage to property when i was a kid so please remind me of some
thought not
next innocent

2 May 2010

Typical attitude of todays do gooders.
Teachers should never be faced with situations like what we have seen over the last decade. Children hitting teachers and being expelled, only for school governing bodies to reinstate them, back into the same school.
No wonder the teaching profession has lost so many great teachers.
Yes I agree the cane needs to be brought back with immediate effect. Teachers should be given back the power they once had, and heads should be able to permanently expel unruly kids.
Even when I was at school there were unruly kids, but nothing like they are today. Vile and vicious with no parental guidelines, and in a lot of cases a parent who does not give a shit, no boundaries and the teachers and the school end up having a kid that is quite simply a little fuck.
Imagine being this teacher....off for months with stress and who can blame him, and then horrid little shits trying their hardest to wind the teacher up so as to video it on their phone, and place it onto You Tube or Facebook crap.
I bet the little shits that did all this are still at that same school. I would love these do gooders to be put into the situation that teacher and many others are placed into everyday, and find out exactly what a teacher has to put up with on an almost daily basis. It is partly because of those attitudes we have these kinds of kids, and oh yes wanker parents too.
Give em six of the best across their arses, that will stop a huge ammount of the bollocks that teachers are frighteningly put into.

2 May 2010

Still no double standards ......I can only admire the consistency of my fellow posters

2 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Typical attitude of todays do gooders.
Teachers should never be faced with situations like what we have seen over the last decade. Children hitting teachers and being expelled, only for school governing bodies to reinstate them, back into the same school.
No wonder the teaching profession has lost so many great teachers.
Yes I agree the cane needs to be brought back with immediate effect. Teachers should be given back the power they once had, and heads should be able to permanently expel unruly kids.
Even when I was at school there were unruly kids, but nothing like they are today. Vile and vicious with no parental guidelines, and in a lot of cases a parent who does not give a shit, no boundaries and the teachers and the school end up having a kid that is quite simply a little fuck.
Imagine being this teacher....off for months with stress and who can blame him, and then horrid little shits trying their hardest to wind the teacher up so as to video it on their phone, and place it onto You Tube or Facebook crap.
I bet the little shits that did all this are still at that same school. I would love these do gooders to be put into the situation that teacher and many others are placed into everyday, and find out exactly what a teacher has to put up with on an almost daily basis. It is partly because of those attitudes we have these kinds of kids, and oh yes wanker parents too.
Give em six of the best across their arses, that will stop a huge ammount of the bollocks that teachers are frighteningly put into.

That's just high spirits and high jinks wink

2 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
i dont seem to remember groups of kids kicking dads to death when challenged over menial things like damage to property when i was a kid so please remind me of some
thought not
next

Did you really just answer your own question in the course of the same post?
Superb stuff....

Britain in the Fifties was a society in which immigrants tramped the streets from one boarding house to another, their spirits consistently dashed by the signs reading “No Coloureds”. It was a society in which football hooligans pelted rival fans with bottles and invaded the pitch at the Rangers-Celtic game on New Year’s Day 1952, and one in which “teenage hooligans” ran amok on Brighton seafront long before Mods and Rockers had even been invented.

Mods and rockers in the 60s? Remember them? Or Mary Bell?
Football hooligans in the 70s? Remember them?
Riots in the 80s? Remember them?
Meadowwell riots and the Jamie Bulger murder in the 90s? Remember that?

2 May 2010

yep i did a google search no dads kicked to death on there doorsteps by feral gangs innocent

as for the mods/rockergangs/footie hooligans/riots in the 80`s wasn`t that scargill thatcher and all grown adults wink

is all a really poor attempt to back up your statement
because we are talking children as young as 12 years old in these feral gangs even in the 60`s 12 year old`s wasn`t riding triumph`s with studded leather outfits heading to brighton to face their quarry but the image make me chuckle
you might have something with the jamie bulger thing
but sorry riots are discontent thing and not hanging about the street`s killing innocent adults for asking you to stop damaging property thing
nice try though
on a note i dont actually remember the 60`s
and only sort of remember the 70`s google does though

2 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
yep i did a google search no dads kicked to death on there doorsteps by feral gangs
as for the mods/rockergangs/footie hooligans/riots in the 80`s wasn`t that scargill thatcher and all grown adults
is all a really poor attempt to back up your statement
because we are talking children as young as 12 years old in these feral gangs even in the 60`s 12 year old`s wasn`t riding triumph`s with studded leather outfits heading to brighton to face their quarry but the image make me chuckle
you might have something with the jamie bulger thing
but sorry riots are discontent thing and not hanging about the street`s killing innocent adults for asking you to stop damaging property thing
nice try though
on a note i dont actually remember the 60`s
and only sort of remember the 70`s google does though

Now I feel old :wink:

2 May 2010

i thought i`d look into the mary bell thing as i didn`t remember
but again she had the sort of typecast history you would expect with this sort of crime
taken from wikipedia
Bell's mother Betty (born McCrickett) was a prostitute who was often absent from the family home, travelling to Glasgow to work. Mary (nicknamed May) was her first child, born when Betty was 17 years old. It is not known who Mary's biological father was; for most of her life she believed it to be Billy Bell, an habitual criminal later arrested for armed robbery who had married Betty some time after Mary was born. Independent accounts from family members suggest strongly that Betty had attempted to kill Mary and make her death look accidental more than once during the first few years of her life. Mary herself says she was subject to repeated sexual abuse, her mother forcing her from the age of four to engage in sex acts with men.
not a surprise she was a just little disturbed
no presents of social services in them days though
see some things haven`t changed bolt

2 May 2010

to help get an idea of how bad things have got

2 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
to help get an idea of how bad things have got

Parental control and guidance :twisted:

2 May 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
to help get an idea of how bad things have got

Parental control and guidance :twisted:
something is needed for sure blue :sad: