BBC Television programmes  permalink

Tough Young Teachers

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 55
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Samantha Neal (U15992857) on Tuesday, 28th January 2014

    Utterly shocked at tonight's episode of Tough Young Teachers - one of the teachers took his pupil out shooting pheasants. How horrible. Is this the sort of example an authority figure should be setting a troubled young boy? Killing defenceless animals for fun? Awful.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Mmmmmmm........pheasant, yum! I had a lovely one pot roasted on Sunday evening, though I did nearly break a tooth on a piece of shot!

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Utterly shocked at tonight's episode of Tough Young Teachers - one of the teachers took his pupil out shooting pheasants. How horrible. Is this the sort of example an authority figure should be setting a troubled young boy? Killing defenceless animals for fun? Awful. 

    Nothing wrong with shooting pheasants. Its a traditional country pursuit. After all, the birds will be eaten.

    There was a time when people were not so squeamish about their food.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Mmmmmmm........pheasant, yum! I had a lovely one pot roasted on Sunday evening, though I did nearly break a tooth on a piece of shot! 

    Damaging a tooth on shot is easily done !!!

    I do hope that the bird had been well hung. At least two weeks at this time of year !!!!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Its not usually a problem with the birds I get from the excellent game chap at our local farmers market, he normally removes it all (or else he traps them??)

    Of course the OP would probably rather see him on the dole.....smiley - sadface


    (BTW I recommend pot-roasting, breast down if you sometimes find them a bit dry)

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by PetPig (U9766236) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I have to agree with the OP. What on earth was the thinking behind taking a disaffected boy from a difficult background on a one-to -one day out, learning to handle a gun and blast living creatures out of the air?
    It was interesting that after this misguided attempt to get the boy 'onside', he was just as unco-operative in class as before.
    I have my suspicions that the whole thing was engineered by the film team, it felt so contrived.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    You may well be right about the intentions, PP, these programmes are often quite contrived.
    But as for "learning to.....blast living creatures out of the air"......was this boy, up to that point, vegetarian? Or did his diet include (perhaps) hamburgers? (Which I'm guessing were not made from cows who died peacefully in their sleep from old age).

    We had a big ruckus down our way a couple of years back because a school had been keeping farm animals and the head teacher wanted to send them for slaughter (which is what happens to farm animals). A large proportion of parents (not the kids, interestingly) became hysterical at this idea, despite admitting to eating meat themselves.

    Personally, I think it is healthier for kids to know about how food is produced and where it comes from. They have become more and more divorced from this and it makes them wasteful, irresponsible, and willing to put any old crap in their mouths because they don't know anything about it.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by PetPig (U9766236) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    There's a world of difference between killing animals for food, Annie-Lou, and killing as a recreational activity
    . I eat meat, but I've never considered a day out shooting or hunting as something humans should take pleasure in.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I think you'll find the pheasants will be eaten, PP. I've never understood why its more acceptable to eat an animal raised on a factory farm and herded off to the abattoir than something that lived in the fresh air and was shot in the countryside??

    It seems to be just the element of recreation that folks can't stand. smiley - erm

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by the_cleaner--still a man (U3423083) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I have to agree with the OP. What on earth was the thinking behind taking a disaffected boy from a difficult background on a one-to -one day out, learning to handle a gun and blast living creatures out of the air?
    It was interesting that after this misguided attempt to get the boy 'onside', he was just as unco-operative in class as before.
    I have my suspicions that the whole thing was engineered by the film team, it felt so contrived. 
    "I have my suspicions that the whole thing was engineered by the film team, it felt so contrived."

    I think it was the Head of Year that organised it, with other Kids from the School there too.

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Taking a troubled young boy out on a trip shooting defenceless birds was a rather dubious decision on the school's part, but even worse was that they allowed a male teacher on his own to take out one of his pupils for the day.
    Is this really what happens in schools these days? So wrong, on so many levels.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    "but even worse was that they allowed a male teacher on his own to take out one of his pupils for the day."

    OMG think of the Children, have no lessons been learned since the release of the History Boys!

    As for teaching a young boy to handle a gun it's actually far more difficult to get hold of a shot gun in an inner city setting than a hand gun and knives are the weapon of choice for that region anyway.

    Contrived, yes. But attempting to reach a student by exposing them to a different world (unless in the manner of the history boys) should be encouraged.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by PetPig (U9766236) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    ''It seems to be just the element of recreation that folks can't stand. ''

    -Precisely. Why is that so difficult a viewpoint for many people to comprehend?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    OMG think of the Children, have no lessons been learned since the release of the History Boys! 

    Well, I wasn't talking only about this kind of set up being potentially open to abuse, but also about 1) the signal it sends to the boy in question and the rest of the pupils in his class, and 2) the cluelessness, if that's a word, of the school in thinking that that kind of forced 'chummy' relationship would actually help this boy.
    And judging by the boy's behaviour post-trip, it obviously achieved the opposite effect to the one intended.

    As I say, wrong on so many levels.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Would you think it wrong that my same sex as me music teacher took me to and from music exams, contests and orchestra rehersals and concerts?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Unfortunately this child obviously has family problems, sometimes reaching out to children like him can show them another way in life, sometimes they see no way out regardless of positive help given them.

    Some of these things need to be left to Charities like Kidsco

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Well, I don't know anything of the context all this happen in, so I wouldn't have a clue if it was wrong or not.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Actually I was being a bit sarcastic with my History boys comments. Please ignore.

    Sometimes we just need to let life get on with itself in a natural fashion. Children these days are far more clued up on what is abuse than when we were young. Unfortunately.

    Child abuse was just not talked about at all.

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Unfortunately this child obviously has family problems, sometimes reaching out to children like him can show them another way in life, sometimes they see no way out regardless of positive help given them.

    Some of these things need to be left to Charities like Kidsco 


    Now, on that I'm with you 100%. Camila Batmanghelidjh is the perfect example of someone that knows how to deal with this kind of situations, because she knows about them and has dedicated herself to this all her life.

    The teachers shown in this programme were young and inexperienced so I can't blame them, but the people above them really should know better when making these decisions - and they are absolutely clueless. Which I suspect is the reson why BBC3 has made this programme - it's just visual clickbait.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Yes. It's not a show for the benefit of the children, just the filmmakers.

    Maybe the BBC should do a PROPER documentary series on Kidsco. They could seriously use the money.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Absolutely.
    And maybe instead of making endless programmes about 'benefit cheats' and 'scrounging immigrants' the BBC could make one about the government's shameful policies of washing their hands of social services and passing the hot potato to local authorities and charities, and the crisis that this continuing neglect and chronic underfunding has brought about in the last few years among the most vulnerable people in society - often leaving the least qualified (like wet behind the ears teachers) to make up the shortfall.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Well, I don't know anything of the context all this happen in, so I wouldn't have a clue if it was wrong or not.  So why do you state that a teacher taking a boy out for the day on a one to one basis is wrong on so many levels? You make inferrences with no information or back up.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Er, because in this case I knew the context? It could be that in your case you were a lot older than this boy, that it was a Conservatory or one to one private tuition, and not a class in your local Year 9, and that the reason for the chaperoning was academic, and not pseudo-social services.

    I'm not talking about exceptional cases like yours, I'm talking about this kind of situation being wrong in the majority of cases.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Totally agree Turner followed by headlines of how the NHS is failing us.

    Doh what you expect, we've failed to invest properly for nearly 40 years in education AND healthcare. Makes me sick People making pronouncements on such items when they haven't a clue

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by Tom Adustus (U9467814) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I have to agree with the OP. What on earth was the thinking behind taking a disaffected boy from a difficult background on a one-to -one day out, learning to handle a gun and blast living creatures out of the air?
    It was interesting that after this misguided attempt to get the boy 'onside', he was just as unco-operative in class as before.
    I have my suspicions that the whole thing was engineered by the film team, it felt so contrived. 
    Any teenager can learn to handle a gun. Just join the local Army Cadets or ATC!!!!

    By the time I was 18 I was taught to fire a rifle, submachine gun, service pistol and fly a glider. Great fun.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Er, because in this case I knew the context? It could be that in your case you were a lot older than this boy, that it was a Conservatory or one to one private tuition, and not a class in your local Year 9, and that the reason for the chaperoning was academic, and not pseudo-social services.

    I'm not talking about exceptional cases like yours, I'm talking about this kind of situation being wrong in the majority of cases. 
    Why? On what basis is it wrong? If you prefer ignore my history and just explain why you feel it is wrong for this boy to be taken out by his teacher.
    pseudo-social services  I'm afraid I don't agree with calling it that, and still don't underdstand exactly why you think it was wrong on so many levels.

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by minnie3 (U7451737) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I am surprised that the teacher was allowed to take the boy out as he was driving his own car etc etc. On a moral level I think it was a good thing to do and he was trying to create a positive role model. Not sure about the pheasant shooting.

    I know the school and the area where it is filmed so I was quite interested.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    What did they do with the pheasants afterwards? Anyone know how to clean one? I’m not a pheasant plucker……

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Er, because in this case I knew the context? It could be that in your case you were a lot older than this boy, that it was a Conservatory or one to one private tuition, and not a class in your local Year 9, and that the reason for the chaperoning was academic, and not pseudo-social services.

    I'm not talking about exceptional cases like yours, I'm talking about this kind of situation being wrong in the majority of cases. 
    Why? On what basis is it wrong? If you prefer ignore my history and just explain why you feel it is wrong for this boy to be taken out by his teacher.
    pseudo-social services  I'm afraid I don't agree with calling it that, and still don't underdstand exactly why you think it was wrong on so many levels. 
    I don't understand either. Its not often I feel sorry for men (as a group) but they must feel besieged by this hysteria that says just being on their own with a young lad is "so wrong". Its bizarre! They are not even allowed to sit next to children on aeroplanes these days (though I've never figured out what they could possibly get up to in that situation!!)

    Presumably if this man was a teacher he had been subjected to all the rigorous checks applied to teachers these days. Why do you suspect him??
    I'd say one of the main reasons that we have so many very troubled young men in the inner cities is that they have no male role models who can set a good example. Dads nowhere to be seen and no other man allowed to go near them for fear of hysterical accusations.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    ''It seems to be just the element of recreation that folks can't stand. ''

    -Precisely. Why is that so difficult a viewpoint for many people to comprehend? 
    How do you know that the chap who works at the abattoir killing your dinner isn't secretly enjoying it, PP?? smiley - winkeye

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Well if he is then he’s picked the right job…. How many lives could have been saved had Sweeny Tod not taken up hairdressing.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Er, because in this case I knew the context? It could be that in your case you were a lot older than this boy, that it was a Conservatory or one to one private tuition, and not a class in your local Year 9, and that the reason for the chaperoning was academic, and not pseudo-social services.

    I'm not talking about exceptional cases like yours, I'm talking about this kind of situation being wrong in the majority of cases. 
    Why? On what basis is it wrong? If you prefer ignore my history and just explain why you feel it is wrong for this boy to be taken out by his teacher.
    pseudo-social services  I'm afraid I don't agree with calling it that, and still don't underdstand exactly why you think it was wrong on so many levels. 
    I don't understand either. Its not often I feel sorry for men (as a group) but they must feel besieged by this hysteria that says just being on their own with a young lad is "so wrong". Its bizarre! They are not even allowed to sit next to children on aeroplanes these days (though I've never figured out what they could possibly get up to in that situation!!)

    Presumably if this man was a teacher he had been subjected to all the rigorous checks applied to teachers these days. Why do you suspect him??
    I'd say one of the main reasons that we have so many very troubled young men in the inner cities is that they have no male role models who can set a good example. Dads nowhere to be seen and no other man allowed to go near them for fear of hysterical accusations. 


    I explained before in msg 14 that the potential for abuse is only one of my concerns - I'm more worried that this kind of 'selective' teaching sets up a situation of inequality among pupils, different tiers of care, and potential misunderstanding among the subject of this selective attention and the rest of the class alike (what did the better behaved yet left-behind pupils think?), not to mention the pressure it puts on the teacher if something goes wrong.

    Even more importantly, although well-meant, this approach is often completely counter-productive - why, because it doesn't target the reasons behind the behaviour, in fact it might backfire and exacerbate it.

    I'm all for building a personal rapport with your pupils, but it has to be fair to all involved, have clear boundaries, has to be based on something more than good intentions, and it has to be ultimately in the interest of academic development. Pheasant shooting, anyone? smiley - doh

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    "I explained before in msg 14 that the potential for abuse is only one of my concerns"

    But you did not explain why it would be a concern at all. Are all men automatically suspect?

    (Even if there hadn't been a camera team watching of course.....)

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by St Maddenus Hairy Chested Hunk (U14314874) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    I think I was the one that really inferred the abuse aspect so should bear the brunt of this from you Annie-Lou.

    I apologise for what really was facitious (sp) remarks with regards to the History boys.

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    No, St M, I realise you comment was in jest (and an understandable response really) but I don't see and other way to interpret this comment from Turner:

    "even worse was that they allowed a male teacher on his own to take out one of his pupils for the day.
    Is this really what happens in schools these days? So wrong, on so many levels."

    I think that's really sad. And the male bonding opportunities for young lads that used to be provided by scouts, sports, fishing, camping etc are endangered because men are too frightened to volunteer. They have been replaced by gang culture. No wonder we have troubled lads!

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Hush Puppy (U15983256) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    <quote postid='118554662'>No, St M, I realise you comment was in jest (and an understandable response really) but I don't see and other way to interpret this comment from Turner:

    "even worse was that they allowed a male teacher on his own to take out one of his pupils for the day.
    Is this really what happens in schools these days? So wrong, on so many levels."

    I think that's really sad. And the male bonding opportunities for young lads that used to be provided by scouts, sports, fishing, camping etc are endangered because men are too frightened to volunteer. They have been replaced by gang culture. No wonder we have troubled lads!</quote>Agree completely with what you have highlighted Annie-Lou, I'm also a little confused that Turner has replied to me and refered to me as an exceptional case.
    - <quote>I'm not talking about exceptional cases like yours, I'm talking about this kind of situation being wrong in the majority of cases.
    Can't think why Turner thinks I'm an exceptional case. I was 9 when my teachers started taking me to the things I noted, and often had tea or coffee in a cafe before or after. The school was paying for any exams I took or competitions I entered and made sure we got there and back, other teachers at school also did the same for other pupils.
    Certainly no harm came to me and my parents were also grateful, .

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by germinator hebdo (U13411914) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    No-one has yet answered the vital question with reference to life and art, does this show imitate Waterloo Road or vice-versa?

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Annie Lou and 'Jasper' (msg 35 and 36):
    I've explained already what my post meant - twice. If you want to continue to misinterpret me and think my opinions are 'sad', please do so, but I'm not going to go over the same points ad infinitum just to give you something to reply to, again and again and again - I have neither the time nor the inclination.

    And do you really mean to say that if you were the mother of a 13 old boy and his maths teacher turned up at your house to pick him up, in his own car and by himself, so the two of them could go on a pheasant-shooting bonding session, you wouldn't find anything odd about it, not even a tiny, teensy bit? Hmm, must be just me then.

    Next week: Nick gets one of his most challenging pupils to go to the local parlour together and get matching algebraic equations tattooed on their pinkies, as part of the new 'Linking Through Inking' motivational programme.

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by DaveA (U14937949) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    Personally, I think it is healthier for kids to know about how food is produced and where it comes from. They have become more and more divorced from this and it makes them wasteful, irresponsible, and willing to put any old crap in their mouths because they don't know anything about it. 

    I've been a vegetarian for about twenty five years now, but virtually the last meat I ever ate was a hare that I'd skinned and gutted in the kitchen with our three children watching and asking questions. I also think it's important that children understand where food originates.
    As an aside, I regularly come across meat eaters who claim that vegetarians want to stop them from consuming animal protein. I shall be cooking a chicken for a family lunch this weekend.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by DaveA (U14937949) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    "I explained before in msg 14 that the potential for abuse is only one of my concerns"

    But you did not explain why it would be a concern at all. Are all men automatically suspect?

    (Even if there hadn't been a camera team watching of course.....) 
    A teacher who places himself/herself in an unsupervised one-to-one situation with a student is creating a situation where they could be maliciously accused of inappropriate conduct. It's not good practice, in that situation it would be difficult to defend against an accusation. It's not just the children who are at risk.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by DaveA (U14937949) on Wednesday, 29th January 2014

    No-one has yet answered the vital question with reference to life and art, does this show imitate Waterloo Road or vice-versa?  Same scriptwriters???

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    Annie Lou and 'Jasper' (msg 35 and 36):
    I've explained already what my post meant - twice. If you want to continue to misinterpret me and think my opinions are 'sad', please do so, but I'm not going to go over the same points ad infinitum just to give you something to reply to, again and again and again - I have neither the time nor the inclination.

    And do you really mean to say that if you were the mother of a 13 old boy and his maths teacher turned up at your house to pick him up, in his own car and by himself, so the two of them could go on a pheasant-shooting bonding session, you wouldn't find anything odd about it, not even a tiny, teensy bit? Hmm, must be just me then.

    Next week: Nick gets one of his most challenging pupils to go to the local parlour together and get matching algebraic equations tattooed on their pinkies, as part of the new 'Linking Through Inking' motivational programme. 
    Right. So he just "turned up" and said "I'm taking your son out"? No discussion, no permission given?? Because I find that whenever my kids go anywhere with the school I have to fill out several forms in triplicate!

    As for "misinterpreting" you, everything you have said implies that you are worried that abuse could take place in if a man is alone with anyone under the age of 18. Is that not the case? If not, why is it "so wrong on so many levels"? What are those levels then?

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    "I explained before in msg 14 that the potential for abuse is only one of my concerns"

    But you did not explain why it would be a concern at all. Are all men automatically suspect?

    (Even if there hadn't been a camera team watching of course.....) 
    A teacher who places himself/herself in an unsupervised one-to-one situation with a student is creating a situation where they could be maliciously accused of inappropriate conduct. It's not good practice, in that situation it would be difficult to defend against an accusation. It's not just the children who are at risk. 
    "Difficult to defend" apart from by showing them the footage shot by the camera crew, eh Dave? smiley - laugh

    Maybe if the Beeb had not been tagging along he would have brought someone else?

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by DaveA (U14937949) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    "I explained before in msg 14 that the potential for abuse is only one of my concerns"

    But you did not explain why it would be a concern at all. Are all men automatically suspect?

    (Even if there hadn't been a camera team watching of course.....) 
    A teacher who places himself/herself in an unsupervised one-to-one situation with a student is creating a situation where they could be maliciously accused of inappropriate conduct. It's not good practice, in that situation it would be difficult to defend against an accusation. It's not just the children who are at risk. 
    "Difficult to defend" apart from by showing them the footage shot by the camera crew, eh Dave? smiley - laugh

    Maybe if the Beeb had not been tagging along he would have brought someone else? 
    Read the post, it was a general comment. Others (though not necessarily me) may suggest that you are deliberately ignoring points.

    Some years ago, my nephew was sexually abused by a teacher in a store room at the back of the classroom during lessons. The teacher abused a number of children in his hidey-hole. Perhaps we should recognise the lessons that the Saville scandal should have taught us. Paedophiles are very manipulative and often very clever, JS went undetected (or at least unpunished) for his entire adult life. No doubt many thought that restricting him from access to children was over reaction.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Essential Rabbit (U3613943) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    I'm completely opposed to pheasant shooting, but some of the messages here illustrate perfectly why so many blokes are terrified of even looking at someone else's child.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    Point taken, Dave. I was just pointing out that he was not, in fact, alone with the student.

    Surely the "lessons the Saville scandal should have taught us" are that children (and others who may be witnesses) should be encouraged and supported to report concerns and they should not be swept under the carpet. Not that all men are potential paedophiles and even completely innocent men must be kept away from children.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Turner (U14992668) on Thursday, 30th January 2014

    For those that *still* don't understand my position on this, a comment about tonight's programme: the right way to engage with and inspire a troubled student is the way Oliver and Charles have dealt with this tonight.

    Oliver has taken the boy with dyslexia under his wing and is giving him one to one extra tuition, and instead of trying to be his pal he's advising him on his career in business studies and academic development.
    When he's taking students out on an outing, he 1) takes the entire class, 2) chooses relevant destinations, like tonight (Greenwich Uni) - not a shot pheasant in sight.

    Charles has taken bright-but-very-disruptive Walid, along with the entire Year 10, to a farm in Wiltshire which is part of a scheme especially developed to help deprived children - staff there have been trained to deal with these kids and know how to get the best out of them.
    The one to one chat Charles and Walid had on the last night was particularly impressive.

    Both Charles and Oliver seem to be getting good results from the experience in terms of changes in behaviour (although it's early days).

    In fact, Charles expressed my opinion better than anybody else, when he said that you can relate to your pupils *better* if clear boundaries are in place: you need to keep a degree of separation, otherwise it's *unprofessional* - you're not their father, their chum or their brother, a good teacher/student relationship is one of respect and authority.
    Doing it differently doesn't help anybody and isn't fair either on student or teacher.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by selene33 (U14271316) on Friday, 31st January 2014

    I was surprised that a student teacher was allowed to do this by his supervisor. We are talking about a young man still training to be a teacher, he isn't a teacher yet.

    I've no problems with pheasants being shot & eaten, but I didn't think it was quite the right activity for the children; there are many other activities that would take them into the countryside.

    It looks to me as if it has been engineered by the production company to create dialogue on boards such as this.
    One observation though, most of the teachers are from privileged backgrounds, this surprised me a lot, I don't remember any such teachers when I was at a state school, or meeting so many from these backgrounds when I was a student. Is this another attempt by the BBC to create a political argument or is it a worrying trend that only the wealthy can train to be teachers now?

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Jelliss (U14666069) on Friday, 31st January 2014



    Next week: Nick gets one of his most challenging pupils to go to the local parlour together and get matching algebraic equations tattooed on their pinkies, as part of the new 'Linking Through Inking' motivational programme. 
    LOL!

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Friday, 31st January 2014

    For those that *still* don't understand my position on this, a comment about tonight's programme: the right way to engage with and inspire a troubled student is the way Oliver and Charles have dealt with this tonight.

    Oliver has taken the boy with dyslexia under his wing and is giving him one to one extra tuition, and instead of trying to be his pal he's advising him on his career in business studies and academic development.
    When he's taking students out on an outing, he 1) takes the entire class, 2) chooses relevant destinations, like tonight (Greenwich Uni) - not a shot pheasant in sight.

    Charles has taken bright-but-very-disruptive Walid, along with the entire Year 10, to a farm in Wiltshire which is part of a scheme especially developed to help deprived children - staff there have been trained to deal with these kids and know how to get the best out of them.
    The one to one chat Charles and Walid had on the last night was particularly impressive.

    Both Charles and Oliver seem to be getting good results from the experience in terms of changes in behaviour (although it's early days).

    In fact, Charles expressed my opinion better than anybody else, when he said that you can relate to your pupils *better* if clear boundaries are in place: you need to keep a degree of separation, otherwise it's *unprofessional* - you're not their father, their chum or their brother, a good teacher/student relationship is one of respect and authority.
    Doing it differently doesn't help anybody and isn't fair either on student or teacher. 
    Thanks for the clarification, Turner, that does help. I'm glad you found something more positive in the second episode.
    (They didn't go for tattoos then? smiley - winkeye )

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.