what an idiot

[bolt pp]

There's no suggestion of mental illness. From all available evidence he just completely lost his temper. Basicallly, what Bolt said.

When someone suffers years of verbal or physical abuse and turn on the persons/person responsible for it in fit of rage and lose it for a short time, that is legal defence in court..Hence why so many women who do their partners in get off with it.

[X] True

[ ] Classed as Mental illness

[kukushkin88]

The massive difference in this case and it is a huge difference, is that he tried to kill a child. You see the law quite rightly views children very differently to adults. His crime based on all the evidence that has been made available to the public at this stage is indefensible.

[Swordpoker]

Ok,  I agree he shouldn't have lost his temper.  It is easy to say, but sometimes hard to do.  I never lose my cool, not even a angry thought, I usually count to ten and then change the subject, etc if I am feeling negative.

Easy preventative measure for the future: If the teachers can't count to ten then don't employ them.

[seven2unsuited]

Thinking back on school days i'm surprised more than one teacher didn't try to kick my head in.

[Steve Swift]

Wow,

How did i miss this one.

I work in a school as a college Lecturer teaching Construction and the Built Environment, and i am glad this issue as been raised. It is well overdue. ( No i don't teach English so shhhhhhhh )

Of course this is wrong, no sane person could say differently, but am i surprised, ROFL, LMAO hell noooooooooooooooooo.
It was only a question of when and by whom. I see staff "ABUSED" on a daily basis.  I personally have been struck by a student, been verbally abused and have had  items stolen from me.  I go to work shortly and if you wish i could post what happens today at school and i will cast iron guarantee you i will easily be able to demonstrate abuse.

When i read of the incident and the lead up to it, i could identify with that daily routine, the man cracked up, plain and simple.  The comments raised by his previous students tell you all you need to know about his character. He/We get no support from Management and the parents, like in this case, believe little Johny to be angel ROFL. I would happily hand out flyers and debate with those that want to pop in for a chat to say we shouldn't.

I have also voiced support for CCTV previously, i have nothing to hide film me every day, No Ofsted required, no lesson observation and parents can see Johny being an Angel at any time of the day.  I have infact told my students that we have CCTV, and sometimes i address the child's parents in this imaginary CCTV ( alking to myself in a corridor syndrome hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm). asking Mum and Dad if they are ok with Johnny's choice of Vocabulary! etc.

I have long been saying to my colleagues that it only  a matter of time before one of us Formal report to the Police of the abuse we receive, maybe this sorry incident will get this topic the publicity it needs.

Sigh, now i am depressed and not looking forward to another day of abuse. I am one of the lucky ones, i am an ex Royal Engineer Sergeant Major and i am strong, firm and friendly and i suffer a lot less than my nicer gentler workmates.

Any way how's the poker


Steve

[boldie]

Diary of a teacher...(in a non-porn sort of way)....interesting...go on then Steve!

[kinboshi]

nope the guy didnt get remanded to a mental health unit or anything,  just jail, i'm sure after four days of interviews and assessment's the authorities couldve determined if he was mentally ill or not and theres been no mention of it.

look, i dont mind bashing people over the head with metal, sometimes in life shit happends, but this guy, a 49 year old, in charge of children, entrusted with the responsibility of looking after and educating them got pissed off and couldnt control himself.

plenty people get pissed off and lose control, i'm not saying it doesnt happen but if a 32 year old bashes a 25 year old to death because he was pissing him off them thats up to them but when a 49 year old attacks and tries to kill a 14 year old child for whom he was responsible at the time then that makes him a tosser and a complete fucking coward in my book

Isn't it up to the court to determine his state of mind at the time during the case?  The prosecution service might charge him with murder, but it's up to a judge and jury to determine the sentence based on the evidence supplied.

[bolt pp]

nope the guy didnt get remanded to a mental health unit or anything,  just jail, i'm sure after four days of interviews and assessment's the authorities couldve determined if he was mentally ill or not and theres been no mention of it.

look, i dont mind bashing people over the head with metal, sometimes in life shit happends, but this guy, a 49 year old, in charge of children, entrusted with the responsibility of looking after and educating them got pissed off and couldnt control himself.

plenty people get pissed off and lose control, i'm not saying it doesnt happen but if a 32 year old bashes a 25 year old to death because he was pissing him off them thats up to them but when a 49 year old attacks and tries to kill a 14 year old child for whom he was responsible at the time then that makes him a tosser and a complete fucking coward in my book

Isn't it up to the court to determine his state of mind at the time during the case?  The prosecution service might charge him with murder, but it's up to a judge and jury to determine the sentence based on the evidence supplied.

what i'm saying is the judge remanded him to jail, he's never getting bail obv but the judge wouldve been directed by the prosecution to have him detained in a mental health unit instead if he had had a mental breakdown, you cant send people who have mental problems to the extent of a breakdown to prison.

temporary insanity is a different thing, plausible and i'm probably sure its the way he'll go at trial but not having been sectioned or remanded to a mental health unit doesent really help that cause.

I dont know the intricices(medical or legal) of temporary insanity but ive got a rough idea and from what i understand about it it's still no excuse or absolution for what he did.

where is robert? he knows about this stuff.

[kinboshi]

nope the guy didnt get remanded to a mental health unit or anything,  just jail, i'm sure after four days of interviews and assessment's the authorities couldve determined if he was mentally ill or not and theres been no mention of it.

look, i dont mind bashing people over the head with metal, sometimes in life shit happends, but this guy, a 49 year old, in charge of children, entrusted with the responsibility of looking after and educating them got pissed off and couldnt control himself.

plenty people get pissed off and lose control, i'm not saying it doesnt happen but if a 32 year old bashes a 25 year old to death because he was pissing him off them thats up to them but when a 49 year old attacks and tries to kill a 14 year old child for whom he was responsible at the time then that makes him a tosser and a complete fucking coward in my book

Isn't it up to the court to determine his state of mind at the time during the case?  The prosecution service might charge him with murder, but it's up to a judge and jury to determine the sentence based on the evidence supplied.

what i'm saying is the judge remanded him to jail, he's never getting bail obv but the judge wouldve been directed by the prosecution to have him detained in a mental health unit instead if he had had a mental breakdown, you cant send people who have mental problems to the extent of a breakdown to prison.

temporary insanity is a different thing, plausible and i'm probably sure its the way he'll go at trial but not having been sectioned or remanded to a mental health unit doesent really help that cause.

I dont know the intricices(medical or legal) of temporary insanity but ive got a rough idea and from what i understand about it it's still no excuse or absolution for what he did.

where is robert? he knows about this stuff.

He won't be reprimanded under the mental health act if there weren't previous medical decisions on this.  He might plead temporary insanity, but he'd still be held in a normal facility until the trial sentencing.

[david3103]

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act. Temporary insanity is claimed as a defense whether or not the accused is mentally stable at the time of trial. One difficulty with a temporary insanity defense is the problem of proof, since any examination by psychiatrists had to be after the fact, so the only evidence must be the conduct of the accused immediately before or after the crime. It is similar to the defenses of "diminished capacity" to understand one's own actions, the so-called "twinky defense," the "abuse excuse," "heat of passion," and other claims of mental disturbance which raise the issue of criminal intent based on modern psychiatry and/or sociology. However, mental derangement at the time of an abrupt crime, such as a sudden attack or crime of passion, can be a valid defense, or at least show lack of premeditation to reduce the degree of the crime

[bolt pp]

nope the guy didnt get remanded to a mental health unit or anything,  just jail, i'm sure after four days of interviews and assessment's the authorities couldve determined if he was mentally ill or not and theres been no mention of it.

look, i dont mind bashing people over the head with metal, sometimes in life shit happends, but this guy, a 49 year old, in charge of children, entrusted with the responsibility of looking after and educating them got pissed off and couldnt control himself.

plenty people get pissed off and lose control, i'm not saying it doesnt happen but if a 32 year old bashes a 25 year old to death because he was pissing him off them thats up to them but when a 49 year old attacks and tries to kill a 14 year old child for whom he was responsible at the time then that makes him a tosser and a complete fucking coward in my book

Isn't it up to the court to determine his state of mind at the time during the case?  The prosecution service might charge him with murder, but it's up to a judge and jury to determine the sentence based on the evidence supplied.

what i'm saying is the judge remanded him to jail, he's never getting bail obv but the judge wouldve been directed by the prosecution to have him detained in a mental health unit instead if he had had a mental breakdown, you cant send people who have mental problems to the extent of a breakdown to prison.

temporary insanity is a different thing, plausible and i'm probably sure its the way he'll go at trial but not having been sectioned or remanded to a mental health unit doesent really help that cause.

I dont know the intricices(medical or legal) of temporary insanity but ive got a rough idea and from what i understand about it it's still no excuse or absolution for what he did.

where is robert? he knows about this stuff.

He won't be reprimanded under the mental health act if there weren't previous medical decisions on this.  He might plead temporary insanity, but he'd still be held in a normal facility until the trial sentencing.

that is for sure not true, i'm 100% about that.

just because he hasent been flagged by the system before why does that matter, what if it turns out he has schizophrenia and they thought he did but just put him on remand and he killed 5 other inmates? or if he had had a complete breakdown in it's truest sense he wouoldn t be able to function, he'd be a wreck and would need continual medical care and supervision, he physically couldnt go to prison.

there are a lot of cases where i imagine the committing of a crime is the first notification the state has of someone with a mental illness, you cant just cart those people off to prison just because they dont seem to have any histroy of mental illness, think how much worse they'd get.

He would've 100% seen mental health workes and doctors when he was detained and they wouldve assessed whether or not he was fit to be remanded to prison or if he was severely unwell and should be detained under the mental health act.

If someone is running round the street naked climbing up trees and throwing excrement at passes by that guy is gonna get detained under the mental health act, they not gonna care if it's his first time or not, if he's got any mental history or who he is, that's the procedures they follow.

[cia260895]

its easy to read the story and say "what a twat" but to flip and do this, the guy is clearly no longer mentally stable.

whether this is the case or not, everyone, no matter how mentally stable or usually placid, will have their tipping point I think.  In situations like this the key is ensuring that everyone can work together to ensure that teachers don't get pushed past that point.  We don't know all the details in this case, but I'd be surprised if other people connected with the school were unaware of the issues before this unfortunate incident came to pass.  

good posts. Maybe there will be litigation against the school in this instance for letting a known vulnerable be re-exposed to this situation. Imagine someone like a doctor or a ticket inspector were regularly exposed to this kind of thing, the courts would be full of compensation cases.
I was reminiscing with my ma recently about an old friend, who was a teacher at my primary school. Much admired by all, my mum pointed out. And she was, a talented woman, who rose fast within her profession. Ma was a bit shocked when I pointed out that she had a temper from hell and would be fantastically violent to kids in assembly. I remember some kid, about 10 was playing up, she just dragged him up to the front, by his hair, and shook the living daylights out of him. Got me thinking about all of my schooling lol, it was actually littered with violent incidents of this kind. I once stepped out of line in primary school, was asked to come to the front by the teacher, who removed a large kind of solid leather covered weapon from his jacket, and proceeded to smash it as hard as he could into the palms of my hands. I was 11 ffs, committed a minor offence, and yet routine acts of violence to kids like this were perfectly permissable, and quite commonplace. We seem to have turned a corner as a society and hopefully look back on this kind of thing with rightful horror. Maybe the teacher in question was brought up in such a culture, just reached for a weight instead of a ferula.
Not really making a point I guess, just amuses me how it was once permissable and now we would imprison these people. I often feel like suing the bastards, but I guess the law was on their side at the time.

Not that i would wish to condone teachers carrying leather weapons to smack kids around with, but in years past the teachers wouldnt have had to deal with the crap that the kids can get away with now.

its gone to far the other way now and the teachers dont have any power at all and the kids know it. IWe need to go back a bit and find some middle ground to allow the teachers to dish out some discipline. As a parent, if my son was out of order i would have no problem with him getting the cane across the backside to teach him a lesson.

cant say I agree with this Alex,the cane does absolutely nothing 99% of the time,i was forever getting the cane at school fk me i got 6 stripes then followed with another 6 cos i laughed when 1 of the other boys was hollering and jumping around the headmasters office like a banshee,

I would say that i would have got the cane around a dozen times whilst at school and I never thought once that after i had had it i wouldn't do what I had just done to deserve it again.

What they should have done is taken away the things that i enjoyed doing like playing in all the school sports teams PE running etc, but no not once did they do this as the cane was a quicker alternative.I mean getting the cane was better than getting a detention,a 5 minute bollocking then outta there.
The kids of today do seem to have too much of an easy ride when it comes to being disciplined and exactly how will they learn from this?

whats the answer who knows?

Obv the kid in this incident whatever he done/said did not warrant this type of reaction,but the teacher would have just flipped red mist came down and lost it big time.That can happen to anyone at any time its just very unfortunate that he was a teacher,

 the school/education authority should have assessed him better before returning him to the classroom.

he will get charged with attempted murder but will plea temporary insanity or whatever when it goes to trial as this was not premeditated.

All obv IMO

[bolt pp]

exactly the same thing happends when someone gets pissed of with a baby cia, "the red mist comes down" and they "flip out" and shake the baby to death or throw it across the room, no one says "ah well the red mist came down, they just lost it, it happends", everyone calls them disgusting child killers, why is this different?

[cia260895]

exactly the same thing happends when someone gets pissed of with a baby cia, "the red mist comes down" and they "flip out" and shake the baby to death or throw it across the room, no one says "ah well the red mist came down, they just lost it, it happends", everyone calls them disgusting child killers, why is this different?

I am not saying it is any different,what i was saying was i can understand why it happened,obv the same principle applies to the kiddie killers but then more often than not its social services that fail the child just like in this case the authorities allowed this to happen,but who knows what checking procedures they have in place?

[MANTIS01]

exactly the same thing happends when someone gets pissed of with a baby cia, "the red mist comes down" and they "flip out" and shake the baby to death or throw it across the room, no one says "ah well the red mist came down, they just lost it, it happends", everyone calls them disgusting child killers, why is this different?

Babies don't know the difference between right & wrong, they don't cry to provoke a reaction, they don't cry to be malicious, they just cry instinctively with no thought and no concept of consequence. On the other hand a teenager knows tormenting another person will make that person feel bad, the insults are designed to provoke a response, there is malice in it. So it's very different. Somebody reacting negatively to the innocence of a baby's cry isn't near somebody reacting negatively to conscious & orchestrated malice from a young adult.