Is it any wonder there is a shortage of teachers...?'I have balanced these factors by using the pupil’s chosen name, and although I did not intentionally refer to the pupil as a “girl”, I do not believe it is unreasonable to call someone a girl if they were born a girl.’
Ha, not turned on at all, just admiring the selective journalism of Labour Daily News....evensteadiereddie wrote:Perhaps it's because only you two are turned on by this stuff.......................
I'll assume that was mine then.....Lancasterclaret wrote:One intelligent answer so far.
HatfieldClaret wrote:Can't find any mention of it in the Guardian online, funnily enough......
I must have misunderstood the article!!!Imploding Turtle wrote:Let's be clear about what he's accused of, because i'm sure most of you didn't bother reading the whole article.
He's accused of repeatedly referring to the boy as a girl and using female pronouns. He is open about his refusal to refer to the kid as "he" or "him" saying that forcing him to do so affects his human rights. (I'd be interested to know what those who think this is all leftist nonsense think of that defence). He's accused of inappropriately raising religion as a topic in his maths class.
The investigation concluded that he was being a **** to a child and suspended him for being a **** to a child. If he wants to single out any child as different, and thus open that child up to bullying, then he has no business being a teacher. But if he wants to change his attitude and treat all kids equally then i see no reason why he can't resume his career after he's served his suspension.
But the guy is clearly a ****.
I don't disagree. I'd read the article and whilst I can read into it exactly what you have, the undisputed allegation in isolation should be enough for a warning but not dismissal on the basis of the account in the article, regarding his conduct in school. His subsequent spouting in public to justify his behaviour since is far worse than the "accidental" initial incident.Imploding Turtle wrote:Let's be clear about what he's accused of, because i'm sure most of you didn't bother reading the whole article.
He's accused of repeatedly referring to the boy as a girl and using female pronouns. He is open about his refusal to refer to the kid as "he" or "him" saying that forcing him to do so affects his human rights. (I'd be interested to know what those who think this is all leftist nonsense think of that defence). He's accused of inappropriately raising religion as a topic in his maths class.
The investigation concluded that he was being a **** to a child and suspended him for being a **** to a child. If he wants to single out any child as different, and thus open that child up to bullying, then he has no business being a teacher. But if he wants to change his attitude and treat all kids equally then i see no reason why he can't resume his career after he's served his suspension.
But the guy is clearly a ****.
It's about allegations and proof. As I said, entirely agree if the additional stuff can be proven.Imploding Turtle wrote:You think punishing a teacher for singling out a child and opening them up to ridicule by their classmates because they're transgender sets more of a dangerous precedent than the reason he's being punished?
If it was a one-off mistake then of course this would be ridiculous punishment, but it's not. He's done it repeatedly, and he even refuses to use gender specific pronouns for this particular pupil because he things being forced to do so violates his human rights.
And it's not just about his bullying of this kid, he's also being punished for inappropriately bringing up religion during math classes. I believe we already have a thread running about inappropriate religious **** in a school.
How can it ever be OK to refuse to treat one kid the same as the other kids? If this was a racial discrimination issue there's no way you'd stand for it, I assume, so why should it be OK for a teacher to intentionally treat him differently just because he's transgender?
I know that. But it is one of the range of outcomes possible.Imploding Turtle wrote:He hasn't been dismissed.
No. The Daily Mail might want you to think he was suspended for that one incident but once you read the article, all of it, you realise that it's more than just that incident. That incident might have been the catalyst for an investigation, but there's nothing to suggest he's been suspended solely for that incident (except the Mail's choice of headline, of course)Lowbankclaret wrote:IT , I think we both concentrating on different aspects of the article.
I see your point if the teacher was singling out this particular child. The incident he is suspended for is saying Good work girls aimed at more than one pupil.
I also pick up on the issue he does not want to refer to the girl as a he or him. Surely you can concede that a pupil dressed as a girl, you might make the mistake of saying girls. I might be corrected but I don't think the pupil could be dressing as a boy and using the boys loo's as I don't think that currently allowed but I could be wrong.
I don't think he should pick out any child, but it does not appear he intentionally did so.
Intentional bullying or harassment is something I have fought several times at work and will never support anyone who does that.
I just don't think he did so where as you think he did.
The article clearly says that he was suspended because there had been a transgender complaint. Not several complaints, just one.Imploding Turtle wrote:No. The Daily Mail might want you to think he was suspended for that one incident but once you read the article, all of it, you realise that it's more than just that incident. That incident might have been the catalyst for an investigation, but there's nothing to suggest he's been suspended solely for that incident (except the Mail's choice of headline, of course)
Such Issues are the reason why a mate of mine packed in teaching.The problem for teachers is that there are so many things that he or she (or it) is simply not allowed to express. The suggestion that marriage is between a man and a woman is one of those mentioned in the above article; the suggestion that a person with female genitalia is not male is another. There is apparently no room for diversity of this sort in today's schools; and in my opinion there should be. But if in fact one teacher expresses the opinion that a man can't marry another man, and the opinion that the Bible's or the Koran's or the Torah's teachings on marriage and divorce have merit, then they're potentially in trouble.
There has been a lot of defence of James McLean on this board because he chooses to plough his own furrow on the poppy. The gist of the argument is that it's a free country and he should be entitled to his own opinion. My worry is that if teachers are given a prescribed set of opinions that they must hold, then will children ever learn that there are several opinions to most subjects' how to cope with people holding other opinions; or even that it is permissible to change their own minds? Diversity is IMO a good thing, even in deciding whether a boy is a boy or a girl or a girl is a girl or a boy. Or neither.
But it can't work both ways. If people hold the view that James McLean MUST wear a poppy on his shirt whilst playing for WBA then the same people must hold the view that teachers should follow the rules laid out in their teaching contract, or whatever agreement is in place.dsr wrote:The problem for teachers is that there are so many things that he or she (or it) is simply not allowed to express. The suggestion that marriage is between a man and a woman is one of those mentioned in the above article; the suggestion that a person with female genitalia is not male is another. There is apparently no room for diversity of this sort in today's schools; and in my opinion there should be. But if in fact one teacher expresses the opinion that a man can't marry another man, and the opinion that the Bible's or the Koran's or the Torah's teachings on marriage and divorce have merit, then they're potentially in trouble.
There has been a lot of defence of James McLean on this board because he chooses to plough his own furrow on the poppy. The gist of the argument is that it's a free country and he should be entitled to his own opinion. My worry is that if teachers are given a prescribed set of opinions that they must hold, then will children ever learn that there are several opinions to most subjects' how to cope with people holding other opinions; or even that it is permissible to change their own minds? Diversity is IMO a good thing, even in deciding whether a boy is a boy or a girl or a girl is a girl or a boy. Or neither.
BullshitSuch Issues are the reason why a mate of mine packed in teaching.
I remember him telling me that he was once reported for mispronouncing an East European girls name.
Lancasterclaret wrote:Bullshit
Shouldn't that be "one answer I agree with so far"?Lancasterclaret wrote:One intelligent answer so far.
I never did say that. I don't agree with what he says, but I accept he has the right to say it.Spijed wrote:But it can't work both ways. If people hold the view that James McLean MUST wear a poppy on his shirt whilst playing for WBA then the same people must hold the view that teachers should follow the rules laid out in their teaching contract, or whatever agreement is in place.
You simply cannot say a teacher should have free speech, yet a footballer can't!
I wouldn't ever use the phrase 'man up' because I think it's anachronistic and grounded in a misplaced sense of masculinity, but how about having the strength of conviction in your own ideals and the courage to speak up on such matters without the need to delegate the articulation of your worldview to your toff boyfriend, Douglas F.ucking Murray?Dazzler wrote:I would be interested in what Stephen Fry and Douglas Murray thought of it.