Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Intervene?

Man of the People, David Cameron; said yesterday:

'If children are misbehaving we should say something. If we're met by a volley of abuse then other adults have a duty to intervene. We don't want to live in a walk-on-by society.'

This is absolutely right, however if unlike Mr Cameron; you aren't fortunate enough to have a bodyguard or two, then intervening can often lead to a beating or worse. Peter Woodhams discovered this, as have many others.

Mind you; if you are lucky enough to escape or get the better of these 'misbehaving children' then rest assured the present legal system will ensure that you are prosecuted for something.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course it is only right to prosecute any intolerant adult, especially of the teaching variety, who dares to intimidate and traumatize thse children who are wonderfully aware of every single one of their human rights. Soon, it will be a punishable offence to invade their air space.

Tom Welsh said...

"If children are misbehaving we should say something".

Reminds me of the bit in "Lucky Jim" where the obnoxious professor has just ended some dimwitted remarks by exclaiming, "My word!"

"Quickly deciding on his own word, Dixon said it to himself repeatedly..."

lilyofthefield said...

If it were capable of parody I would mock it. But it isn't. It's beyond it and that's what so very depressing.

Anonymous said...

Is this not the problem? That the people running the country really believe that if only the great British public would step in and tell these oiks off for being naughty when they're out and about then things would soon be alright.

Could you be much more out of touch with reality? Do they live in this country? In this century? Why on earth do these people, with no experience of modern teaching (or, in fact, of normal life in Britain) imagine that they know better than the teachers dealing with this kind of behaviour daily?

I am screechingly frustrated.

-Rosie

Tom Welsh said...

It has occurred to me that there are other good reasons for not intervening, apart from the risk of being stabbed and the probability of being prosecuted. Namely, thanks to the systematic confusion that has been deliberately built up over who is a "child", great louts of 17-18 are routinely described as children by those with a vested interest in stirring up trouble.

Even if it were possible to intervene safely, it would most likely be quite useless. If parents have allowed their offspring to reach near-adulthood without educating or civilising them, what chance does a random stranger have of doing so? The best age to inculcate good manners is about 2-5, when a sharp word or a tiny tap on the wrist works wonders. By the age when they cause real trouble, young people's minds are firmly closed to the possibility of listening.

Besides, the parents who neglected to bring them up properly would probably be first in line to bash any stranger who dare criticise their darlings.

Anonymous said...

Can't we just hug them?