Dumbbell attack: the teacher has been fired.Peter Harvey, the teacher who notoriously hit a pupil with a dumbbell following a string of both physical and verbal attacks over months has now been sacked from his job.
Instead of allowing early retirement on grounds of ill health, Harvey's employer decided to end what had been a 20-year-long "exemplary" teaching career without notice, leaving the 50-year-old teacher with no income and zero career prospects.
But if punishment is meant to offer deterrence and rehabilitation, how is this decision supposed to do any good?
14 comments:
I'm afraid I can't really agree here; in the course of his employment in a position of responsibility, he committed an assault upon a child. While there were undoubtedly mitigating factors in respect of the criminal case, he did plead guilty to assault.
I know that policemen under investigation for dodgy business often "retire", but two wrongs do not make a right, and allowing a teacher convicted of an offence of violence in the classroom to retire and draw a pension would set a dangerous precedent. In my view, there really was no practical alternative.
But then the chaps who stuck a bullet or seven into Jean Charles de Menezes' head are treated like heroes...and will enjoy all the perks when they retire.
The teacher cracked. This was illness, not malice or criminality. The school should have stood behind him — and not with a knife. Appalling moral leadership and just bloody callous.
He was in a position of responsibility and he was not equal to the task buckling under extreme pressure. I have sympathy for his plight but he should have been punished. Doubtless the child concerned was a little toe rag. However a teacher assaulting a pupil can never be justified except in self defence. I know we all agree on that and the question is was his punishment too harsh. But arguing that the teacher had cracked and was therefore no longer sane is a none starter. If he was nuts he should not have been a teacher.
Paul,
yeah, no-one's saying he should have carried on being a teacher. His position would have been untanable anyway.
The question though is:
1) do you sack him like they did or:
2) agree some early retirement based on ill-health.
Given all the huge mitigating factors that led to him losing it, I'm personally appalled at his employers' total lack of compassion and no consideration whatsoever for what's going to happen to that man and his family (from what I gather he has two ill kids apparently).
I think Madam Miaow has it down and utterly spot on.
'Given all the huge mitigating factors that led to him losing it, I'm personally appalled at his employers' total lack of compassion and no consideration whatsoever for what's going to '
I share your concerns for his family. But seriously isn't it more than likely that all of the mitigating factors were considered? I mean he struck a pupil across the head with a dumbbell, that's not like clipping some scrotes ear (for which you would be sacked) or even giving someone a bloody nose. That level of force could easily lead to a murder charge. I know none of us are naive enough to believe differently, but a worrying precedent would be set by pensioning off such an individual instead. I mean feeling stressed? Simply whack some classroom gobshite and you get an early retirement bingo! If our government sacks two Royal Marines for assaulting a prisoner in Afghanistan (who was reportedly an IED maker) then I cannot understand why a teacher who hits a pupil should escape opprobrium or retribution.
"That level of force could easily lead to a murder charge."
If his breakdown ended in a person's death, it would surely be manslaughter, not murder.
"Simply whack some classroom gobshite and you get an early retirement bingo!"
On paper perhaps, in a tabloid writer's fevered imagination, indubitably, but hardly in real life. There's also an element of shame in this professional losing it in front of his students.
"retribution"
What is this, the Bible?
Sorry to butt in and by no means am I saying dismissal should be taken lightheartedly, if anything because it can happen to anybody, anytime.
Compassion and mitigating circumstances all round, fine, but at the end of the day if all employers refrained from sacking staff for gross misconduct (ie whacking other people round the head with a 3kg dumbbell) on the basis of "oh poor sod what's he gonna do now who's gonna employ him/her" then all sorts of barbarities would go unchecked at work.
Basically I agree with Paul. If you break the law you have to face up to responsibility. We can all say we just saw red and flew off the handle and then get away with severe GBH, right?
'"That level of force could easily lead to a murder charge."
If his breakdown ended in a person's death, it would surely be manslaughter, not murder.'
I accept your point MM but the likelihood still is a murder charge. Only by pleading diminished responsibility could he have it reduced to manslaughter and that is never given he would risk of course having such an argument rejected.
'"Simply whack some classroom gobshite and you get an early retirement bingo!"
On paper perhaps, in a tabloid writer's fevered imagination, indubitably, but hardly in real life. '
Well similar things have happened though in the public sector. If it is possible to bend the rules some people will take the p@@s. I know it sounds daily mail but I personally know of a former copper, who was on full pay from the police suffering from stress. Guess where I met him? In Iraq where he worked as a bodyguard! Fortunately he was later sacked and imprisoned. This illustrates for me that some if rules are lenient they can be abused by the disingenuous.
'"retribution"
What is this, the Bible?'
Yep so what? I mean it is and always has been part of criminal justice. Although I don't think we're exactly talking Deuteronomy here.
" ... a former copper, who was on full pay from the police suffering from stress. Guess where I met him? In Iraq where he worked as a bodyguard! "
Yep, that's coppers for you.
"Yep so what? I mean it is and always has been part of criminal justice."
How very Dark Ages of you.
This discussion is going sideways from what it started out as. MM- You know I like and respect your work but you've really gone off on one. I mean just outline for me why a teacher should be treated leniently for striking a pupil with a dumbbell but a Marine should be sacked for mistreating a prisoner in Afghanistan? That is the point I made. Perhaps you cannot and that is my point I'm arguing for the fair application of standards across the board. Not some kind of 'dark ages' vindictiveness. I'm not sure where that 'vindictive' comment of yours came from but retribution to one extent or another has existed and continues to exist in every single criminal justice system the world over. I could point you in the direction of much more retributive regimes (China, some American states) than the one I'm suggesting.
Forgive my levity, Paul. If this was some sadistic b'strd who had form I would entirely agree with you that he should be sacked and lose his pension. The fact that this is a well respected and liked teacher who broke under the strain changes that.
I think in a civilised society he should have been given TLC and profession treatment, and an assessment made whether he was fit to teach. I can imagine parents may not want to take the risk, in which case he should have been pensioned off and looked after as a sort of casualty of war.
We are losing the ability to feel compassion and empathy, and that is worrying.
I'm with Madam Miaow. Especially the statement:
"We are losing the ability to feel compassion and empathy, and that is worrying.".
The fact that the two Royal Marines mentioned by Paul were (wrongly, in my opinion) sacked, doesn't mean that the teacher in question should deserve the same fate.
Post a Comment