March 25th, 2010

For goodness’ sake

Posted in Other Stuff by 200

Sometimes you just have to put your head in your hands and wonder why…

A woman from Melksham, Wiltshire has been reprimanded by a local school & council for ‘trespassing’ on school property after she got a child down from a tree after staff left him up the tree for almost an hour. Kim Barrett was told in the letters that she had entered school grounds without permission after she became concerned for the child’s welfare, coaxed him down & took him back into school.

Wiltshire Council, who clearly have a policy for everything, said that when a child ventured into a tree ons chool grounds it was their policy not to approach them in case they became distracted & fell.

A spokesman said: “If he or any other child was in any danger, or was unable to get down from the tree, he would have been assisted either by a teacher or the fire brigade, depending on the circumstances. The only danger as far as the school was concerned was that a stranger came onto the premises and talked to the child, who was being observed.”

Hmmm, I’d have thought that the intentions of the stranger who came into the school would have become pretty clear when she brought the child back into the office. Staff said that the child was “under observations” all the time. Doubtless the risk of the child getting tired after an hour & falling out of the tree was not as great as a member of staff actually dealing with the incident rather than sit back & do nothing.

You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed. RSS 2.0


  1. Bemused says:

    The school has a policy of not approaching the child in case they become distracted and fall out of the tree? So their alternative solution of sending in a fucking fire engine would be less distracting would it??

    March 25th, 2010 at 23:52

  2. MPS Probie says:

    “…being observed”?!

    “Yup, I observed little Jonny falling out of the tree and breaking his arms.”.

    That’d be a relief for any caring parent!

    March 26th, 2010 at 00:06

  3. Oi says:

    Just unbelievable!

    Well………… it is, actually….

    March 26th, 2010 at 01:07

  4. john says:

    They were not sitting around doing nothing.
    They had called the local council, who had arranged for a health and safety person to come around and write a risk assessment, to enable the child to be safely removed from the arboreal erection.
    They were not allowed to climb the tree themselves because of the risk of so doing.
    The woman was clearly trespassing upon private property and is lucky she was not mistaken for a paedophile.
    Her goose would seriously have been cooked if she had PHOTOGRAPHED the child !

    March 26th, 2010 at 02:06

  5. Cogidubnus says:

    The Education DEpartment concerned are claiming the child was on the ground when the MOP climbed a locked gate and approached him…also the headmistress has written to parents stating quite explicitly that the child did not wish to be “rescued”….This goes beyond mere interpretation…clearly somebody (and I honestly have no idea who) is LYING.

    March 26th, 2010 at 04:48

  6. Shijuro says:

    Lol … Really … Lol

    March 26th, 2010 at 07:37

  7. Graeme says:

    I commented on this elsewhere – the tail end of the article indicates many things that just aren’t right. No discipline, no concept of the child being punished for “inappropriate behaviour” – and apparently the child’s parent supported the school’s “do nothing” approach! ere it my child, I’d be tearing the headteacher a new one!

    March 26th, 2010 at 08:21

  8. Tom Gane says:

    I’m with bemused on this one.

    What is it with this pathetic government in trying to codify behaviour and not use common sense amongst the populace..

    March 26th, 2010 at 10:11

  9. Ted says:

    A retired colleague of mine was working in a special needs school. He disarmed a 5 yr old boy who was threatening another child with a pair of scissors.

    The head teacher’s response was to reprimand him as the school policy is that they don’t physically intervene.

    Needless to say he told her he would do the same thing again. He has since left that job.

    March 26th, 2010 at 15:19

  10. Ted says:

    Typo – last should read a 15 year old boy.

    March 26th, 2010 at 15:19

  11. Ted says:

    Should read a 15 yr old boy

    March 26th, 2010 at 15:20

  12. rafanon says:

    “Excuse me young man, although you have special needs and may not understand the concept of your actions, would you mind taking this pair of scissors out of my thorax so that I may be allowed to bleed to death? I can’t do it myself because you are in too close a proximity and I may come into contact with you. Thanks very much.”

    Really, this is bloody mad! If the boy had fallen from the tree, would the parents have been so happy about him being observed?

    March 26th, 2010 at 15:48

  13. OJW says:

    policy for getting someone down from a tree? Ask the U.S. – I think they’ve discovered a method:

    March 26th, 2010 at 16:12

  14. shijuro says:

    lol that is funny – but for a few negative reasons:

    1. a person with 5-years in the job isn’t a veteran.
    2. a person that can’t tell the difference between a 500 gram taser and an
    2kg pistol – would frankly worry me.
    3. a person that cant tell the difference between ‘crackle -zzzzz’ and ‘BANG!’
    is a worry.
    4. a person that WANTS to taser someone when they are not attacking anyone
    would worry me.
    5. anyone that could say ‘ow, ok I’m coming down’ after being shot – would make
    me run away!!!!


    March 26th, 2010 at 17:27

  15. Paul United Kingdom says:

    OK this is a classic piece of “Churnalism” which started in the Daily Mail along the usual lines “Health and Safety gone mad!” the school in question has had to put out this statement.

    Firstly, may I thank you all for your many messages of support and your very obvious disbelief of the story printed in the newspaper yesterday. Unfortunately, the untrue story has been picked up by other tabloids and newspapers throughout the day, but all were based on the initial inaccurate copy. Like me, many of you have watched the story become more and more sensationalised on line. It was disappointing to watch timescales become inflated and the reported reactions of the child, the size of his climb in the tree and the location of the tree change throughout the day.
    Some of you have asked if I can share the facts with you, so that you can put people straight. I have also been asked by the child’s mother to include a statement from her, and then you can make up your own minds.
    On the 1st March, Key Stage 1 playtime ended at 11.05am. At the end of the playtime, the child concerned wanted to stay out and ran up to one of the trees on the pathway adjacent to Miss Tristram’s classroom and outdoor area whilst some of the teaching assistants on duty took the classes of children in off the playground. At 11.15am more than 130 children and seven more teaching assistants came out to the playground. In the ten minutes between the two break times, the woman was observed by one of our Key Stage 2 teaching assistants entering the vehicular gate and turning across the private staff car park rather than walking to reception. The child concerned had been sitting and then swinging on the bottom branch of the tree and was in no way stuck and was not distressed. The woman then climbed the padlocked gate that separates the car park and the playground, walked past Miss Tristram and Mrs Lee’s classrooms and approached the child who was standing on the path, having exited the tree. The child was reluctant to talk to her and walk with her. The woman was then intercepted by a teaching assistant who took her to see Mr Hester. Mr Hester took the woman back on to the playground during Key Stage 2 playtime and asked her to identify the tree and then challenged her regarding her entrance to the school via a locked gateway. At this point the woman became more verbally aggressive and exited by climbing back over the locked gateway. The whole incident including the discussion with Mr Hester was over in less than fifteen minutes.
    The child’s mother has asked me to communicate this to you:
    “I am amazed at the gullibility of the press and some of the general public. My child was never stuck in a tree and was very unhappy about a stranger approaching him in his school. I appreciate that the woman may have thought that she was doing the right thing, but there are proper procedures to follow and she shouldn’t walk past classrooms and staff to get at a child. The staff were doing their job and were fully aware that my son was there. They were also aware that a stranger was approaching him. They intercepted her to ensure there was no possibility of my son being removed from the premises. All I can say is thank God the staff behaved in the manner they did. I don’t know what the lady’s intentions were but I am really glad that I didn’t have to wait to find out. I fully support the actions of the school both before the incident and since.”

    Read more:

    The school had also made an earlier statement.

    The police have been informed about all three incidents involving the woman concerned and many of you will have noticed the additional police presence lately and the presence of staff on the school boundary. Following the police involvement, the woman concerned has not returned to the school boundary, other than to have her photograph taken outside the school gate.

    April 1st, 2010 at 11:24

Leave a comment