Would you pay for the child's coat?

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

I was always ripping clothges as a kid, by myself or playing with others, and i was made to mend them myself. While I agree totally with everything you have said the OP cannot control the behaviour of coat -mother, and so has to respond accordingly. I think she has found good middle ground, and being an optimist I see it as a good learning oppertunity for her son.

I agree Lost! I think the OP has been extremely good in the situation but I think another lesson that her son is learning is that nasty bullies often do get their own way these days:o and that there is something "wrong" in playing around in the school yard when in fact, as Jet points out, he had already realised that fabric is not indestructible and had learnt the natural lesson from his actions and thus a rebuke and being made to apologise would have been sufficient (imo) had it not been for the ridiculous coat-mother:D .

I think coat-mother would die if she had mine! They come home covered in mud more often than not, the eldest plays rugby so often that I could do with a separate washing machine on the go just for his clothes, and I have lost count of the number of pairs of trousers and polo shirts torn (and often repaired rather obviously:D ) over the years: but they are happy, healthy, slim kids who expend energy and do what kids are MEANT to do and I would much prefer that to wrapping them in cotton-wool so that their overpriced clothes did not get spoilt.

moggylover

jellyhead wrote: »

Maybe it's been exaggerated and he just fell over? I can't believe that two boys could tell the teacher that they did actually drag a kid around the playground (why didn't he let go?!) and then not be punished for it - the teacher clearly thinks the two boys didn't drag the boy very far, and don't deserve detention.

Incidents like this will no doubt lead to the banning of hoops, or even playing - in our primary no toys are allowed because they cause too many arguments and the head has better things to do than mediate between all the squabbling children at the end of every break or lunch time.

They have even banned running at the primary my boy will go to, because parents complained about grazes and holes in the knees of trousers.

I just don't see anything odd in being dragged around in the first place - I can remember lots of equally rough play from my own school days - it often caused grazed knees and tears but that was part of the learning process and I simply don't see it as "bad behaviour" or "agression" - just play.

As to the attitude of the head at your school - he sounds a lot like the lazy so and so at ours! It is his JOB to teach children the mediation processes just as much as it is to teach them maths or science, and playground battles and arguments are a natural part of the learning process so that if we remove them we also remove a large part of the very necessary "learning to live together and compromise" that is necessary throughout life.

As to banning kids from running! Strewth, I really despair for the future of our World if this sort of rubbish keeps happening:rolleyes: . Sod their trousers! Buy them cheap ones, or patch the damaged ones! They need to expend energy in order to be able to concentrate in class and also in order to keep fit! Better the cost of a few pairs of trousers than diabetes or obesity in the making:rolleyes:

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I agree Lost! I think the OP has been extremely good in the situation but I think another lesson that her son is learning is that nasty bullies often do get their own way these days:o and that there is something "wrong" in playing around in the school yard when in fact, as Jet points out, he had already realised that fabric is not indestructible and had learnt the natural lesson from his actions and thus a rebuke and being made to apologise would have been sufficient (imo) had it not been for the ridiculous coat-mother:D .

I think coat-mother would die if she had mine! They come home covered in mud more often than not, the eldest plays rugby so often that I could do with a separate washing machine on the go just for his clothes, and I have lost count of the number of pairs of trousers and polo shirts torn (and often repaired rather obviously:D ) over the years: but they are happy, healthy, slim kids who expend energy and do what kids are MEANT to do and I would much prefer that to wrapping them in cotton-wool so that their overpriced clothes did not get spoilt.

see, I think the lesson is that damage caused, or contributed by one, should be put right. I would suggest that the bully lesson will be voided by OP's refusal to roll over and pay full amount and taking seriously any bullying that might be whipped up. Its also why I suggested having some kids over for pizza, the Ops son will learn that tact and kindness and quietly taking responsibilty (apart from Op's direction to her son to say if questioned that coat-mother has been complied with my suggestion would be it isn't discussed) are generally more popular than bossy whinging or gossiping

Yes, its great kids are playing, and rough play is pretty good for them IMO, but there is a difference between physical rough play and overstepping a very fine to something less good. None of us shall know what really happened with that, even OP, and i think the point about physical respect...not discouraging rough physical play when appropriate, is valid.

moggylover

Jet wrote: »

When my son fell off the school climbing frame and lost one of his adult teeth, half of another adult tooth and split his lip and face so badly he needed 8 stitches, this was the Mum who asked me "have you found out who pushed him?" She couldn't accept my response of that my son was simply playing and he fell. She thought I should sue the school. :rolleyes:

I was devastated for my son and his face is more precious than any item of clothing I could ever buy, obviously. The incident cost me money in that I needed time off work, the costs to get to hospital (65 miles round trip) etc. etc. and his face is scarred for life and he will be forever having to have his teeth capped and filled - at a cost to him in adult life. I have never told him not to play on the climbing frame (and indeed fell off a year later and has another scar on the other side of his lip. :rolleyes:). Perhaps I should have demanded the future dentistry costs and lost wages from the other children on the climbing frame at the same time?

We are facing an epidemic of obese children and yet, we disapprove of active play. Conkers are banned, cart wheels and hand stands are banned, skipping ropes are banned, kids aren't allowed to play in the snow, no-one gets the "bumps" on their birthday anymore. The only time kids are allowed to be active is in approved sports situations where we could sue an adult if someone or something gets damaged.

Kids will play rough - that's not the same as fighting or bullying. Kids will play with a ball near to windows, they will run around and not look where they are going, they will play leapfrog, they will play tag and latch onto someone by their clothes, they will climb trees, make dens, ride their bikes and fall off or into someone. It's part of learning.

I want my son to be active and learn through play. I want him to learn consequences for his actions and I appreciate that people think I should recompense the Mum completely. My son turned 11 a few days ago and now understands that fabrics are not indestructable and he won't be acting in this way again, he also understands that there is a financial implication in his actions. However, if the situation were reversed, I would not expect the same from another parent and it would have been my son who would have had a "talking to" about taking responsibility for his coat and to have let go of the hoop so as not to have caused the rip. Those are my standards and I will do whatever I would expect if the situation were reversed. In fact I believe I am doing more than I would expect. It has been very interesting to read all your views and I wanted to see if my standards were way off the mark. Thank you to everyone for your comments.

Very well said Jet! And your standards are excellent - shame that coat-mother cannot claim the same thing:D

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

see, I think the lesson is that damage caused, or contributed by one, should be put right. I would suggest that the bully lesson will be voided by OP's refusal to roll over and pay full amount and taking seriously any bullying that might be whipped up. Its also why I suggested having some kids over for pizza, the Ops son will learn that tact and kindness and quietly taking responsibilty (apart from Op's direction to her son to say if questioned that coat-mother has been complied with my suggestion would be it isn't discussed) are generally more popular than bossy whinging or gossiping

Yes, its great kids are playing, and rough play is pretty good for them IMO, but there is a difference between physical rough play and overstepping a very fine to something less good. None of us shall know what really happened with that, even OP, and i think the point about physical respect...not discouraging rough physical play when appropriate, is valid.

I think I do agree, but I still think that it is a bit over-board to make kids pay for every scrap of accidental damage that "might" occur during play. As I said, had this been intentional then I would have considered coat-mother to be in the right. In these circumstances, she is just totally out of order and unreasonable as far as I am concerned.

I have a similar example with my own son. We had a neighbour with a dog who loved to throw his ball in the air, and we often found said ball in our own garden. One particular evening, my DS1 spotted the ball in our garden, picked it up, and without thinking threw it back over the fence where the bounce unfortunately sent it through the neighbours green house:eek: . It was totally unintentional damage as a result of playing with the dog, but he was horrified at what he had done and came to me and admitted what had happened and we went next door to apologise and to offer to pay for the repair. My neighbour was impressed at DS1 but refused categorically to allow us to pay for the repair as she said it was as much the dogs fault as DSs and that she had, in fact, thought it was the dog throwing the ball around that had done it so was grateful that we had fessed up. She finally agreed to let my son cut her grass for her a couple of times, but told him that it was enough that he had confessed and apologised as it was the sort of thing that could have happened to any of us (and I admit that until then I had often picked up the ball and thrown it back with the same lack of thought:o ) and that it was not as if it was intentional damage or vandalism and kids got up to much naughtier things in her day (she was in her 70's:D ) such as scrumping and breaking house windows with their own footballs.:eek:

He did indeed cut her grass (and for ages afterwards this became his job and she insisted on paying him to do so after the first couple of times) and then stayed on for tea and home-made cake and a good natter about the sort of mischief that she and the other kids got up to in her day:rolleyes: and I think he was probably the most upset person at her funeral when he insisted on coming with us.

Same principles involved, but just so much nicer a person affected by it but I fully agree that the long term loosers in this situation will be the coat-mother and her bully-boy son who, imo, have some serious life lessons missing from their repertoire.

toshkininny

moggylover wrote: »

I think I do agree, but I still think that it is a bit over-board to make kids pay for every scrap of accidental damage that "might" occur during play. As I said, had this been intentional then I would have considered coat-mother to be in the right. In these circumstances, she is just totally out of order and unreasonable as far as I am concerned.

I have a similar example with my own son. We had a neighbour with a dog who loved to throw his ball in the air, and we often found said ball in our own garden. One particular evening, my DS1 spotted the ball in our garden, picked it up, and without thinking threw it back over the fence where the bounce unfortunately sent it through the neighbours green house:eek: . It was totally unintentional damage as a result of playing with the dog, but he was horrified at what he had done and came to me and admitted what had happened and we went next door to apologise and to offer to pay for the repair. My neighbour was impressed at DS1 but refused categorically to allow us to pay for the repair as she said it was as much the dogs fault as DSs and that she had, in fact, thought it was the dog throwing the ball around that had done it so was grateful that we had fessed up. She finally agreed to let my son cut her grass for her a couple of times, but told him that it was enough that he had confessed and apologised as it was the sort of thing that could have happened to any of us (and I admit that until then I had often picked up the ball and thrown it back with the same lack of thought:o ) and that it was not as if it was intentional damage or vandalism and kids got up to much naughtier things in her day (she was in her 70's:D ) such as scrumping and breaking house windows with their own footballs.:eek:

He did indeed cut her grass (and for ages afterwards this became his job and she insisted on paying him to do so after the first couple of times) and then stayed on for tea and home-made cake and a good natter about the sort of mischief that she and the other kids got up to in her day:rolleyes: and I think he was probably the most upset person at her funeral when he insisted on coming with us.

Same principles involved, but just so much nicer a person affected by it but I fully agree that the long term loosers in this situation will be the coat-mother and her bully-boy son who, imo, have some serious life lessons missing from their repertoire.

I don't know why, but I got a bit teary reading that! Must be lack of sleep!

allIcouldwishfor

Ah, if only coat-woman knew about this thread!!

Soubrette

toshkininny wrote: »

I don't know why, but I got a bit teary reading that! Must be lack of sleep!

I think I had an eyelash (or two)

What a lovely story moggylover

Sou

Jet

moggylover wrote: »

I think I do agree, but I still think that it is a bit over-board to make kids pay for every scrap of accidental damage that "might" occur during play. As I said, had this been intentional then I would have considered coat-mother to be in the right. In these circumstances, she is just totally out of order and unreasonable as far as I am concerned.

I have a similar example with my own son. We had a neighbour with a dog who loved to throw his ball in the air, and we often found said ball in our own garden. One particular evening, my DS1 spotted the ball in our garden, picked it up, and without thinking threw it back over the fence where the bounce unfortunately sent it through the neighbours green house:eek: . It was totally unintentional damage as a result of playing with the dog, but he was horrified at what he had done and came to me and admitted what had happened and we went next door to apologise and to offer to pay for the repair. My neighbour was impressed at DS1 but refused categorically to allow us to pay for the repair as she said it was as much the dogs fault as DSs and that she had, in fact, thought it was the dog throwing the ball around that had done it so was grateful that we had fessed up. She finally agreed to let my son cut her grass for her a couple of times, but told him that it was enough that he had confessed and apologised as it was the sort of thing that could have happened to any of us (and I admit that until then I had often picked up the ball and thrown it back with the same lack of thought:o ) and that it was not as if it was intentional damage or vandalism and kids got up to much naughtier things in her day (she was in her 70's:D ) such as scrumping and breaking house windows with their own footballs.:eek:

He did indeed cut her grass (and for ages afterwards this became his job and she insisted on paying him to do so after the first couple of times) and then stayed on for tea and home-made cake and a good natter about the sort of mischief that she and the other kids got up to in her day:rolleyes: and I think he was probably the most upset person at her funeral when he insisted on coming with us.

Same principles involved, but just so much nicer a person affected by it but I fully agree that the long term loosers in this situation will be the coat-mother and her bully-boy son who, imo, have some serious life lessons missing from their repertoire.

Moggylover,

What a lovely story. :T

It reminded me of when I accidentally knocked into my neighbours car when parking my own car a few years ago. I immediately went and knocked on their door and told them what I had done and that if they got an estimate, I would pay for the repairs. I subsequently went out to work and when I came home he was fixing a new headlamp in his car (the one I had smashed). I told him I was prepared to pay for a garage to fix his car and he insisted that he had plenty of time now he had retired and that he was happy to fix it. I then told him he must let me have the bill for all the parts. He refused. I begged him to let me know how much it all cost - he wouldn't. I went online and found out the cost and tried to give them the money -they still refused. In the end I had to buy them alcohol and chocolate to the value of the parts and they did accept at this point. :T

They are such lovely people. When I told them they could use my hose pipe anytime to wash their car (they are mid terrace, I am on the end), they were very grateful, so grateful they washed my car too!:eek: I've found him cleaning out my guttering too and then they won't even let me sweep up the moss from the floor!

basketcase

spinning_hamster_wheel wrote: »

....or the kid with the hula hoop could have accepted he had to share and just handed it over so the others could get a turn, no doubt he is a carbon copy of his mum and totally used to getting his own way :rolleyes:

Think, from what I've read that this should read "he had to give it back!" As other posters have said, he could have let go.