am fuming, sorry its a rant

Oldernotwiser

mumps wrote: »

The post I read said that the boy said they were mucking about punching each other, to me (mother of three sons) that indicates boys' horseplay but even if they were fighting it is no excuse for an adult to assault the boy. As I said in an earlier post I have intervened more than once when I have seen a child being bullied for have never needed to assault anyone.

Why do you see it as street violence when two children are mucking about but not when an adult commits an assault?

Common assault, particularly when the victim is a child, is serious as this man will hopefully find out.

Two boys punching each other is fine but a man pushing one of them is assault - what a strange logic!

aliasojo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Two boys punching each other is fine but a man pushing one of them is assault - what a strange logic!

There is a world of difference between two kids 'fighting' and an adult having a go at a kid, imo.

Even if he thought he was separating two kids fighting, he could easily have done this by getting inbetween the two of them and holding them apart.

I do think grabbing one and pushing him up against a wall whilst telling him he was 'going to get him' are not the actions of your average person just trying to help.

princeofpounds

There is a world of difference between two kids 'fighting' and an adult having a go at a kid, imo.

It might not LOOK like there is much of a difference.

If one of them happened to be in a dominant position; let's say had the other kid in a headlock and was 'messing around' (i.e. punching him in the chest), it's going to look an awful lot like one of them is just bullying and physically assaulting the other.

I'm one of brothers myself. I'm well-aware that children playing rough often have unwritten codes as to what is acceptable fighting and what isn't. But that doesn't mean it can't look pretty violent to people who wouldn't realise that chest punch is never going to develop into a face punch.

I don't know what they guy in the van saw. It's possible that he did overreact over some messing around, but it's equally possible he saw one bully kid laying into another kid and decided to teach him what it's like to be intimidated. Such 'direct' tactics don't really enter the 21st century book of childcare I'm sure, but if he wanted to actually harm the child I'm pretty sure that he would have proceeded totally differently. And let's not forget it was less forceful than the 'messing around' (sorry, *punching*) that the boys were doing to each other.

Probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I'm much less inclined to throw mud at the guy now I know that clearly something WAS going on. I just love the murky language that swaps 'messing around' with 'punching' interchangeably. The guy didn't stop and get angry for no reason or because he is a nutter, he very likely saw something in this 'messing around' that upset him. Would love to hear the other side of it because it's utterly clear to me you aren getting the full story from this child.

mumps

princeofpounds wrote: »

It might not LOOK like there is much of a difference.

If one of them happened to be in a dominant position; let's say had the other kid in a headlock and was 'messing around' (i.e. punching him in the chest), it's going to look an awful lot like one of them is just bullying and physically assaulting the other.

I'm one of brothers myself. I'm well-aware that children playing rough often have unwritten codes as to what is acceptable fighting and what isn't. But that doesn't mean it can't look pretty violent to people who wouldn't realise that chest punch is never going to develop into a face punch.

I don't know what they guy in the van saw. It's possible that he did overreact over some messing around, but it's equally possible he saw one bully kid laying into another kid and decided to teach him what it's like to be intimidated. Such 'direct' tactics don't really enter the 21st century book of childcare I'm sure, but if he wanted to actually harm the child I'm pretty sure that he would have proceeded totally differently. And let's not forget it was less forceful than the 'messing around' (sorry, *punching*) that the boys were doing to each other.

Probably the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but I'm much less inclined to throw mud at the guy now I know that clearly something WAS going on. I just love the murky language that swaps 'messing around' with 'punching' interchangeably. The guy didn't stop and get angry for no reason or because he is a nutter, he very likely saw something in this 'messing around' that upset him. Would love to hear the other side of it because it's utterly clear to me you aren getting the full story from this child.

The big problem with that is that it seems it was the smaller, younger child who got pushed around and both children were threatened. Even if he thought the bigger boy was being bullied it would seem more normal to ask him if he was ok that to threaten him.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Two boys punching each other is fine but a man pushing one of them is assault - what a strange logic!

Nothing to do with strange logic but law. Laying hands on someone without their consent is assault. The boys seem to have been happily larking about, neither boy seems to be claiming the other boy was assaulting him, the OPs son did not want to be touched by this man. If what we have been told is the whole story t is at least a common assault, possibly a Section 47 depending on other factors.

System

I don't think it's relevant that one child was smaller than the other, it's possible that the man thought a serious incident was happening and then probably shouted at them in annoyance when he realised it wasn't? I'm sure that as the Stephen Lawrence case is being reported again that most parents would be grateful if someone intervened when witnessing lads, even small ones, apparently "messing around".

If the boy was not hurt, then it can't have been much of an "assault". It's a debateable point of course whether any adult should ever intervene in a private fight between kids (or adults come to that) ...but as a parent I would personally hope someone would step in and stop mine being thumped.

None of us know the motivation of course, the man might be unstable in which case the police will deal with it ... but I'm also reminded of a friend of my son who thought it was 'clever' to lie down on the pavement as though hurt or dead and wait for people to stop their car before getting up and walking off. Larking about.

mumps

Purbeck wrote: »

I don't think it's relevant that one child was smaller than the other, it's possible that the man thought a serious incident was happening and then probably shouted at them in annoyance when he realised it wasn't? I'm sure that as the Stephen Lawrence case is being reported again that most parents would be grateful if someone intervened when witnessing lads, even small ones, apparently "messing around".



If the boy was not hurt, then it can't have been much of an "assault". It's a debateable point of course whether any adult should ever intervene in a private fight between kids (or adults come to that) ...but as a parent I would personally hope someone would step in and stop mine being thumped.

None of us know the motivation of course, the man might be unstable in which case the police will deal with it ... but I'm also reminded of a friend of my son who thought it was 'clever' to lie down on the pavement as though hurt or dead and wait for people to stop their car before getting up and walking off. Larking about.

I agree with your first point, the guy might have stopped as he thought he was stopping a fight and been annoyed when he realised he had wasted his time, still does not give him the right to push the child about. What would you say if the child had fallen when pushed and fractured his skull? Still think parents would be grateful?

Re it not being much of an assault, well exactly why I didn't suggest it would be a Section 18 or Section 20. Common assault or Section 47, if he got prosecuted for assaulting an 11 year old it won't look good on a CRB and would seriously limit future employment. Might not bother him depending on his career choices.

Oldernotwiser

mumps wrote: »

Nothing to do with strange logic but law. Laying hands on someone without their consent is assault. The boys seem to have been happily larking about, neither boy seems to be claiming the other boy was assaulting him, the OPs son did not want to be touched by this man. If what we have been told is the whole story t is at least a common assault, possibly a Section 47 depending on other factors.

No wonder adults don't get involved when they see children at risk if this is the response they get.

I think it's terrible that you should think that two boys punching each other is nothing but "larking about" and they should just be allowed to get on with it.

mumps

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

No wonder adults don't get involved when they see children at risk if this is the response they get.

I think it's terrible that you should think that two boys punching each other is nothing but "larking about" and they should just be allowed to get on with it.

I never said adults shouldn't get involved, I have said more than once that I have stopped kids fighting/bullying but and its a big but, you can't assault people, adults or children, without realising there are consequences.

I realise it is much easier to ignore the bits of my posts that don't suit you but that is strange logic, isn't it?

aliasojo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think it's terrible that you should think that two boys punching each other is nothing but "larking about" and they should just be allowed to get on with it.

I don't think that is the case ONW.

I don't think the man's intervention is the issue per se, I think it's the way in which he intervened that has raised concern. His reaction showed the same kind of behaviour as the lads imo.

I've just asked OH what he would do and he said (going on what was written here about the lads' behaviour) if he thought they were fighting properly, he would go over and ask them what was going on and if they didn't stop then he'd physically separate them. I'm honestly not sure many people would simply run up and their first reaction would be to get one of the lads and push up against the wall/shelter (can't remember which it was now) whilst telling him he was going to 'get' him.