Teacher told child she could wet herself

emsywoo123

BJV wrote: »

It appears if you start to treat children as young people with respect they will respect the rules and the authority behind them. .

This really is the point, isn't it. I really do think it is that simple.

My DD is nearly 14, and I asked her as well, and it is exactly the same with her.

I teach in FE (16+) and mine never really ask to go to the loo, but if they do I let them go. It has never occurred to me to not let them, what with them being actual human beings and everything.:rotfl:

Guest101

unholyangel wrote: »

Actually you are legally compelled to be there - under contract/employment law though rather than criminal. - Not compelled, you are required to be there, but it's voluntary. You can choose not to turn up. But just like a prisoner, you breach the terms of your incarceration and you'll be subject to the consequences of that breach.

Again, law either permits (or allows if you prefer) something or prohibits something. As the law says nothing on this matter, it is neither permitted/allowed nor prohibited by law. Meaning the legal position on the subject is unclear. Its different saying "theres nothing in law which stops them from doing so" to actually saying "the law allows them to do so" iyswim? - sorry I don't. The law typically prevents actions, though I understand what you mean allowing. For employment purposes for example, you are entitled to 5.6 weeks paid annual leave, but the law says that your employer can tell you when you must take that leave (common example is bank holidays). So the

Yes, the law does require employers to provide toilet facilities under the The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. - However, that is not always practical. As I said, there are many jobs (common example - deliver driver) where a toilet is impractical. So yes there are circumstances when facilities must be provided, but that is not universal.

As for employment law, again something is either permitted by law or prohibited. It is not that dismissing employees with less than 2 years of service for no reason is allowed by law, its that only those with 103 weeks of service (although there are exceptions - such as discrimination of a protected characteristic or whistleblowers) have the right to bring a claim under such a cause. - Indeed. But the law therefore allows, by virtue of only permitting action after a certain period, for employers to dismiss for no reason.

As for CCTV...again you're wrong. Read the ICO's guide on CCTV - any monitoring needs to be justified. - indeed, but that would be easily done so for the prevention of crime, for investigatory reasons, for safety reasons. It is not a blanket ban, just means you must have reasonable cause to. Nor can they use it for a purpose it wasn't intended for (ie if its set up for crime prevention/security, they can't then use it to check up on you and would be breaking the law by doing so). Covert monitoring is particularly hard to justify as is CCTV with audio recording enabled or any type of monitoring in places where theres a higher degree of privacy expected (such as bathrooms or changing rooms). - ofcourse, I didn't disagree with that.

Going to the loo is part & parcel of being. Plus any such policy prohibiting toilet breaks would possibly disproportionately affect women. We have biological functions - theres no getting around it. We're not machines. - indeed, but as long as the policy is fair, it is allowed. As I said, I've heard of workplaces having policies to ensure "comfort" breaks aren't abused, but never one that downright prohibited you from going during working hours. Perhaps because when its nature calling, you need to answer.

And I haven't suggested a blanket ban would be reasonable, I have said, numerous times that it is reasonable to tell people when they can use the facilities.