back to article Headmaster calls cops, tries to dash pupil's uni dreams - over a BLOG

An irate headteacher reported one of his pupils to the police and tried to scupper the youngster's chances of getting into university after reading a blog post that slammed his school. Jacques Szemalikowski, headmaster of Hampstead School in North London, refused to allow 19-year-old Kinnan Zaloom to come and collect his A- …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Gwaptiva

    Anarchist?

    left libertarian, please

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Anarchist?

      I'm okay with that!

      F.U., bricks in the walls.

    2. william 10

      Re: Anarchist?

      So another wannabe John Lydon.

      I'm not one for the Potty Mouth. But I'm fully behind where people like Johnny are coming from and in my own way very anti establishment.

      God save the queen

      It's a fascist regime

      They made you a moron

      A potential H-bomb

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Anarchist?

        Anti establishment, or just out to shock at any cost? I'm pretty sure I know which one John Lydon is.

        He does adverts for butter.

        1. Tom 7

          Re: Anarchist?

          course he does adverts for butter - he's trying to get the gullible sheep to all have coronaries prior to the anarchist uprising.

      2. BillG
        Big Brother

        We Don't Need No Education

        We don't need no thought control.

        1. Ted Treen

          Re: We Don't Need No Education

          "...In the last year he has become more and more enchanted by anti-establishment ways of thinking and has even said that there is an inherent risk that every government is corrupt..."

          An inherent risk? - a damned near 100% certainty IMHO.

          Generally though. if the quote above is factual that makes the ex-pupil sound like a very well adjusted and perceptive young man.

        2. Minophis
          Headmaster

          Re: We Don't Need No Education

          Yes you do, you used a double negative.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Anarchist?

      Worse than that- he showed "ideologies of ... individualism"

      We spend billions on education to prevent individualism this school obviously failed to stamp it out

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: YAAC Re: Anarchist?

        "....We spend billions on education to prevent individualism this school obviously failed to stamp it out." Has no-one else noticed the irony of the wannabe anarchists applauding the "individualism" of this dropout mindlessly rebleating the dribblings of other failures?

      2. Gagol
        Facepalm

        Re: Anarchist?

        So, UK is now collectivist by law? It sounds like the headmaster is working for GCHQ undercover and try to get as many people arrested at any cost.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Anarchist?

      Zaloom for Prime Minister.

    5. Ted Treen
      Big Brother

      Re: @Gwaptiva

      "Anarchist?

      left libertarian, please"

      Not entirely:-

      as Left doctrine favours massive state ownership, state control and very big interventionist government, and Right-wing doctrine favours smaller government, it could logically be argued that Anarchy is the ultimate in right libertarianism...

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        @Ted Treen

        Very American ideas of "left" and "right."

        Let's try for some education here. There are multiple important elements to the "left" in most countries. The primary element is social progressiveness. It is entirely possible to believe that we shouldn't segregate blacks, burn witches, kill gays and ban porn or bad words whilst also believing that people should be free to do as they choose.

        To generalize grossly: "right libertarians" believe in the freedom of the individual to oppress, belittle, besmirch, harm, defraud and even murder others. Their brand of "libertarian" is all about the "right" of individuals to establish and then maintain control over those around them, by force of might, force of charisma or by controlling the means of production.

        "Right libertarians" typically believe in corporatism and viciously defend the "fundamental goodness" of the corporate veil (the right to commit any number of heinous crimes as a corporation but never have the consequences come to bear on the individuals owning or running that company.) They are very darwinian: your rights should really boil down to "if someone tried to kill you, you have the right to try to kill him back." That can be literal killing, or corporate/financial/what-have-you phaliic measurement and bludgeoning.

        "Left libertarians" are pretty different. They believe that we all have certain fundamental rights (typically those laid out in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights) and that no entity - not government, corporation or individual - has a right to infringe upon them.

        Right libertarians view the UDHR as a restriction of their rights. Left libertarians view the UDHR as a definition of their rights.

        Left libertarians are all about privacy, the right to power over one's own life and the right to determine one's own future.

        Right libertarians are all about the right to power over the lives of others and the right to harm others for personal gain.

        Then, in the middle, there are centrist libertarians as well as individuals all up and down the spectrum.

        Being "left" does not equate to a belief in "big government." Most "leftist" nations (such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, etc) are in fact fans of efficient government. They want some government programs (health care, policing, fire services,) but don't feel the need to have bureaucracy grow exponentially. They also don't seen the benefit in a massive military industrial complex because they simply don't have a desire to go forth and control the lives and beliefs of others.

        People on the "left" who would identify as "left libertarian" (which covers a significant chunk, and is probably the biggest bloc of "leftists" after the aging NIMBY brigade) simply want to be left alone. They have a "you don't bother me, I won't bother you" mentality about life....but they will work together when they see an obvious benefit from doing so. That's where you get things like functional universal health care systems, policing and a military that does peacekeeping and disaster relief instead of trying (and failing rather catastrophically) to murder a bunch of brown people for their oil.

        The problem with "right" versus "left" as it emerges in our political systems is that politics is so messy. There are way more dimensions than "left" or "right." There are plenty of authoritarian docuhecanoes amongst the "right" or the "left" of any nation. NIMBYs show up amongst the left as the cockferrets who are against quite literally anything and amongst the right as those desperately clinging to a morality the majority of their own nations no longer subscribe to.

        So yes, "left libertarians" exist. They can even believe in things like centralized health care whilst still believing in the importance of individual liberties.

        Try - if you can - to picture people who believe that they should have the right under any but the most exceptional circumstances to do whatever they want within the law...but who also believe they are equal to and no more important than anyone else.

        These are the kind of people who believe personal privacy is important, but also see the value in a health care system that uses triage to determine who has the greater need instead of money. Let's use this latter as a real-world example.

        A common American gripe about Canadian health care, for example, is that it takes too long to see a doctor if you go to the emergency room or would like an MRI/other type of test.

        Right libertarians would be up in arms saying that they should have the right to buy their way to treatment. Anything else is infringing upon their rights.

        Left libertarians look at it differently. In Canada, for example, in ER or test selection there are trained professionals making decisions about need. The guy with the bullet holes or the lady about to give birth gets to see a doctor before the kid with the scratchy throat regardless of how wealthy that kid is. Left libertarians see this as fair and equitable; we are all equal, regardless of means and part of our "liberty" is that you cannot "jump the queue" simply because you have greater means.

        Sometimes, you end up waiting a long time. Sometimes, the doctors even make the wrong call and someone dies because they didn't get treated in time, when they might have had the money to simply buy treatment in an American-style system. It sucks. It's not ideal by any means...but we accept that this is the tradeoff for a more equal system that respects the rights of the individual.

        The alternative is the American-style system where people die simply because those with means (but whose need is less urgent) bought their way up the queue and there weren't resources available to treat the less well-off. Most right libertarians I've met don't view this as unfortunate at all; many proudly say this is "darwin in action."

        So there you have it. A short - and grossly generalized - overview of the beliefs of a "left libertarian". You may now commence frothing and demanding our scalps. We're used to it.

        1. paulll

          Re: @Ted Treen

          ""Right libertarians" typically believe in corporatism and viciously defend the "fundamental goodness" of the corporate veil "

          What??

          "Right libertarians view the UDHR as a restriction of their rights."

          What???

          " Most "leftist" nations (such as Canada,..."

          What???

          "right libertarians" believe in the freedom of the individual to oppress, belittle, besmirch, harm, defraud and even murder others."

          Seriously ... WTF?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Ted Treen

          Fantastic post Trevor. One bit missing about "right libertarians" is that they would wish to pay no extra tax for improved services but would pay for privilege. One could argue if they were to pay more tax they would receive better service, so that in itself is self defeating.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Ted Treen

            This is a very common misunderstanding between libertarians and non-libertarians. The fundamental disconnect here is that whilst tax pays for many common goods, it also pays for large numbers of things that the libertarians find valueless and or actively harmful to them, hence wanting to be able to control what they are paying for.

            Note that the things that a given person finds valueless or harmful can vary.

        3. Frank Bough

          Re: @Ted Treen

          "To generalize grossly: "right libertarians" believe in the freedom of the individual to oppress, belittle, besmirch, harm, defraud and even murder others. Their brand of "libertarian" is all about the "right" of individuals to establish and then maintain control over those around them, by force of might, force of charisma or by controlling the means of production."

          This is absolute horse shit. Libertarians believe that individual freedoms are sacred, and are the inalienable property of the individual. No individual is more important than another, and each has the right to defend their property from theft, damage. An idividual's life, health, minor offspring are considered their property. Thus all disputes between individual's may be reduced to a disagreement over property.

          It's a simplistic doctrine, but one with some logic.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Ted Treen

            Yes, simplistic, but with logic.

            Overlooks the fact that property is a social construct, constantly subject to redefinition.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Trevor_Pott

          Trevor, what is the point of writing such a long detailed comment, when you make it crystal clear that you are heavily biased in favour of the "left" and against the "right"? Everyone who has "leftist" views will no doubt agree with you, and everyone who has "rightist" views will disagree. So what have you accomplished? (Other than to make an impressive display of your qualifications for the job of Grauniad columnist).

          I prefer not to be classified, as I am mostly a free human being. But I suppose I could be described, loosely, as a "right libertarian". (I approve of liberty, other things being equal, and I also prefer not to fix what isn't broken). That being so, I find it strange to be told in such minute detail what I think, what I want, and why - by someone who obviously disagrees with me in almost every way.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: @Trevor_Pott

            @Tom Welsh I'm a socially progressive, fiscally conservative centrist with libertarian tendancies but who doesn't buy into the complete libertarian package. I despise the hard core of the "left" as much as I despise the hard-core of the "right".

            If you feel that I've mischaracterised the "tribe" you choose to associate yourself with, maybe you should take a long, hard look at the end result of the actions of that tribe. I'm a journalist, Tom. My job is to cut through the horseshit and to say the things other people find uncomfortable to hear.

            You are free to try to convince me that the social doctrines of "the right" aren't based on establishing and maintaining social dominance over any other potential "tirbe" if you wish. I don't know what you'll say that will undo a lifetime of taking notes and living amongst "the right" every single day of that life...but you're free to try.

            The right are about ownership. Of themselves, of their family members, of material goods, property, resources and ultimately other people. It is all about those with the most means being allowed to dictate terms to those with fewer means and no entity being empowered to stop them.

            Those with greater means are attracted to the right because of this. That's simple and easy to understand.

            The left is generally about being left alone with undertones of cooperation to mutual benefit. Again, that makes sense, because it encompasses (and attracts) those who know they don't have greater means and likely never will.

            The part I find utterly fascinating is the tendency for those with virtually no means - but who also typically have virtually no education and a lower than average ability to understand the world about them - to also be attracted to "the right." They are easily swayed by the social messages of fear and hatred. Even more are swayed by the (utterly false) idea that they can somehow become individuals of means by believing what those with means believe.

            A historic meeting occur ed recently between a recruiter for the KKK and the NAACP the other day. The most interesting thing to come out of it was that many of the recruiter's most violently anti-minority recruits admitted to being 25% mexican.

            Humans associate with those they feel will make them powerful. Many amongst our race have not come all that far past Ug beating Grog over the head with a stone so he can drag Mig down the cave by her hair, rape her and obtain offspring.

            In today's world, those traditionally in power (fat old white guys, for the most part...a demographic to which I belong, by the by) are losing that power. They are becoming ever more radicalized because of it; doing - and saying - ever more stupid shit in the desperate attempt to retain at least the illusion of power. There's your "right wing" today. Oh, certainly an overly broad generalization, but it hits the biggest cross-section.

            The "left", on the other hand are reactionaries to the core. Composed mostly of people without any real power over their lives, they value anything that gives them the illusion of personal freedoms. They value communal resource sharing because they don't have the resources to go it alone.

            They also have a nasty tendency to spawn super-reactionary NIMBYs and a whole other cadre of authoritarian types who work day and night to take power away from those who currently have it. "If I can't be the dominant ape, then by george, neither can you!"

            Both "sides" are fucking idiots, IMHO.

            There are right libertarians. There are also a metric fuckload of right authoritarians. The exact same can be said of the left.

            What nobody on either side wants to admit is that the entire thing is about nothing more than dominance, and dominance is about sex. The driving force behind all of this ideology really boils down to "how can I stick my cock into the Alpha female" and/or "how can I get the Alpha male's cock shoved into me?"

            Some of us have genetic predispositions that guide us towards choosing various elements of ideology over others. (Conservatism being one of those things we can actually test for at a genetic level now. I wish we could test for left-style authoritarian NIMBYism, but alas, we've not even come close yet.)

            All of us have cultural training that guides us towards the selection of an ideology.

            The intricacies of the ideologies are complex. They are over-rationalised and evolve over time to counter arguments that have a chance of making the holder of those ideologies look foolish...but it still all comes down to nothing more than dominance. And cocks.

            As almost nobody can actually bring themselves to experience that level of self-awareness nor actually choose their ideology with that understanding - and a through exploration of their own genetic and cultural predispositions - I look down my long nose at the log of you. Primitive, emotional, instinctual brutes, the lot of you. I keep a veritable zoo worth of pets and I respect the pets more.

            At least they don't have to lie to themselves about what drives them. That is a clarity of purpose I do respect.

            Now, if you want to say I'm "heavily biased" against "the right" you can go right ahead. Live in your little fantasy world where I'm the evil Canuck that just hates the right wing. That's a hell of a lot easier to believe and it fits with gut feel better than facts.

            Meanwhile, reality gives zero fucks what you think or why. It trundles on and so do I.

            Cheers.

        5. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Pottie Re: @Ted Treen

          All that ranting and all you basically said was "I baaaaaah-lieve left means automatically good, right automatically evil." Monumental fail.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Truth or consequences

    All actions have consequences, regardless of whether they are true, or just opinions. Either way, constructive criticism is the way to spout off.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Truth or consequences

      My father was a headmaster, I'm pretty sure that this action would have had one of his students either temporarily or permanently excluded. Constructive criticism, or even critical criticism, but you don't throw your opinions into Internetland peppered with Fs and Cs and expect to be treated with anything other than the contempt you are showing the people you are blogging about.

      It's not as if the student has lost his A level results, they will be sent to him by the examining board. He has effectively been excluded from school, luckily for him, after his school career had finished. I also don't really have a problem with the head telling the Uni he applied to the sort of person that he is. If I'd behaved like this towards my previous employer I'd expect them to tell any future employer.

      1. SkippyBing

        Re: Truth or consequences

        'If I'd behaved like this towards my previous employer I'd expect them to tell any future employer.'

        The difference being your school doesn't employ you and given the vast sums of money you have to pay a university to go there it's more like they're your employee.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Truth or consequences

          No so, your education is an important part of your career, try putting no schools on your CV and see how you go, or try to put loads of schools on because you kept getting excluded. Universities have limited places, they tout for the best possible candidates, what you pay may be eye-watering, but it's nothing like the full price of the course. A uni has a right to choose who it lets in and if you F and C your way around the Internet slagging off your school, that's unlikely to do your chances of getting on a course much good.

          1. swissrobin

            Re: Truth or consequences

            Actually, the university is very unlikely to give a flying F word.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge

              Re: swissrobin Re: Truth or consequences

              "Actually, the university is very unlikely to give a flying F word." Actually, not so. All unis in the UK operate in a sort of beauty contest to get students to apply to them, so do not want a "bad review". So for them it would be a risk taking on a known troublemaker with a history of dissing his previous places of education, especially as Zaloom's rantings seem completely unfounded.

              And before you bleat on about "Fascist", etc., such bad reports from headmasters have been happening for decades. I myself was in a similar position to Zaloom - I was not the best behaved of pupils and twice came close to expulsion for "bringing the school into disrepute", and was told at one of my uni interviews that my old head had passed on a bad reference. In my case I got better grades than I required so it wasn't an issue, but looking back I can now understand why my old head passed on the bad report, and why my uni interviewer gave me a stern warning that such a bad reference could affect both my educational and business futures. I suspect the difference will be I learnt my lesson.

      2. John Hughes

        Re: Truth or consequences

        "My father was a headmaster, I'm pretty sure that this action would have had one of his students either temporarily or permanently excluded. "

        Legal behaviour outside of school hours, off of school property could get you expelled?

        "I also don't really have a problem with the head telling the Uni he applied to the sort of person that he is."

        One should always denounce thoughtcrime - it's what BB wants you to do.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Truth or consequences

          Posting anonymously to protect the guilty. In this case my Daughter.

          She put up an early version of a blog post on a bulletin board (another BB!) condemning her school and the fact she was not protected from bullies. The one and only time she fought back, she was the one disciplined. In frustration she wrote her comments. The bully found them and sent them to the head master.

          She was given the choice of being pulled out or being expelled. It was a private school. This was half way through her GCSE years.

          So yes, the school can and do punish things.

          Lesson to all - no matter how anonymous you make the comments, if you don't want it to bite you ion the but later one, don't post it.

          1. John Savard

            Re: Truth or consequences

            It's a pity she can't find solid proof of the bullying she wasn't protected from, so as to sue the school for that for a few million pounds. Clearly the government has not done enough to remind schools of the importance of addressing the problem of bullying.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Truth or consequences

            "The one and only time she fought back, she was the one disciplined."

            Good to see that in 30+ years nothing much has changed :-/ They tell you to ignore it and that that'll make it go away. Like fuck it does! And then the times you do manage to knee headbully in the nutsack, you are the one to get into trouble (but boy, it still feels great to have done that).

            1. Shasta McNasty

              Re: Truth or consequences

              This is where I tell my kids the opposite of what the schools are telling them.

              The school's mantra is "If you're bullied tell the teacher, don't fight back".

              Mine is, "It you're bullied, hit them back and hit them hard".

              Bullies aren't bothered by what teachers do. They are bothered about getting a kicking.

              1. Gav

                Re: Truth or consequences

                The reason fighting back against a bully usually ends in the victim getting punished is all to do with knowing how far you can push it.

                Bullies usually have years of experience. They know when and where to bully, and how far they can take it before authority has no choice but respond. Ultimately they are cowards, of course, but that makes them very wary of facing up to responsibility for any bullying. In short; they're good at bullying.

                The victim, on the other hand, is usually useless at it all. They don't know when to respond, where to do it, or how far they can go. They're response is usually fuelled by desperation and rage and not calculated. It gets noticed, they cross the line where authority has to respond. End result is they get punished, when the bully doesn't.

                What's sad is that the authority responsible is too bureaucratic, thoughtless or stupid to look at the bigger picture. Just what makes an otherwise meek pupil, who is never in any trouble, suddenly decide to take a swing at the class thug? Who is most likely to have initiated this situation? But they don't care, an example has to be made.

                1. h3

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  At the school my mum works at an Autistic kid handcuffed someone to himself and dragged the guy to the local police station. I would quite like to have seen that.

                2. Triggerfish

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  Your comment about the crossing the line is so true.

                  I was bullied and was caught by a teacher pasting one of my bullies who decided to push me without his usual back up. In fact I was so gone at that point I looked at the teacher who had entered the room and then turned back and hit him a few more times before stopping and basically standing there not giving a fuck.

                  I was quite willing at that point to take any punishment in fact it was at the point I felt it might stop it or give me an excuse to out my problem, in a school that had a don't grass culture.

                  Kudos though to the math teacher though who I'm pretty sure had guessed at the causes me being a mild geeky pupil, and who just calmly asked me if I had finished and then said well "both of you write 500 words on why you think fighting's doesn't solve everything". I probably should have been way more punished considering the lovely cathartic kicking I had given this guy and the state he was in.

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  I remember finally loosing it with a guy that had been giving me a hard time for ages whilst at school and hitting him over the head with a chair. The R.E. teacher running the class in the next room saw this through the window, along with the precipitating event and pulled the bully out and tore him a new one, Oh happy day!

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Truth or consequences

                @Sasha - An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, leaves us all blind and tothless. Violence is, ultimately never a satisfactory solution to a problem.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  > Violence is, ultimately never a satisfactory solution to a problem.

                  Tell that to the State.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  "Violence is, ultimately never a satisfactory solution to a problem."

                  Wrong. Anon to protect me.

                  When I grew up I lived in the town in the entire country, where one was most likely to be knifed on a Saturday night. It was, and still is to some extent, a hard area.

                  I had the misfortune to (a) be a child of the poor part of a relatively wealthy family, and (b) have an intellect ideally suited to success in the school system, (c) be gifted at sports. There were plenty of reasons to bully me, and until I was about 14 my life was hell, getting beaten up, mobbed, ridiculed or whatever on a regular basis. My family position was the non-violence type, and as I was not a street fighter or boxer, getting into fisticuffs with the "thugs in training" was not my chosen solution either!

                  One day, during a mobbing where sufficient punches were landed on me (while I was restrained), I dropped my bottle. I manged to escape and grab one of them and promptly broke his jaw with a straight left, another I hurled into the bench causing him considerable pain, and with uncontrolled rage (and I mean uncontrolled, I had totally "lost it") I shouted to the now scattered group, "who the fuck is next?".

                  There were no takers, and it all ended at exactly that moment. Subsequently, I wished I had done it earlier and saved myself.

                  I left High School with fine grades and a modicum of subsequent success. Several of those c*nts that were my regular taunters ended up in gaol, while at least one's life ended with "lead poisoning".

                  Like "The Fonz" of "Happy Days" fame, correctly observed - you have to get your hands dirty once.

                3. Vic

                  Re: Truth or consequences

                  > Violence is, ultimately never a satisfactory solution to a problem.

                  Sadly, it is far too frequently the only thing that can be considered "a solution" at all... :-(

                  Vic.

              3. Why Not?

                Re: Truth or consequences

                After months of being bullied and complaining to the school to no avail I hit back and ended up in the 'special behaviour' group. My bully got off scot free.

                My parents suggested next time I should make sure I left no marks or witnesses.

                If the kid is stupid enough to F & blind online about the school then unfortunately he has to take his knocks, which include other education establishments being warned.

                However if he is as truly disenfranchised as suggested then he either needs mental help or the school needs to review their handling of students.

              4. Marcelo Rodrigues

                Re: Truth or consequences

                "Mine is, "It you're bullied, hit them back and hit them hard"."

                Hard, and where it hurts.

              5. Dan Paul

                Re: Truth or consequences (BUT WHO IS THE REAL BULLY?) YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

                Unfortunately, there can be no real help against the bullies when they are in fact the teachers and staff.

                Does anyone realize that in many cases, the actions of someone like Dylan Kleibold are often a direct reaction to this kind of school sponsored terrorism?

                You have all seen the football player that can never be punished for beating freshmen because he's "Too important to lose"; or the teacher that is "above reproach among her/her peers" but is nothing but paedo scum in reality?

                I too suffered at the hands of bullies in Jr and Sr High and when I defended myself. was sent home for two days and put on detention for weeks because I finally bloodied and broke the nose of a jock (lucky punch) who had been terrorizing me all year.

                The only good thing that came of it was those bullies saw me in a new light and stayed away as I was no longer an easy target.

                As far as I am concerned when in the USA, the constitutional principles of free speech apply regardless of your age or educational status. This especially applies to off campus activities. However far too many nosy busybodies feel they can say and do what they please when students speak the truth.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Truth or consequences

              Good to see that in 30+ years nothing much has changed :-/ They tell you to ignore it and that that'll make it go away. Like fuck it does! And then the times you do manage to knee headbully in the nutsack, you are the one to get into trouble (but boy, it still feels great to have done that).

              Yeah, that sounds about right. I may or may not have picked up the kid who used to throw rocks at my head, dropped him head-first into a bin, and kicked the bin down a hill. I may or may not have then been bollocked by teachers trying desperately not to laugh. Not an act that I'm particularly proud of, but I recall it being bloody satisfying.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

            3. Marshalltown

              Re: Truth or consequences

              Going medieval on a bully can be an extraordinarily satisfactory experience, even you get suspended. One good out come is that word goes round not pester you 'cause you're one crazy offspring of biologically incompatible species.

            4. Alien8n
              Alien

              Re: Truth or consequences

              In my case it was a lucky punch to the nuts, resulting in bully rolling on the floor for 5 minutes in pain, 6 other bullies walking off, every teacher turning their back ("nothing to see here") and the bully never daring to come near me again. That was the bog standard comp. Private school however was sheer hell, the rule tended to be the richer your parents the more you could get away with, so it was always the poor kids fault.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Truth or consequences

                Amen to that brother. 7 years at a private secondary school on a scholarship, and had the shit kicked out of me for 6 of those 7 years. The few times I fought back, I always got detention/suspended. The bullies with their rich parents and grandparents never got any real punishment. Fuckers.

                Still, who got some of the best A-Levels, went to one of the best Universities, married a beautiful girl, has some fantastic children, and is earning more than most of my class-mates. Yep, last laugh is definitely here.

            5. Anomalous Cowshed

              Re: Truth or consequences

              I'm sorry but this disgraceful teenager was asking for trouble:

              - He suggested that all governments might be corrupt. This is absolutely unforgiveable.

              - He said that student loans were a 30 year tax on education. This is an absolute outrage.

              If he isn't stopped now he might start criticising wars, McDonalds, religion and other institutions that we hold dear and that are the underpinning of our civilisation.

              Something had to be done, and this headmaster showed COURAGE in reporting him to our protectors, the police. It's just a shame they didn't have the gumption to inflict an exemplary punishment to show all the other scallywags that this kind of thinking IS NOT TO BE TOLERATED IN AN ENLIGHTENED AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.

              Yours.

              Outraged of Giggleswick

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like