Sara Sharif murder: ‘sadist’ father and stepmother jailed for life

[Thora]

And doing so as a knee-jerk response to one appalling case, which might have happened anyway and probably should have been prevented anyway within the existing system, is pretty much bound to make for a disproportionate response.

They could just ban home-schooling. It's banned in Germany. Can't see that happening either, though.

Suggesting a register for home educated children is just an easy/cheap way to be seen to be taking action. It wouldn't have made any difference in this particular case and children on child protection plans are already supposed to be being monitored. Councils can already seek court orders to send children to school. They're not being monitored properly because of a lack of resources.
The only difference seems to be that currently only children who were taken out of school are registered as home educated, whereas maybe they will also register children who have never been to school.

They won't ban home education because then they'd have to provide a suitable education for all those children.

 

[two sheds]

"keeping them alive serves no useful social function - either for society or them."
Well, so now we have to serve a "useful social function" to be be kept alive, do we?

it's "keeping them away from society" that serves a useful social function

 

[ouirdeaux]

For many home-schoolers, it's more about the parents objecting to the way schools operate and not wanting that for their children. So that would be quite a shift from the current position of toleration to one that demands justification.

Yes, it would be a shift. But one justified by circumstances.

What exactly do they object to about 'the way schools operate'? I imagine they have a variety of things they disagree with. Some may have some merit. That doesn't mean that they'll be able to educate their children better.

There are a lot of things to object to about the way the NHS operates. However, never taking your children to the GP or hospital, and handling it all yourself, isn't a good idea. The fact that statistically most would survive this sort of neglect wouldn't be a justiication.

 

[Thora]

They could certainly make it tougher. The onus would be on the family to show why it's necessary. If the child has genuine problems with attending school, this would be documented. If there aren't actual reasons, it wouldn't be allowed.

I'm sure some families would be able to educate their children better than the local school could do it. But there would be many who couldn't, even leaving the obvious nutcases who think the schools are a ticket to hell out of it. Compulsory schooling exists for a reason, and shouldn't be a lottery.

(Yes, I know it can be a lottery the way things are, but that's not a reason to increase the odds against children.)

So many children are massively damaged by schools and fail to even get a basic education. Schools aren't neutral/good and parents bad.

 

[PTK]

In my opinion, the main purpose of school should be to socialise children. If they do not interact with other children every day, then I think that that will not be adequately socialised.

 

[Hollis]

For many home-schoolers, it's more about the parents objecting to the way schools operate and not wanting that for their children. So that would be quite a shift from the current position of toleration to one that demands justification.

Did home-schooling even exist in the 80s? I'm sure it was much rarer then.

 

[Thora]

In my opinion, the main purpose of school should be to socialise children. If they do not interact with other children every day, then I think that that will not be adequately socialised.

Bullying, sexual harassment, peer-on-peer abuse - not all socialisation is good, is it?

 

[Orang Utan]

Did home-schooling even exist in the 80s? I'm sure it was much rarer then.

Yes, definitely.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In my opinion, the main purpose of school should be to socialise children. If they do not interact with other children every day, then I think that that will not be adequately socialised.

Schools are places for kids to go to while their parents are at work.

Home ed kids do plenty of socialising with other kids, though. There are extensive networks.

They can still get fucked up, but lots of kids are fucked up by the 'socialising' at schools as well. There are myriad different ways to fuck up kids.

 

[Petcha]

I think the home schooling debate might need a separate thread. The fact is that these two monsters weren't actually schooling this little girl at all. Just using this loophole to conceal their crimes. That's what this new bill is trying to sort out.

 

[Hollis]

In my opinion, the main purpose of school should be to socialise children. If they do not interact with other children every day, then I think that that will not be adequately socialised.

Socialise children and as part of that have them dealing with differences in background, culture etc. That's part of the problem with home schooling.

I went to a mainstream comprehensive school, but do think there was a benefit to that as opposed to going to a grammer school with all the 'bright' kids.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Socialise children and as part of that have them dealing with differences in background, culture etc. That's part of the problem with home schooling.

I went to a mainstream comprehensive school, but do think there was a benefit to that as opposed to going to a grammer school with all the 'bright' kids.

I basically agree with this, despite personally having a pretty difficult time at school myself. But home education isn't in and of itself evil or abusive. Ultimately, I support the right of parents to choose this route.

 

[Thora]

Socialise children and as part of that have them dealing with differences in background, culture etc. That's part of the problem with home schooling.

I went to a mainstream comprehensive school, but do think there was a benefit to that as opposed to going to a grammer school with all the 'bright' kids.

I went to a Catholic school in Wiltshire - the only differences in background and culture was some kids had Irish grandparents, some had Italian grandparents and some had Polish grandparents.

 

[PTK]

I went to a Catholic school in Wiltshire - the only differences in background and culture was some kids had Irish grandparents, some had Italian grandparents and some had Polish grandparents.

That is why all schools shold be secular and comprehensive.

 

[not a trot]

Heart breaking.

 

[ash]

I know the thread has gone off on a tangent but its interesting to consider why home schooling was banned in Germany!

Home-school Germans flee to UK | Schools | The Guardian

<p>A 1938 law designed to ensure state control of all children has provoked a family exodus to Britain</p>

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Petcha]

I basically agree with this, despite personally having a pretty difficult time at school myself. But home education isn't in and of itself evil or abusive. Ultimately, I support the right of parents to choose this route.

Well yes, but surely they should have some kind of qualification. I find it hard enough to deal with the idiocy that Michael Gove brought back in the form of Phonics, and had to educate myself about that. And thats just for a couple of hours every second weekend. I don't think I'd be able to teach my kid maths etc, I'd be learning myself. I find it bonkers parents aren't vetted before this is allowed.

 

[Thora]

Well yes, but surely they should have some kind of qualification. I find it hard enough to deal with the idiocy that Michael Gove brought back in the form of Phonics, and had to educate myself about that. And thats just for a couple of hours every second weekend. I don't think I'd be able to teach my kid maths etc, I'd be learning myself. I find it bonkers parents aren't vetted before this is allowed.

Parents have to ensure their children get a suitable education (including literacy and numeracy) they don't have to be teachers or follow the national curriculum.

 

[tim]

Yes, it would be a shift. But one justified by circumstances.

What exactly do they object to about 'the way schools operate'? I imagine they have a variety of things they disagree with. Some may have some merit. That doesn't mean that they'll be able to educate their children better.

There are a lot of things to object to about the way the NHS operates. However, never taking your children to the GP or hospital, and handling it all yourself, isn't a good idea. The fact that statistically most would survive this sort of neglect wouldn't be a justiication.

It's only four days since reports of management sanctioned bullying of kids at the Mossbourne Academy chain where teachers were trained to scream at and verbally abuse pupils. Most parents could at least offer their kids love and understanding.

BBC News - Schools accused of 'toxic and humiliating culture'

Mossbourne Federation accused of 'toxic culture' toward school pupils

The Mossbourne Federation says the "toxic culture" claims against it are part of a "vexatious campaign".

www.bbc.com

They were told to install "healthy fear" into the pupils and that they went on a training course to learn how to do this


They were encouraged to scare and shout at pupils as this would "benefit their education"

 

[Petcha]

Parents have to ensure their children get a suitable education (including literacy and numeracy) they don't have to be teachers or follow the national curriculum.

This legislation is designed to protect kids who their teachers/TAs/social workers suspect the child might be being abused at home and as such won't actually be getting home schooled. As it stands, even if they raise concerns the parents can pull the kids out anyway.

The judge didn't go into the exact details on what was reported but the fact that this guy could just yank his kid out of school raises serious concerns. I assume someone must have reported the possible issues, you'd hope so anyway.

 

[Lotte]

Fucking Gove and his academies. And of course Mossbourne discriminated against black and disabled pupils. Making a kid kneel on the floor is verging on corporal punishment as well. If I'd gone there, I'd have been cutting myself daily.

 

[Thora]

This legislation is designed to protect kids who their teachers/TAs/social workers suspect the child might be being abused at home and as such won't actually be getting home schooled. As it stands, even if they raise concerns the parents can pull the kids out anyway.

The judge didn't go into the exact details on what was reported but the fact that this guy could just yank his kid out of school raises serious concerns. I assume someone must have reported the possible issues, you'd hope so anyway.

Sara Sharif was known to social services from birth, her father was known to be violent and had other children removed from his care, the school raised concerns and social services closed the case without visiting. There were loads of serious concerns already (and she was murdered during the school holidays).
She wasn't on a child protection plan because social services didn't have the resources to follow up on the school's concerns.
The proposed bill is just a way of looking like they are taking action without fixing any systemic issues.

 

[petee]

dating myself here, but when i were a lad homeschooling was a hippie idea, so that kids wouldn't be indoctrinated with jingo or gender roles or such.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Well, so now we have to serve a "useful social function" to be be kept alive, do we?

No, I was just pointing out there’s no positive case for keeping them alive and I also don’t think they have a moral right to life either. So, all else equal, it wouldn’t be wrong to kill them.

 

[LakieLady]

If helping the victims of such awful acts is your metric, then there's no point in even imprisoning the perpetrators. That doesn't help the victims either.

It prevents them from repeating their actions though, and having more kids.

 

[Happy Tree]

The thing about principles is they don't fall down when you feel angry. Or when you try to make exceptions. A principle stands firm, if it is a principle at all. That's the point. They're waypoints in the journey to help you navigate difficult terrain. Of course, you have to find your own principles. Maybe even create some yourself. And you're free to ignore other people's principles. In fact, ideally you should as your principles are what defines who you are and what you stand for.

I think LBJ put it most succinctly: "It's not about who or what they are. It is about who and what we are."

The "we" I'm a part of is one that does not condone capital punishment. So I am bound, however hard it may be, to stick to that principle in the face of even the most horrific behaviour and the most seductive of emotions. It is human to feel and to care, but it is also human to reason and rise above the most basic instincts. You could say it is most human to strive to balance the two.

Life imprisonment is what I would agree with. It may be more pricey on society but since when do we make moral desicions based on money? Since always. Ahh!

 

[dessiato]

Reading all these hang the bastard, kill the child killers posts I'm a little concerned.

I think these child torturers and killers deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. Their's was a sustained assault, so they should be at least incarcerated.

But I know a child killer. After a long stressful few days he was alone with his 6 week old baby. He couldn't stop the child crying. He rang friends and family for help. They were all too busy. He shook his baby and it died. He's doing time, he will never be allowed anything approaching a normal life when he gets out.

If we have execution for the first, do we have it for the second? Where do we draw the line?

I know the cases are at very different ends of the child killer spectrum so deserve different treatment/punishment but there's a lot of shades of grey in between. So, where is the line?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

That being said I wouldn't be that upset if one of them tripped and fell face-first into a boiling pot of sugar water. These things happen. But tbh even the vengeful part of me would prefer they live in fear of reprisals than actually endure them. I would like them to know what it feels like when nowhere is safe or ever will be again. That seems fair.

I agree with this. It seems eminently fair and just that the father in particular lives in fear for the rest of his life.

 

[Spymaster]

It prevents them from repeating their actions though, and having more kids.

Indeed. My solution is far more effective at that though.

The point is that helping past or potential victims is just a small element of the treatment of offenders. The main ones are prevention, rehabilitation, deterrence and retribution.

The big one there is retribution. Societies seek to 'make punishments fit the crime', hence different crimes have different sentences. We don't bang people up for life for shoplifting, or fine murderers. There should be an element of equivalence in punishments meted out to offenders.

What's an equivalent punishment for torturing a child to death?

 

[krtek a houby]

A horrible crime and a predictable number of horrible bloodthirsty fantasies.

Wonder what horrors they themselves endured to be so indifferent to life?