His brain working.

I'm starting to get old and have lived life in the fast lane!

As to education law, Mrs Dally has spent the last 15 years fighting battles on behalf of one of our children, she has also seen paperwork on hundreds of other cases. With due respect to FA, even if he is a solicitor, unless he is one of the handful of experts who operate in the field of education law he will know less than Mrs D (and to a lesser extent me) on the subject. We have a bookcase of law textbooks on the subject! Mrs D goes to regular lectures on the subject.

As has been said, the OP should keep typed notes / minutes of evertyhing - exactly what son said, what was said in the meeting at school on Friday, etc. Ideally, send those minutes to school and ask them to confirm by return that they were OK and that if they do not response within a specified number of days then it will be assumed they are accurate. If something hits the fan quality, contemporaeous records will be important.

I was the first to reply. My first response was that the OP should forget about going to the school and go straight to the police. We're on the same side when it comes to anger about that.



We know that the teachers just overstepped the mark to sort things out. They shouldn't have done it, but it worked out the best for everyone. We're angry at the teachers for their tactics, but accept that their motives are honest.

The problem is that cal train's suggestion was to write to Ofsted, the MP and the newspaper. I don't think they're coming from the "it all worked out fine" angle.

I'd be very reluctant to be the one who involved the police. My initial move would be to attend the school myself and discuss these issues directly.


It's true. Unless you know the rules of evidence, and can apply them to the situation, having regard to the purpose for which the statement will (or even may be) used, then your "layman's" statement will very likely be rubbish, contain stuff it shouldn't, omit stuff it should contain, include hearsay, opinion, etc etc.

Of course, that's not to say that most statements are made by or with the help of lawyers, plainly the vast majority are not, and no doubt they serve various, usually non-legal purposes passably adequately, but doesn't alter the fact that in a legal setting most would not pass muster, and would need to be re-drawn.


All of which is indisputably ridiculous and unacceptable.


Well not exactly, that is one aspect, but the driver may be the world's leading authority on road traffic collisions, and a hundred times better qualified than anyone at the insurance co., that wouldn't make a difference to the requirement. Then again if the other driver wants to claim, then he has to prove liability, and lack of admission makes the case much easier for insurers to defend if they want to. Which is very often. Unless his essential position is ("I deliberately slammed the door shut on his fingers hoping to chop them off" (I presume unlikely) then I'd suggest the boy is at least as unqualified to pass judgement as the car driver.