Then for once, I must be in agreement with a Tory.

On reflection, if the OP's facts are correct then it may (although I am not sure of any ramifications for his son of so doing) be advisable to go to the police and explain exactly what has happened. They can then decide whether or not it is a police matter. If it is, then the teachers could be charged potentially be charged with perverting the course of justice. If not a police matter, so be it. The teachers come what may appear to have been attempting to contaminate evidence whether for a police enquiry or a possible / arguably probable civil action (by the victims parents on his behalf against the school for failure to keep order and protect their child). As a minor the son should not have been isolated but should have had a responsible adult to accompany him in order to ensure that he was not made to do something he did not understand or do something under duress. I think the lad did very well not to sign something he did not agree with. If this is pursued in any fashion I guess the teachers involved will be finished as teachers / headteacher - and rightly so if the OP is a fair summary of the facts. Having said that, the comment someone made about sweeping under the carpet is valid - chances are the police, school and local authority (if an LA school) will wish to do that.

I am NOT a lawyer and so do not take what I say as fact / good advice. It is, however, based on observation of other similar (but distinct) cases I have known of.

Not sure why the parents could be sued when the teachers school are in loco parentis. It's the school / teachers that may (I suspect, will) get sued. If that happens they will realise just how stupid they have been if the OP sums up what happened correctly (which I have little doubt he / she does).

the whole uniform enforcement thing only ever creates tension which leads to the little shiites being even more rebellious, it's complete rubbish. Naughty kids are naughty kids and telling them how to dress will just make them not want to comply with uniform rules even more.


On topic, it all smells very dodgy, I'd write to Ofsted, the local rag, and a councillor/MP saying what's happened.

I'll have a word with my mum when I see her, she used to work alongside ofsted to do with child protection sort of things and was very good at ripping teachers a new one when they didn't go by the book, she should know what to do/say.

Okay, so you've written to Ofsted, the local newspaper and your local MP.

But now you've found out that a couple of kids who witnessed the incident have both written statements saying that it was a deliberate act.

How do you feel NOW about sending those letters turning up the heat on the situation?

Or another scenario:

It was an accident, everybody says that. The teachers were just overstepping their mark and getting all the paperwork into place so that the incident was best resolved with minimal damage to every party. The injured child would have been properly compensated, the teachers given a written warning after they admitted being at fault, but otherwise everyone can move on.

But with Ofsted and an MP coming in 2 good teachers have been fired, the insurance company are refusing to honour the claim and it's going to take the court system years to reach a conclusion.

Is that a good thing?

As we don't know what the proposed statement was for, or what was in it, all this speculation is just silly, especially the perverting justice stuff, which is just OTT and not to be taken seriously.

Nobody but a lawyer knows how to make a proper statement anyway, and it would be different depending on the intended use . A school boy's own statement would in general be pretty useless, through no fault of his own. Also, he might have dropped himself in it unnecessarily and naively.

Your motor insurance company forbids you from making a statement after a crash, if you admit liability - even verbally - they may even void your cover. Are they perverting the course of justice?

I have direct experience of a case where the police seriously considered charging a headteacher with the offence for doing exactly this - trying to manipulate statements and even taking them. The was one big difference though was in that case a member of staff was alleged to have struck a boy.

You need to speculate to at least figure out what has been going on.

If you just go to the school they will probably just placate you. You'll go back home and tell your kid that there's nothing to worry about. But next week when the **** hits the fan and all the blame is on your kid and he's getting expelled you've kind of let your kid down.

If the teachers actually were bullying kids to get themselves out of trouble, if they were threatening the "police" on a 13 year old boy to sign something that they knew was a lie solely to protect themselves, then the correct response is to go to the police and let the police deal with it.



Eh????



Read the OP. A 13 year old boy was told to sign a statement without reading it. He was then told to sign a statement of a couple of pages and given 1 minute to do it.



They are making it clear that a driver isn't qualified to pass judgement on an incident that they were involved in. They want the drivers to STFU and let the insurance companies figure out where the blame lies.

They don't want a situation where an 80 year granny is "persuaded" by the 18 year old who has rear-ended her that it was actually her fault all along.

I see your point, but it's not the accident(or whatever you want to call it), it's the funny business with forcing a 13 year old lad into signing an unread and possibly untrue statement. Don't like it one bit.

I doubt if the teachers, as you say, simply overstepped the mark trying to sort things out, would be fired. Severely reprimanded, probably. Fired, unlikely.

Is there anything in this world you don't have direct experience of?