Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great Britain: School ban on hugging (“To avoid putting anyone at risk, please avoid hugging.” )
The Sun (U.K.) ^ | November 4, 2006 | JOHN COLES

Posted on 11/05/2006 5:22:05 PM PST by Stoat

News
 
Banned ... friends embrace
 
Banned ... friends embrace

School ban on hugging

 
By JOHN COLES
November 04, 2006
 
 
 
A SCHOOL headmaster was branded a killjoy yesterday after he ordered pupils to stop HUGGING each other.

 

Steven Kenning told teens to quit embracing because it made them late for lessons.

He said hugging could be deemed “inappropriate” and “victims” could be hugged against their will.

The barmy rule was posted on the website of Callington Community College, Cornwall.

Mr Kenning said: “Hugging was happening extensively and becoming the norm. We were worried it might become inappropriate. So we nipped it in the bud.”

He added that there had been complaints from some pupils — so he told the kids: “This is very serious not only for the victim but for anyone accused of acting inappropriately.

“To avoid putting anyone at risk, please avoid hugging.” But the ban outraged parents and pupils at the 1,250-pupil college, with some claiming they had been punished for illegal hugs.

 

Detentions ... school has punished children
Detentions ... school has punished children
 
 

Bethany Read, 17, said: “We’ve even had a naming and shaming policy in assembly and people reporting others.”
 

John White, 16, said: “I can understand no kissing — but there’s nothing wrong with hugging. Some have had detentions for hugging.”

Local councillor Kath Pascoe said: “I don’t see anything wrong with hugging — it’s better than fighting.”

Last year Mr Kenning suspended pupil Daniel Pethick, 15, for streaking his hair like his hero Ashes cricketer Kevin Pietersen.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: britain; callingtoncollege; education; england; greatbritain; hugging; uk; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: SolidWood

We thought so. Teachers carried rulers to make sure girl's skirts were long enough and that the boy's hair was at least one inch above the collar of a buttoned, tucked in shirt.


41 posted on 11/05/2006 6:12:23 PM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Conservababe

Our principal made it very clear in 1960 to avoid confusion. No touching between students.

That would do it all right.

Hehe. Our principal in the 80's banned shorts, but a whole bunch of boys showed up in miniskirts one day in "protest." The ban still stood, but some years later was removed.


42 posted on 11/05/2006 6:14:26 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Neil Fraser Software HP-35 RPN Calculator

Jan Meyer's Software Curta Calculator


Hardware Curta

43 posted on 11/05/2006 6:15:47 PM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

"boy's hair was at least one inch above the collar"
Lol, this something I absolutely support. Nothing better than a proper haircut! :)


44 posted on 11/05/2006 6:20:20 PM PST by SolidWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
LOL. That really was what it was called..back then.

I had never heard that expression before....probably because there was no such ban at my high school....it was a huge, big-city school and they couldn't (or wouldn't) maintain discipline at even the most basic levels.  It was generally a waste of time for me as a result of the teachers' inability to maintain even a modicum of discipline and I was glad when I graduated, so that I could get back to educating myself  :-)

45 posted on 11/05/2006 6:21:03 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SolidWood

Hey! I liked mulletts. :)


46 posted on 11/05/2006 6:23:40 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
Mr Kenning said: “Hugging was happening extensively and becoming the norm. We were worried it might become inappropriate. So we nipped it in the bud.”

How can you nip something in the bud that is happening extensively? Don't you nip it in the bud when it's just showing up?

And what does it mean, "it might become inappropriate?" Was the current form appropriate? If so, then why ban it?

Why cahn't the English learn how to speak?

47 posted on 11/05/2006 6:27:25 PM PST by Silly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

good grief.


48 posted on 11/05/2006 6:30:08 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Charlie, I was wondering where you were. :P


49 posted on 11/05/2006 6:38:46 PM PST by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

Where hugging is outlawed, only outlaws will get hugs.


50 posted on 11/05/2006 6:39:41 PM PST by Ace's Dad ("There are more important things: Friendship, Bravery...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
“To avoid putting anyone at risk...."

At risk for what, cooties?

Apparently....

51 posted on 11/05/2006 6:40:06 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Stoat

A couple of years ago, my daughter was given an after-school detention for hugging a boy in the a hallway of her middle school. Evidently PDA's were banned there. My husband and I didn't get too upset at her; we figured there could be lots of worse reasons to get a detention!


52 posted on 11/05/2006 6:44:35 PM PST by watchwoman (Under the planes at DFW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I hope they throw "t*tty whistles", noogies and wedgies in with this ban also.

Now THIS would be a ban I could support (although I'm guessing that kids will merely find other ways of harassing one another)

 

53 posted on 11/05/2006 6:48:11 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marsh_of_mists
If she sexual revolution hadn't sent Wesetern culture into the depths of moral decay in the first, people wouldn't have to worry about this kind of stuff.

And add to that the fear of a child being 'improperly hugged' and the huge lawsuit sprouting from that event.

54 posted on 11/05/2006 6:50:44 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stoat
I'm in favor of banning all human activity.

Just let's all march to work, and march to our cave, eyes downcast and mute.

Much more productive and easier to generate our required tax revenue with minimal discomfort to others that way.

55 posted on 11/05/2006 6:52:25 PM PST by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

I remember back in the 60's we would shake hands with the girls and tickle their palms with our middle finger, Meaning we wanted to do the nasty with them.It was mostly for fun adn we got slapped a lot. Funny thing we got laid a lot too.


56 posted on 11/05/2006 7:03:36 PM PST by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Flavius
if your living in free society how would you know it

Being able to hug a vivacious young lass would be part of it.....

57 posted on 11/05/2006 7:22:09 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
Some people have a personal space problem and feel very uncomfortable around other people.

This may well be at least part of the equation.

58 posted on 11/05/2006 7:23:55 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: benjaminjjones
Odd, I just saw a piece on our local news about some girl giving hugs to total strangers on the street.

She looked to be one of the local college girls, had a flimsy cardboard sign, and was just going up to people on a busy street and asking them if they wanted a hug.

I don't think it should be against the law or anything, but I did think, "Damn, this poor twit is going to end up in a shallow grave somewhere", sooner rather than later.

I'm betting she really cares about why the muzzies want to kill us, and probably thinks rapists and murderers need "rehabilitation".

I can guaran-damn-tee she votes DemonRAT, but silly me, I think that about all women who think their nostrils are meant to carry hardware.
 

All well-stated and no disagreements from me   :-)

59 posted on 11/05/2006 7:26:26 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: moog
"<<<stoat head on desk" Geez, how can you afford that? :)

ROTFLMAO!!

60 posted on 11/05/2006 7:28:58 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson