[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

We only have the shopkeepers word that the teacher angrily stormed into the shop. We have no other report from any independant witness as to what manner the teacher entered the shop. The only thing all parties agree on is the fact that the teacher did enter the shop. We cannot accept heresay as factual evidence.[/size][/font]



See my previous comment. You keep insisting that the shopkeeper's account of the teacher's manner is accurate and factual. We do not know that, which is why I am merely pointing out that the teacher had every bit as much right to enter that shop as anyone else.

derekgas has picked up on it – what was the teacher doing going into a butty shop during school hours?

Dare I suggest that the teacher went in to get some butties for the staff and was shocked to see some pupils being served? So to disguise his/her reason for being there s/he turned on the pupils. Was a teacher at the shop the day before or the day before that?

OK! Lets accept that what the shopkeeper said was hearsay in the true meaning of the word. That also makes the incident hearsay, doesn’t it? Do we also call it hearsay when a report in the media states what so and so has said? No of course not we take such reports at face value until it can be shown that the report wasn’t accurate. If the shopkeeper did not state what has been reported no one has come back to contradict her. Thus I would conclude that the reporter quoted what he heard. To do otherwise would be to doubt the integrity of the reporter and is also tantamount to accusing the shopkeeper of lying.

Let us for a moment assume that the teacher entered the shop in a forceful manner, as some teachers do when trying to assert their authority and told the kids to get out and back to school. The shopkeeper, reading the teacher’s body language, read it as angrily and demanding. Who is to say that she was wrong? You?

Had the teacher just walked in and calmly said to the kids, something like, “you lot should be at school. Off you go” then there would have not been a story to report. I would suggest that the reported incident wasn’t too far from reality if at all.

As usually you are nit picking in some sorry attempt to justify your stance on this issue. A stance that is flawed, I might add.

However all that apart there is still the point of the teacher not having the authority to collar pupils out of school and send them back. No one has come forward with the law that gives a teacher that authority. And they can’t and they won’t because there is no such law.

When are you going to admit that the teacher did not have the authority to do as s/he did?