Although retired from full-time teaching, I work regularly as a supply teacher. This morning, after leaving the house, I was suddenly struck by the cold realisation that this was what the late Anne Maguire, murdered by one of her pupils yesterday, must have been doing 24 hours before. Just another teacher on her way to school, totally unaware of what fate was waiting for her... I tried to blank it out at that point. Like the vast majority of teachers, I have had to face "difficult" pupils and violent school situations; like all teachers this morning, I had to face the fact that it could have been me.
I do not propose to dwell upon the details of this horrific murder; the press will be doing that for weeks to come. All I will say is that the news of this sickening crime brought tears to my eyes when I first learned of it - that has not happened for decades.
Instead, I would like to preempt some of the media coverage that is bound to surround this incident. It will not be long before the "blame game" starts. The Right will see this murder as symptomatic of what David Cameron has called "broken Britain"; the Left will probably try to link it to public spending cuts. Or some such things. We have already heard the usual soothing noises made by the Yorkshire Police and others, reassuring us that such attacks are very rare. Quite how that is supposed to help Anne Maguire's relatives, colleagues, pupils and ex-pupils is beyond me. After all, plane crashes are very rare, but that does not lessen the impact upon bereaved relatives.
There will, hopefully, be some fruitful discussion about measures that can be taken to protect pupils and staff from "awkward" pupils. It is slowly dawning upon the public at large that children can be violent. In the last two decades, we have seen some appalling crimes committed by children - the murders of James Bulger and Rhys Jones in Liverpool are extreme examples, but the instances of reported violence against teachers are numerous. Many incidents are not reported or are dealt with "in-house", as Heads fear adverse public and OFSTED reaction if too many (or any) violent pupils are excluded. Special Education Units, condemned as "dumping grounds" by Leftie academics in the 1980s, were gleefully axed by Right-Wing Tories, anxious to cut back on public spending. Not many such units remain today, despite their usefulness in withdrawing "difficult" pupils.
Not that this would have made much difference in the Anne Maguire case - no school can anticipate the actions of the brooding, alienated loner, such as the murderous 15 year old arrested for her stabbing. The boys who carried out the lethal Columbine High School massacre in the USA, in 1999. were of a similar type.
Whatever is discussed, proposed or recommended, whatever sorrow, condemnation or horror is expressed, a British teacher has been murdered by a pupil for the first time ever. A "Rubicon" has been crossed, and there is no going back.
Tuesday, 29 April 2014
Sunday, 13 April 2014
The Oscar Pistorius Case - a South African Tragedy
Thokozile Masipa, the chief judge in the trial of Oscar Pistorius recently rebuked the prosecuting attorney, Gerrie Nel, for laughing in court during his cross-examination of Pistorius. She also told spectators in the public gallery that the trial was not entertainment. Indeed so. A young woman (Reeva Steenkamp) has lost her life and a young man (Pistorius) is on trial for his life. We are a long way from South Africa, yet I find the case intriguing. From the beginning of this ongoing tragedy, I have been troubled by certain aspects of the case, and I would like to discuss them here.
First, it needs to be understood that South Africa is a dangerous place to live. Statistics show an average murder rate of 35 to 50 people a day, and in 2012 there were 65 000 sex crimes. Those who can afford to live in gated communities (like Pistorius) reside behind the protection of fences and armed guards. Those who can not, live in fear.
Burglary is rife, also, and is frequently accompanied by violence. Even a simple car ride can be fraught with danger, as carjacking is another common crime. I once asked a lady who lives in South Africa what happens if your car breaks down. "Oh", she replied grimly," you don't want to do that". It is understandable, then, that there is widespread gun ownership for self and property defence and it is against this menacing background that we need to look at the Pistorius case.
Which leads to my first question - since Pistorius lived in a secure compound with armed guards not far away, why did he not simply phone for help when he heard the noise in the bathroom? Incredibly, he did not even put the light on in the bedroom - which would have shown Steenkamp to be missing. Besides this, there is the seemingly minor point that Pistorius says quite specifically that he thought the sound was caused by "an intruder" - but how did he know there was only one? There could easily have been two, or even three, and they, also, could have been armed. What follows next requires an explanatory diagram and can be found HERE.
What he did next is difficult to comprehend. Home Defence experts in the USA train people to go for the safe option if you have intruders in your home. This involves moving yourself and your family to a place of safety with only one entrance, eg, upstairs, where you can cover the means of access ( ie, the staircase) with your firearm (legal in the USA), while waiting for the police to arrive. You are specifically warned against sallying forth to engage your intruder, who could be waiting to ambush you. Pistorius lived in a flat with no stairs, but could have stayed in the bedroom covering the entrance to the bathroom with his pistol until help arrived. If he had been as frightened as he said he was, that would have been the sensible thing to do.
Instead, assuming he is telling the truth, he foolishly proceeds into a dark bathroom where at least one intruder could be waiting, hears a noise which puts him in fear of his life (!!! - dangerous noises?) and shoots into the darkness in a blind panic.
Now, for me, these claims just do not add up. As he was armed, the obvious course of action (if not as sensible as staying in the bedroom) would have been to shout out a warning, or even fire a warning shot above head height. That should have been enough to deter an intruder - even the toughest burglar respects a gun - and would certainly have given Reeva Steenkamp a chance to identify herself. More puzzling - if he was firing wildly into the darkness, how did he manage to hit the toilet door four times? If he saw enough to hit his target, he should have been able to see that he was facing no danger.
Undisciplined, "panic" shooting, such as Pistorius says he did that night, would be understandable from someone with no firearms experience - but Pitorius had extensive firearms experience, which has been well documented and includes, allegedly, shooting through a car roof.
Anyone who learns to shoot is taught to fire only aimed shots to try and roughly hit in the same area. This is called "grouping". Allowing for panic, stress (or anger?), Pistorius' shots were all aimed well enough. They all hit the toilet door with two rounds hitting close together. Had he been firing wildly, bullets would have been found all over the bathroom wall, as well as the toilet door.
Pistorius appears to have fired in what are known as "double taps", i.e. fire two shots in rapid succession - pause to adjust aim - fire two more shots. If so, this shows Pistorius to be a well-trained shootist who knew what he was doing.
I know that a defence lawyer could refute all I have said here as conjecture and wisdom after the event. When all is said and done, there are no witnesses to the shooting and no conclusive proof that Pistorius committed murder. He may well walk free to try and rebuild a shattered life. Even if he is convicted, he will be released one day; the family of Reeva Steenkamp face a life sentence. This is one more tragedy in a country that has already endured far too many tragedies.
First, it needs to be understood that South Africa is a dangerous place to live. Statistics show an average murder rate of 35 to 50 people a day, and in 2012 there were 65 000 sex crimes. Those who can afford to live in gated communities (like Pistorius) reside behind the protection of fences and armed guards. Those who can not, live in fear.
Burglary is rife, also, and is frequently accompanied by violence. Even a simple car ride can be fraught with danger, as carjacking is another common crime. I once asked a lady who lives in South Africa what happens if your car breaks down. "Oh", she replied grimly," you don't want to do that". It is understandable, then, that there is widespread gun ownership for self and property defence and it is against this menacing background that we need to look at the Pistorius case.
Which leads to my first question - since Pistorius lived in a secure compound with armed guards not far away, why did he not simply phone for help when he heard the noise in the bathroom? Incredibly, he did not even put the light on in the bedroom - which would have shown Steenkamp to be missing. Besides this, there is the seemingly minor point that Pistorius says quite specifically that he thought the sound was caused by "an intruder" - but how did he know there was only one? There could easily have been two, or even three, and they, also, could have been armed. What follows next requires an explanatory diagram and can be found HERE.
What he did next is difficult to comprehend. Home Defence experts in the USA train people to go for the safe option if you have intruders in your home. This involves moving yourself and your family to a place of safety with only one entrance, eg, upstairs, where you can cover the means of access ( ie, the staircase) with your firearm (legal in the USA), while waiting for the police to arrive. You are specifically warned against sallying forth to engage your intruder, who could be waiting to ambush you. Pistorius lived in a flat with no stairs, but could have stayed in the bedroom covering the entrance to the bathroom with his pistol until help arrived. If he had been as frightened as he said he was, that would have been the sensible thing to do.
Instead, assuming he is telling the truth, he foolishly proceeds into a dark bathroom where at least one intruder could be waiting, hears a noise which puts him in fear of his life (!!! - dangerous noises?) and shoots into the darkness in a blind panic.
Now, for me, these claims just do not add up. As he was armed, the obvious course of action (if not as sensible as staying in the bedroom) would have been to shout out a warning, or even fire a warning shot above head height. That should have been enough to deter an intruder - even the toughest burglar respects a gun - and would certainly have given Reeva Steenkamp a chance to identify herself. More puzzling - if he was firing wildly into the darkness, how did he manage to hit the toilet door four times? If he saw enough to hit his target, he should have been able to see that he was facing no danger.
Undisciplined, "panic" shooting, such as Pistorius says he did that night, would be understandable from someone with no firearms experience - but Pitorius had extensive firearms experience, which has been well documented and includes, allegedly, shooting through a car roof.
Anyone who learns to shoot is taught to fire only aimed shots to try and roughly hit in the same area. This is called "grouping". Allowing for panic, stress (or anger?), Pistorius' shots were all aimed well enough. They all hit the toilet door with two rounds hitting close together. Had he been firing wildly, bullets would have been found all over the bathroom wall, as well as the toilet door.
Pistorius appears to have fired in what are known as "double taps", i.e. fire two shots in rapid succession - pause to adjust aim - fire two more shots. If so, this shows Pistorius to be a well-trained shootist who knew what he was doing.
I know that a defence lawyer could refute all I have said here as conjecture and wisdom after the event. When all is said and done, there are no witnesses to the shooting and no conclusive proof that Pistorius committed murder. He may well walk free to try and rebuild a shattered life. Even if he is convicted, he will be released one day; the family of Reeva Steenkamp face a life sentence. This is one more tragedy in a country that has already endured far too many tragedies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
