Head Teacher responds to pupil indecent exposure incident

Further to On The Wight reader Philippe Wines’ Letter to the Editor concerning indecent exposure of a pupil on a school bus, we got in touch with Medina College Head Teacher, Nathan Thomas, on Monday morning.

Many readers have expressed their keenness to hear his reaction to the incident detailed in Mr Wines’ letter.

“Apologise on the pupils behalf”
Mr Thomas told On The Wight, “Mr Wines sent an email which reached me on Friday 21 September 2012 related to an incident which had taken place earlier in the same week.

“As with all communication at Medina we endeavour to respond within 24 hours but when there is a weekend in the middle this is not always possible. When I read the email I was shocked and of course responded directly to Mr Wines to apologise on the pupils behalf.”

Mr Wines confirmed to On The Wight that he had received a brief apologetic email from the Head teacher on Sunday.

“Appalled by the behaviour”
Mr Thomas went on to say, “I was appalled by the behaviour of this small group of pupils on the bus which is in no way typical of Medina students. The student community would be appalled that someone would behave in such a way.

“As a school we work closely with the local authority to ensure the students are safe on their bus journeys to and from school and when anti-social behaviour is identified the pupil’s bus passes are often removed.

“The Local Authority are working to replace all of the double deckers on the island with coaches that have CCTV on board so that such behaviour can be identified and dealt with swiftly.

Appropriate action taken
When asked what action would be taken to ensure this type of incident didn’t occur again, Mr Thomas replied, “The individual has been identified and appropriate actions have been taken by the college including a letter of apology which will be sent directly to Mr Wines.

Pre-empting readers’ questions over what the ‘appropriate actions’ were, we did ask, but Mr Thomas told us he was, “not at liberty to comment on the specifics of actions we take against individual pupils, as I would not want to break the trust we have with parents.”

“Informed the relevant authorities”
He also went on to say, “Additionally we have informed the relevant authorities so they to can take action against the individual.”

The ‘relevant authorities’ in this case are the Local Authority, who Mr Thomas said are “in charge of the buses”.

Mr Thomas concluded, “I am very sorry that Mr Wines had to witness this behaviour, as a college we will continue to work with all of the pupils to educate them in the way they should behave when representing themselves and Medina in the local community.”

Image: p-a-t-r-i-c-k under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
33 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
brian
25, September 2012 3:06 pm

I feel sorry for Mr Thomas. He- like all teachers- is in an invidious situation; responsible for events over which he has no control. The students who attend his school have few social skills and even fewer manners. In his closing paragraph he writes “…work with all of the pupils to educate them in the way they should behave…” Why should school staff be doing that which… Read more »

Cath
25, September 2012 4:07 pm

“Additionally we have informed the relevant authorities so they to can take action against the individual.” The ‘relevant authorities’ in this case are the Local Authority,” Surely the ‘relevant authority’ should be the Police in a case of indecent exposure? Why on earth is it being passed to the bus company? That would be the same as, if a man exposed himself to me in a park,… Read more »

Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 5:09 pm

Is this head teacher a man or a mouse? Indecent exposure should be reported to the police. If a child is old enough to simulate masturbation in public, he is old enough to suffer the consequences. Removal of a bus pass is hardly punishment.

And what action is the school taking? Apparently nothing. More scared of upsetting the parents than actually dealing with this properly, no doubt!

brian
Reply to  Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 5:46 pm

Your comment,snakewhisperer, is ridiculous. A headteacher can only take such action which is within his delegated power from the authorities. I assume Mr Thomas is taking what action he can within his remit.

I remind you that what children do outside the school gate cannot be prevented or second-guessed by teaching staff. They cannot be held responsible for pupil behaviour when out of sight.

Rea Sheldrake
Reply to  brian
25, September 2012 6:35 pm

Maybe my comment seems ridiculous to you brian, but I am entitled to make it just the same. The fact remains that a teenager indecently exposed himself in public and the police have not been called in. In my opinion this is wrong.

brian
Reply to  Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 7:28 pm

In which case it is for those whose property on which he was sitting when the incident occurred to inform the police – the bus company – not the property he had already left – the school.

random bloke
25, September 2012 5:22 pm

this is a 100% correct response from the head. The students will be punished, and that punishment should not be discussed with anyone other than the parents, just as the identity of the student should not be released. The relevant authorities is the authority in charge of the bus, at least as far as the school is concerned. However, if Mr Vines himself made a complaint to… Read more »

Sciolist
25, September 2012 6:25 pm

At last your response is reasonable and proportionate Jon. Perhaps the other string ’em up types commenting here will now follow your sensible lead?

You will of course have noticed that the ‘relevant authority’ is indeed the council.

And the person heading that authority – is the person whose foul-mouthed abuse of the Mp’s partner resulted in no action at all taken against him.

No.5
Reply to  Sciolist
25, September 2012 6:40 pm

agreed…banning him from the bus may seem a small thing, but it is his parents that will have to drive him school…a fitting punishment both him and his parents

Don Smith
Reply to  No.5
25, September 2012 11:53 pm

Now No 5. You are on the nectar again.
If they are banned from using public transport, how do they get to school if their parents have no transport?

If MPs can get away with using foul language…What sort of signal does this send out to our children?

random bloke
Reply to  Sciolist
25, September 2012 10:07 pm

I’ll say it again and again and again. Pugh has no relevance to this story. He did not indecently expose himself. He did infact do nothing illegal, and it is questionable about whether he was provoked. These kids did something clearly wrong, probably criminal, and did not attempt to use any sort of defence. Pugh is irrelevant to this story, and bringing up his behaviour in Cowes… Read more »

Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 6:49 pm

If wanting to see a youngster being properly punished for his behaviour means I am a member of the ‘string em up brigade’ then so be it. I would rather see this young man learn a valuable lesson, than him ending up on a sex register at a later date, because no one had the guts to teach him right from wrong.

Sciolist
Reply to  Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 7:28 pm

Yes, stick him on the sex offenders register. That’ll learn him. What a preposterous punishment for a schoolboy prank.

No5 has it exactly right. A term walking to school or being a burden to his parents might just concentrate minds on how to behave properly on public transport.

Assuming that this miscreant has parents?

Rea Sheldrake
Reply to  Sciolist
25, September 2012 10:08 pm

No Island Monkey, that is not what I said, or meant. I said rather the child be punished NOW, and to learn how to behave properly, rather than end up on a sex register in the FUTURE. Or just let the little chap go on thinking this is trivial and let him go on to do worse sex offences in a few years. Yep, that will teach… Read more »

random bloke
Reply to  Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 10:12 pm

snakewhisperer. first of all your name is pointless as snakes do not have ears.

secondly, these kids ARE being properly punished. You do not need to see that for it to happen, and you should NOT see that for it to happen. These kids should be punished, not humiliated for your gratification.

Rea Sheldrake
Reply to  random bloke
25, September 2012 10:20 pm

Jon, my name is irrelavent here, as the owner of snakes I am well aware of their anatomy thank you! Furthermore, at no time have I asked for these kids to be humiliated, or named and shamed, and I would not be gratified if they were. I am just not convinced that anything will be done about this. But why should I care. Let the little darling… Read more »

random bloke
Reply to  Rea Sheldrake
25, September 2012 10:25 pm

“If wanting to see a youngster being properly punished for his behaviour means I am a member of the ‘string em up brigade’ then so be it.” you clearly say that you want to SEE the youngster punished. Accept the schools word for it. There is no reason why the punishment should be publicised, and every reason why it should not. As for your name, I was… Read more »

Rea Sheldrake
Reply to  random bloke
25, September 2012 10:50 pm

Ok Jon, first you pull apart my nickname on here (very grown up behaviour), then you deliberately take my words in their literal sense and twist them to make me look bad. I can live with that. Now you insult me by guessing my age to be 60 years old. This late 40’s lady is offended. Yes some kids in my day got up so some tricks… Read more »

random bloke
Reply to  random bloke
25, September 2012 11:34 pm

how else would I take your words apart from literally? surely you said what you mean and you mean what you say? Otherwise, you are perhaps twisting your own words. Perhaps if you dont want your words mis-interpreted you should say exactly what you mean. If you think your words have been twisted, perhaps you should be clearer and ensure people understand exactly what you do mean.… Read more »

Don Smith
Reply to  random bloke
25, September 2012 11:47 pm

I went to school in the 1930-1940 and I can assure you schoolchildren
[OK! Students if you wish) did not run amok. Seen and not heard and three of the best if you got out of line. It did not do my generation any harm; and furthermore parents could control their children. Spare the rod…And look at the state of our society.

random bloke
Reply to  random bloke
26, September 2012 7:06 am

Thank god we no longer live in an age where beating children is acceptable Don. Im quite certain even in the 30s and 40s some children ran amok, and Im quite certain today the majority are well behaved.

But then why would we hear about the good behaviour in any age? all we hear about is the bad behaviour.

Don Smith
25, September 2012 8:23 pm

I was at the Median Centre today. Nothing has changed; students running amok, in and out of the outbuildings; even using the old caretakers house and the arboretum to do their courting. In the past I have seen students on the roof of the school buildings; what action did the school or police take regarding this incident? Students continue to enter the Centre’s foyer to obtain their… Read more »

tryme
25, September 2012 9:56 pm

What none of us except the head teacher knows, are the personal circumstances & health of the boy concerned. These will help the HT decide how he deals with the matter. Courts too take these factors into account. The HT cannot share this information with us. In the practical world, things are not always ‘one size fits all’, & no doubt Mr Thomas spends a lot of… Read more »

Rea Sheldrake
26, September 2012 12:15 am

Well said Don Smith on your response an earlier point of mine regarding behaviour back in the 60s. Jon you really must learn to add up, I started school back in 1969, I remember it well as I was smacked with a ruler for forgetting my eraser. A harsh lesson for a 5 year old maybe, but that’s the way schools were back then. I went through… Read more »

brian
26, September 2012 7:06 am

This reminds me of an incident I witnessed at school as a 12 year old in the 1960’s. One morning we all went into the hall for assembly and before proceedings commenced a boy was brought onto the stage and caned on his backside before the assembled populus. I don’t know the reason but it was probably for something as serious as the matter under discussion here.… Read more »

the auditor
Reply to  brian
26, September 2012 8:54 am

As pupil at Sandown Grammar School in the 60’s, I too recall a public caning and also a publicly reported expulsion of a boy who had indecently exposed himself to female pupils in the changing rooms after a games lesson. Whilst I do not condone flogging as a punishment in this instance, the pupil(s) concerned should be excluded form the school permanently as an example to others.… Read more »

I do not believe it
26, September 2012 9:58 am

The following are the words of the original witness to the affair on the school bus last Thursday but under my pseudonym ‘I do no believe it’. I have been asked to summarise my views now that the school concerned have taken action. When I witnessed this objectionable and puerile behaviour on the school bus I, like many others, was in a state of despair about the… Read more »

brian
Reply to  I do not believe it
26, September 2012 11:11 am

A friend told me of a colleague who left the college because she couldn’t cope with the moronic 17 year old rejects from the schools. These were the ones, too thick to do “A” levels and consequently not wanted by results-driven headteachers. She decided to work in a Primary school thinking this would be far less stressful. During her first week, 15 minutes into a class of… Read more »

davimel
26, September 2012 12:21 pm

Mmm err…. getting back to the true issue here, Let’s be honest, it is a watered down attempt to pacify a (rightly) indignant member of the public who ‘caught out’ some nasty activities by, what we used to think of as, kids! Perhaps ‘we’ are in the wrong for thinking of these youths as young or immature when they seem to be treated as young adults and… Read more »

Mark L Francis
26, September 2012 1:46 pm

I was in Battery Gardens, Sandown,in August walking my when a boy of about 12 showed his penis to me to asked if I liked it. I told him to puit it away and walked on. I would not report the incident to the Police as I would as likely be accused myself and ripped apart by the hysteria engendered by the media and the NSPCC. As… Read more »

Sciolist
26, September 2012 2:30 pm

Are you sure it wasn’t Councillor Whitaker from Carisbrooke? He was convicted of just such a thing.

Mark L Francis
Reply to  Sciolist
26, September 2012 4:32 pm

He was looking a lot younger than his photo.

Mark Smallwood
3, February 2015 10:52 pm

I don’t feel sorry for Mr Thomas, the man [part of comment removed by moderator]

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined