SCP regulations or is one not so?

Well, now then, now then…..

It’s Paul. Good morning, members.

It doesn’t take too much of a stretch of the imagination to work out which of these two sets of SCP regulations are bogus……unless some of you disagree with me(??).

I recognise the trend and excitement of the creator of the regulations that I feel are wrong. It’s a classic case of hyper-ventilating when it comes to the thorny issue of girls. Look, I’ve done it! I’m not at all blaming the creator!  I once put a set of SCP regulations together purely for my own amusement and ended up fighting with myself to keep a lid on it: ‘GIRLS:’ bottoms v hands, skirts, positions, etc. And it’s at that point the TYPOS kick in, too! To be fair, the creator has done a good job in keeping a bit of control, but I’d lay you a few quid that he or she was toying with doing something about skirts!
I must admit, id like to meet the creator!
Have a read!
Looking forward to your response.
Thanks,
Paul.

Hello Paul,

I’d agree, both of these are extremely suspect. I presume these purport to UK schools pre the national CP ban in state schools.

Much of it is taken from fact but I’d doubt the youngsters would be referred to as students back then. Students then usually meant post school age students. A few howling grammar/spelling mistakes too; alternate should surely be alternative and the log-book should be logbook or more correctly record book. Headmaster or assistant teachers? No mention of teachers?

Lots of detail in some areas of them but equally as many omissions of expected details. From what I’ve seen of what I what I believe to be genuine documents either give full details or very scant rules. Some LEAs give virtually no guidelines.

In my opinion, both documents are complete fiction; there are too many inconsistencies.  In the case of the second document, I have no knowledge of any school authority permitting the use of a slipper or any other implement that is not supplied specifically for the purpose of punishment.

Agreed the documents are extremely suspect but I am certain that some LEAs did authorise the use of a plimsoll on both boys and girls. I’m sure I’ve read of at least one UK county authority that permitted the ‘slipper’ for girls where the boys were caned across the bottom. I am fairly sure that Gloucestershire senior schools allowed the use of a plimsoll for girls. I lived close to Gloucestershire in the 1960s but where I lived schools were allowed to cane girls but only across their hands.

As mentioned, I am not aware that the slipper was approved by any local authority, so I would be interested if you can find some positive evidence.  If anywhere, it may be that areas of South Wales could have given approval, as “the dap” was a term often used by local schoolchildren.  Gloucestershire is not far away.

I regret that I can offer no positive evidence. I grew up in Bristol where the cane and the ‘dap’ was used on boys’ bottoms in the 50s/60s. Most senior schools used both, the only exception was a RC boys grammar school that used a leather strap. I knew very little about girls’ schools back then having no sisters. One of my friends went to another grammar school, a mixed one. He said both boys and girls were caned there, always across the hands.

Back to the slipper, known as the ‘dap’ in Bristol too. So many schools used it I believe it must have been recognised as an official implement. I was the first boy in my class to get the ‘dap’. The French teacher gave me two hard whacks in front of the class. It really hurt, I’d only had my bottom spanked at home a few times before that.

Some parts of Bristol were very close to the Gloucestershire border. I lived in that area and heard of the ‘dap’ being used on both boys and girls in Gloucestershire. It has to be remembered that back in the 1950s/60s many parents spanked and slippered their children at home so most would have approved of a similar punishment at home provided it was deserved.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for posting those alleged “regulations” Like others I have no hesitation to dismiss both as bogus.

What does intrigue me is what the authors were trying to achieve. If they were trying to substantiate or complement a fantasy I would have expected something a bit more explicit. As it is the fantasy is considerably less than reality because of the restrictions mentioned did not apply in real life.

For example the use of the cane was not restricted in many schools solely to the Head. In fact,in my senior school, the Head rarely caned but all of the other teachers did. I will be posting details of my personal experiences in the near future.

Whilst canings were required to be witnessed and recorded in a punishment book, ,I have never heard of a slippering being witnessed or recorded. This fact makes many of the statistics prepared by I LEA in the 60s and 70s inaccurate especially as regards the number of girls who received CP in this way.

The writer was obviously not aware of the activities of some teachers who no doubt considered they had the authority to interpret any C P guidelines according to their own rules. e.g. girls spanked OTK on their underwear with a paint brush handle, boys spanked OTK with a slipper with their gym shorts pulled down and one teacher (Colin West) who had no hesitation in taking a teenage girl across his knees and slippering her on her completely bare bottom in front of her parents! Plus of course the Helston girls and other instances which received press coverage.

So what were the authors trying to achieve?

More than one LEA in England specified the slipper as a permitted implement. Hampshire did, and I think from memory Kent also did.  Two LEAs, possibly more, specified the slipper in their regulations for middle schools (9-13).  If memory serves, Slough was one; and Leicester another?

In addition to the quite generic published regulations, which often fulfilled only the minimum needs of having a piece of paper in place, there would have been memos, instructions and internal minutes (although the “regulations” at the top of this thread are clearly just a piece of spanko-imagination).  For example, head teachers would sometimes issue specific letters of permission to teachers to authorise them.

in any case, almost half of LEAs simply stated that corporal punishment use was at the discretion of the head teacher, or of the board of governors.

Contrary to hcj’s suggestion/question, schools did sometimes formally record slipper punishments in the same manner as canings; I had first-hand experience of one which did so, and there are one or two examples out there on the web.

Finally, it should be borne in mind that LEA regulations did not override the common-law right of every teacher, in loco parentis, to administer “moderate and reasonable chastisement”.  That was assumed, and rarely challenged, and was the basis on which slippers or rulers were so frequently wielded, or indeed youthful legs were smacked. A teacher doing so might have been in breach of her/his terms of employment, but not of the law – unless a punishment went somehow beyond normal accepted bounds.

The slipper was used almost everywhere and I am sure that local guidelines would have permitted it, but I am still intrigued by how one would write a regulation for its use.  Canes and straps are made for only one purpose and can be clearly defined by material and dimensions; the same is true of paddles.  I seem to remember one UK authority or school that specified “a broad bat”.

However, slippers come in so many different styles and sizes, how were the regulations framed to ensure consistency between schools in the same area?  Perhaps they weren’t consistent at all – and perhaps it didn’t matter.

If any one has the STOPP documents that include LEA regulations, it would be most interesting to see what type of slipper was permitted and, if anything, what was not allowed.

Hello, members,
It’s Paul:

Sorry for my nigh-near two week delay in responding. Sadly, time has been getting the better of me!
I was bursting to respond earlier, for there are some excellent responses to this thread and I shall endeavor to reply as best I can.

May I thank the team of ‘Six of the Best,’ ‘HCJ44,’ ‘Sir John.’ And ‘ Pi051.’ Thank you people! There is much to get my teeth into here:

But where is my friend ‘Mr A.L’ of late?

I have included copies on attachment of almost all the LEA regulations that have been discussed in this thread. All barring Slough, that is. It’s not listed in the STOPP publication, ‘A Guide to CP Regulations in England &Wales (1982).

It’s a funny location is Slough, and with so many changes down the years, under which LEA was it governed by??? Checking on Wikipedia it suggests, Berkshire. It says, quote:

Slough (/slaʊ/ ( listen)) is a large town in Berkshire, England, within the Greater London Urban Area, 20 miles (32 km) west of Charing Cross, central London and 17 miles (27 km) north-east of the county town of Reading. It is situated within the Thames Valley at the intersection of the M4, M40 and M25 motorways.

So, again, my STOPP publication is 1982. It’s on dates that I now highlight. The regulations that I have attached are circa 1975-1977. I think most of you appear to be referring to the 1960’s up to early-mid 1970’s. Much depends upon how many changes were made when the 75-77 regulations were implemented from the prior ones. My feeling is the things might well have been quite different in the time frame most of you mention, especially 1950’s/early 60’s.

Regarding the two regulations that began this thread, I’m afraid I don’t quite agree with any of you that both are bogus. The second PDF document is clearly bogus. I can feel its author getting more excited as he or she creates the document. It doesn’t say which authority it is, for one. Then there are grammatical errors. Sir John asks why someone would create such folly. Well, the author is obviously excited by SCP, especially on girls. He or she was likely to be having some jollies, a spot of fun. To be fair on its creator, the person did maintain a degree of control, or as we say, kept the lid on it. Had the creator not done so, it would have blown the regulations out of the water. You pointed out, ‘Sir John, that the person did not delve too far into fantasy land. Exactly my point. The fantasy was just about controlled. For example, the author didn’t suggest, ‘skirts are always raised,’ etc, etc. Or, really blowing his cover by daring to suggest; ‘ In the utmost serious breaches  of school discipline, canings for both boys and girls are administered to the bare buttocks.’  But I bet your bottom dollar it was on the mind of the author. So NOPE! Pure fantasy!
The other set of regulations from West Riding, I don’t think we can call it fake for certain. The creator has said nothing that would make me think it’s bogus. I have picked up that capital letters are being used incorrectly, but having said that, that has happened in this very STOPP publication. Looking at the document  again, It starts similarly to those in the STOPP book, whereby it clearly states every endeavour should be made to reduce SCP, also mentioning child welfare. Also, SCP used only for grave offences or in cases where other punishments have been tried. That, to me, sounds about right. It covers punishment book entry, delicate children, etc. And on the thorny issue of girls, ‘only by a female staff,’ albeit, ‘where possible.’ Also a thin, flexible cane, only
There is no talk of buttocks or anything that some of us might like to read in fiction. I’m ready to believe it as genuine.
But, and a big ‘but’ for me is the issue of ‘West Riding.’ From what I’ve just read, I’ve got to question when the regulations document was made. Read on:

‘The county of Yorkshire West Riding was abolished on 1.4.1974 to become parts of the counties of West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, and Humberside.
Of course, the creator could have typed up a very old physical document.  I guess we could all sit here debating whether it’s genuine or not for an eternity (Good fun, though!!).

HCJ44, thank you for your thoughts. But what makes you think the West Riding document has too many inconsistences? I can take your point without question on the other set of regulations.
You’re correct about one school using a broad bat. It was mentioned in an FR post, but also it’s in one of my other STOPP publications. I shall see if I can locate it. Obviously, I have the STOPP publication you refer to. Without going through it page by page, although I’ve read it so many times, I know it backwards, but I can’t recall any LEAs actually specifying criteria, like dimensions, weights, sizes, etc, regarding slippers. From my collection of FR posts, it seems the slipper, or ‘dap,’ was pretty widespread. Yet it’s not mentioned that often in LEA regulations.

Six of The Best,’ you mentioned Gloucestershire, as did HCJ44. I have enclosed the LEA regulations. You referred to the 1960’s. This document is 1977. There is no mention of the slipper, but is a little vague, as many LEA regs are. It’ says : ‘In general,  the authority would expect CP to be administered by ‘open hand or by cane.’  But would that mean the slipper might be permitted?
It’s reasonably clear regarding girls. SCP is discouraged and its use should be very rare. It also says, punishment can be given on the ‘hand,’ or ‘seat, depending on the age and sex of the pupil’ Interesting!!!

Hello, POI591- a very interesting post, of yours. Thank you. You mentioned Hampshire. I have sent the 1976 regulations. You are quite correct: it does mention the slipper and its use alongside the cane for pupils over eight. I think Hampshire regulations are among the more detailed. It’s in two parts, so note the second separate attachment.

Kent CC I have submitted here before. But please find a copy on attachment. The 1977 regulations do not mention the slipper, as you suggest, but older regulations might have done. Girls were caned in Kent. Of that there is no doubt.  The regulations say that SCP must be administered in a way approved by the head. I guess that let’s in the slipper, doesn’t it? It does suggest that punishment should be administered by a staff member of the same sex, but, quote: ‘……wherever possible.’ I think the two girls caned at Churchill School in Kent , in the book blaze incident of 1979 were actually caned by its headmaster, John Coatman.

Slough as mentioned . I have added the regulations of Berkshire.

This has been an excellent thread. I hope I have sparked some debate and discussion.

Mr. A.L l! Come on join in! We miss you, greatly!

Thank you, members,

Paul.

Hi Paul,

I was beginning to wonder if the rest of the UK had completely lost interest in SCP of the past.

You mention that most people refer to the 50s/60s. I certainly do myself. The simple reason is that is the time I was at school. In the early 1970s my work took me away from my hometown. With work, marriage and a young family my interest in SCP was, to a great extent, restricted. I read of STOPP’s activities and realised that fewer parents used CP at home.

I presume that the LEA details you have added are from a STOPP source and are not the actual published guidelines that were supplied to school staff. The details shown take a standard format.

As to girls being caned; there is absolutely no doubt that plenty of girls in various parts of the UK were caned. Apart from the LEA guidelines methods and frequency varied enormously school to school within the same LEA. While one school could be in a genteel area of a city another just a few miles away might be in a rough area.

The type of school too affected to amount of CP used on girls. I’ve read of girls’ school on rough council estates frequently using the cane. Before anyone says plenty of decent people lived on council estates I completely agree. I knew of such a school, girls there were caned across their hands.

Generally girls in mixed senior schools received far less CP than boys in the same school. Punishments there varied too. Boys were usually caned across their backsides while the girls were caned across hands or slippered across their bottoms.

Despite my lack of local personal information about SCP in the 1970s I read of occasional cases of excessive or inappropriate punishments. So I accepted that CP was still being used in UK schools.

You mention that many of the LEA guidelines concerning corporal punishment in UK state schools rarely mention use of a ‘slipper’, more accurately a plimsoll. I’m not sure just many authentic copies of these documents are available. I know it is generally accepted that such guidelines varied, some giving far less detail than others.

Both youngsters and parents believed that they had some idea of the rules. I think the general idea was that six strokes of a proper school cane was the maximum punishment in senior schools. Therefore lesser punishments were seen as acceptable. Right up to the UK state school CP ban, many parents had, as youngsters, received both school and parental discipline themselves.

Some of the same parents still used spanking at home. To the best of my knowledge there were and never has been any firm guidance on parental discipline. It wasn’t until a punishment was seen or reported as ‘excessive’ any action was taken. Fortunately most parents applied common sense to punishments, regrettably this was not always the case. Perhaps the national policy, if one actually existed, was not to offer guidelines. The theory being that offering advice, limits, might be seen as fully approving of families using spanking.

All the above comments above refer to the past and I am relieved that corporal punishment of youngsters is no longer seen as the right way to discipline them.

Hello Paul, you wrote:  “HCJ44, thank you for your thoughts. But what makes you think the West Riding document has too many inconsistences?”

Having re-read the document, I think I may have been too quick to dismiss it as completely fake.  However I still have some reservations.

It certainly doesn’t appear to be an original document but has been typed up at a later stage. The inconsistencies were that it was headed “Education Department” and it then referred to the “Committee’s schools”.  Later it used the term “County Education Authority” and then “Divisional Officers”.  There is too much of a hotch-potch of terminology, so I felt the transcript was stitched together from a variety of other documents.  I was also surprised by the muddled use of the term “assistant teachers”.  Three years of teaching after qualification, would you still use the term “assistant teacher”?   Finally, the last paragraph threatening dismissal seems inappropriate for a document of this status.  Surely a serious disciplinary breach would require referral to a higher authority for decision on termination.  Head teachers were not in a position to hire and fire, but could ask the local education authority to remove the teacher from the school.

hcj44:

As you say these typed documents are full of inconsistencies. As I said earlier they all seem to be almost identical in detail. I too would question the term ‘assistant teacher’. As I remember a newly qualified teacher had to complete a full year’s teaching before a ‘full teaching certificate’ was granted. I’m sure restrictions to which teachers were authorise to administer CP varies area to area. From my own schooldays I only remember senior teachers giving CP, most used a plimsoll or similar. A few of the older teachers did give the cane but that was generally from the headmaster or deputy head. I understand that in the larger comprehensive schools with anything up to well over a thousand pupils the application of CP was often delegated to heads of year. As to SCP for girls this was, in mixed schools, normally the responsibility of the senior mistress. Where I grew up I only knew of girls being caned across their hands.

Also as you say disciplinary action against teaching staff was the responsibility of the LEA or in extreme cases the police. Head teachers had to refer such matters to the LEA.

Hi, All
I shall try and find the info I have about the state school and the use of the bat. If I recall,  STOPP made a meal of it
So for the delay