Hello Oliver,

I remember the Headmaster being very angry when I came out of the toilet, but at the same time he was very calm. He told me very clearly that trying to avoid punishment when you deserved it was something he would not tolerate. I remember I was crying when I stood up after he had caned me, and him saying something along the lines of. “I am sorry that hurt but it is meant to hurt and it can hurt a lot more” and it can only have been a few weeks later when I was set to see him for being in the toilets with a boy (after the caning at detention I wrote about) and one of the first things he said when I went into his office was something like “I warned you about how much the cane can hurt, didn’t I?” although luckily he did listen to our explanation and decided we didn’t deserve to be punished.

When it came to the library books, the library teacher had obviously made up her mind about what had happened before asking me for any sort of explanation and she passed on her version to the Headmaster who simply accepted what he was told as fact, and I think found it all rather embarassing given what I was being accused of, and he told the Deputy Headmistress to deal with me. Nobody gave me the chance to explain, and I think that the Headmaster probably thought the library teacher had already investigated and the Deputy Headmistress probably assumed the Headmaster was already satisfied. I have the impression that the Headmaster used to ask her to cane girls when he decided that they needed to get six of the best, which in my school was understood to mean being punished with your skirt up, if you were a girl, or with your trousers down if you were a boy. I assume he didn’t think it was appropriate for him to punish a girl that way, although he had no problem caning you on your skirt. But when she was called in, I think the decision had already been taken – it wasn’t seen as her job to investigate further, just to carry out the execution. I wish somebody had asked me more questions in a way that I felt I could have answered them, but the library teacher wasn’t the type to do that and this time the Headmaster didn’t give me a chance to explain which he had done before on a few different occasions (and I’d been able to). And without being asked to be explain, I didn’t dare try to force them to listen to me. You just didn’t do that.

Looking back, I think that’s the biggest problem I have with the way my school used corporal punishment. I don’t really have any problem with the method used. It was something you didn’t want to happen to you because it really hurt and so I think most people tried to behave themselves so it wouldn’t happen to them. And it was just part of life. Nearly all of us got smacked in some way at home, I think. Most schools used corporal punishment, at least on boys, it seems it was less common with girls. And other people could sometimes use it too. It was a normal part of childhood.

I never recall getting punished when I did not deserve it. even in the case of the photographs I was guilty even if I think I had a good reason. The problem is I think there are a lot of people I went to school with who would not say that. I saw innocent children punished – when my whole bus was punished and when my whole class was punished, both times I had been part of the misbehaviour but not everybody had been doing the wrong thing and there was no attempt made to work out who was guilty and who was innocent. Those punishments weren’t severe but if you were innocent, any punishment is too severe.

And there was also no real way a child could safely explain or defend themselves. Some teachers gave you the chance to explain what had happened and most of those would listen fairly and give you a good chance to defend yourself. Some teachers did this consistently, some did it only if they had already decided they were unsure. But some didn’t let people explain themselves and trying to explain if you were not given the chance was likely to be seen as defiance leading to worse punishment. I’ve mentioned the time we were caned instead of doing a detention already. First of all, I don’t think that was very fair to start with – maybe she had a good reason for not being able to supervise us, but I felt at the time she just couldn’t be bothered and decided to cane us because it was quicker for her. I didn’t mind that much to be honest, but the little boy who wound up getting three on each hand was a very different situation. He was really terrified of the idea of getting the cane – he had been supposed to get one cut and had cried so much that his teacher had given him a detention instead. I’m not sure that was a good idea, but the point is, he had only been meant to get one stroke and instead got detention. I think he was quite right in saying that it was totally unfair he was now going to get two cuts, and I could understand why he was saying that and if I could understand it, the teacher should have been able to understand that. But even if for some reason she didn’t feel like letting him get less than the rest of us, giving him six cuts for trying to make a fair argument seemed horrible to me. But that teacher was horrible. She even called him a little baby because he was crying when she’d finished, and that honestly outraged me. It seemed totally horrible that a grown up could deliberately hurt you like that and then be cross because you were crying.

So my problems with the system was fairness and justice, rather than with the punishments used. In actual fact, when it comes to the punishments themselves I’m not sure I don’t think they shouldn’t have been more severe than they were.

When I got six of the best on my bottom, even though it hurt me terribly at the time, it didn’t do me any real injury but it was definitely an experience I didn’t want to repeat. And up until that point, I’d been caned at least nine times in three years. After that I didn’t get another one for two years. I tried very, very hard not to get the cane again and most of what I tried was behaving myself. I think there probably would have been a lot less caning if every time you got the cane, it was six of the best. It was allowed anyway, so presumably people had decided it was a safe to be that severe, so I’m not sure why it wasn’t just the standard punishment. The whole point was to make us scared to misbehave. I was a lot more scared of the idea of six of the best than I was of two or three strokes – especially after I had had it.

When my father punished me at home, even though I did not like the fact that he punished me on my naked body, I felt like his punishments were effective because his obvious intention was to hurt me a lot. Not to injure me or harm me, but to hurt me. I knew that if he decided I deserved to be punished, it was going to be an awful experience, so I tried very hard to behave. In contrast, at school, I often felt that when they used corporal punishment they were trying to hurt us as little as possible – just enough to make the point but without hurting too much. The two punishments that were truly effective for me were the two where that no longer seemed to be the case – the two times I got six, the very clear message I got was “This time I am going to hurt you as much as I am allowed to hurt you.” I got the same message from the strap in Grade 6 – my Principal may have been reluctant to strap me but once he decided to do it, he was brutal and uncompromising. If corporal punishment is going to be used, if you are going to have a system of punishment based on hurting children, then hurt them. Don’t mess around trying to hurt them as little as possible. Make sure it hurts so much they don’t want to come back for another dose – of course, making sure, it doesn’t do any lasting damage.

I don’t think caning on the hands was a good idea and I’m honestly not sure why they did it, except that they may have worried about how the idea of punishing the bottom was seen. If so, I think that was ridiculous. We were children and there was nothing sexual about getting your bottom smacked in any way, but as they did it sometimes anyway, punishing on the hands made no real sense to me. It did hurt more, I think, but six of the best on the bottom hurt enough for any punishment as far as I was concerned. I’m not sure that this necessarily holds with older kids, 16 and 17 year olds, perhaps, might well be close enough to adulthood that there are sexual implications to be considered, but even then as long as it’s a teacher of the same sex, I think you just have to trust that everything is above board, unless there’s a reason not to, the same with everything else (and I have been involved in investigating crimes against children, so I am not blind to the possibilities – but allowing the existence of disturbed individuals to affect everybody else does far more harm than good. It stops innocent, decent people, being able to help kids who need it). I only got the cane once when I was that age so I don’t have much to judge on though.

I think the idea of making boys pull their trousers down, and pulling up girls skirts was unnecessary as well. It’s hard to be sure but I don’t think it made that much difference at all to how much the cane hurt and I think it just made the experience more embarassing than it needed to be and also created a potential for somebody with ulterior motives to act inappropriately that I think was unnecessary. I also have a problem with how public punishment could be in my school. I hated watching other children being punished and hated the idea that they were watching it happen to me. I think it should have been done in private at least most of the time. I did see two boys get six of the best on his underpants after he had been caught spying on us in the shower and on that occasion, I think a particular point was being made and I’m not sure that point was a bad one (although I still don’t think there was any need to make him pull his trousers down – although thinking about it, I think at the time I agreed with a friend that they should have actually pulled everything down seeing he’d seen us undressed). I also think there was still a sexist bias in my school when it came to caning and I don’t approve of that. We were a lot more equal than some schools I have heard of where girls were not caned and boys were, but it was still a lot easier for boys to be caned than it was for girls. I can think of a lot of cases where I got off with being told off and a boy would have got a couple of cuts. I also remember being quite disgusted (although to be fair also quite relieved) when another girl I was with managed to cry so much that our Formmaster let us go without caning us, when I’m sure a boy would have been much less likely to get away with the same trick – and it really was more of a trick than her genuinely being that scared.

About You:
Gender: Male.
Approximate age when punished: 11
Approximate year of punishment: 1968 – 69
Crime committed or alleged: Out of bounds in old air raid shelterAbout the punishment
Administered by Head, or Staff member: Mr Holden (Housemaster)
Gender of staff member: Male
Location punished (Classroom, Office, Hallway etc): Mr Holdens classroom
Type of punishment (Cane,Slipper,Paddle etc): Plimsoll
Number of strokes: 6
Applied to (Hand, Bottom, Legs etc): Bottom.
Position adopted (Standing, Bending over Chair, Desk etc):Bent over desk
State of dress (Over Trousers/Skirt, panties, bare etc): Trousers
Privacy (In private, In front of Class, With another teacher etc): Punished with other boy,2 girls that were with us had to wait outside of class why we were slippered

About the school
Name of School: Secondary school North West
Town:
Country: UK

Effectiveness
Were you ever punished again for the same offence?: No
Do you consider the punishment effective?: Yes

Any other relevant info – The shelters were strictly out of bounds as we were told on our first day in school,my friend and myself decided to explore as there was a staff meeting going on at the time,so we thought we would be safe,two girls who lived on the same estate wanted to join us,we agreed,they could be look outs why us boys went into the shelter
No sooner had we entered when we ordered out by Mr Holden,the staff meeting had finished and he was doing his rounds,so much for the two lookouts
We were all marched to his classroom and given a right rollicking about how dangerous the shelters were and about disobedience,us two boys were ordered to remove our blazers and each of us to bend over a desk
Mr Holden took a large black plimsoll from his drawer and ordered the girls to wait outside the class,we were the both given six of the best,iadmit i howled it felt like my bottom was on fire.After we had both been slippered the two girls were called back in,we had to remain bent over the desks has he gave the girls two sheets of paper each they had to write lines AIR RAID SHELTERS ARE STRICTLY OUT OF BOUNDS to be returned to him next day or else there will be reprecussions,we were then allowed up from the desk and dismissed

I have just read this entry from John King relating to an incident back in 1958
‘Approximate age when punished: 16
Approximate year of punishment: 1958
Crime committed or alleged: Cheating in a test (which I didn’t do) ‘It was at a Grammar School in the South of England , and he does state that it became a subject of parental complaint when his innocence was explained and accepted. I do find it odd,however, that a 16 year old would accept punishment in this way at all for something he had not done!He was already a year beyond the school leaving age and was surely capable of standing his ground and offering physical resistance if necessary. The mere indication that he intended to make a formal complaint to his parents should have sufficed to persuade the Headmaster to desist. This really is the sort of incident that should have ended up in the courts because he was clearly a victim of physical abuse.

I think you must remember how defertial people were in the late 50s. Headmasters were powerful people and could affect your life chances by poor references and they had influence in the local community. I was caned in the 6th form when I was at school in the mid 60s for skipping assembly(4 strokes across the backside)but the consequences of refusing to bend over and accept my punishment would have been far more dire than the caning itself.Fortunately we now live in a far more enlightened age and the thought of a 16/17 year old accepting a caning would be out of the question.

That rather misses the point. It was never lawful – even in the 1950s – for a Headmaster to cane a boy without good reason , and I would strongly suggest that what happened to this boy represented criminal assault as the law then stood. His parents accepted his version of events and complained to the school but by implication did not take the matter further than that. Concerns about a reference would not arise had there been court proceedings and stories in the local press about the Headmaster’s conduct. His job would have been at risk!
I remain surprised that an innocent 16 year old would meekly submit under such circumstances. He should have refused and been prepared to defend himself physically if necessary. Frankly this story is so appalling that the boy,in my view, would have been perfectly justified to have approached the Headmaster a few years later after having left school with the intention of knocking his block off in retaliation for the earlier assault. Given the facts, it seems unlikely that the Headmaster would want the matter exposed to public view in Court.

<div style=”width:100%;background-image:url(“/realm/A_L_123/A_L_trg.gif”);”>Hello Justin,

You have been posting incitement to violence against Headmasters for what seems years now, and you clearly have the most almighty chip on your shoulder about the subject. I do wish you’d tell us how you came to have this hatred of people who for the most part tried to do the right thing by their pupils. It is possible that I personally, and indeed others, might then accord a little more credence to your diatribes.

Meantime I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the law relative to the periods for which you claim violence by the pupil to the Headmaster would have been legal. In most cases you are somewhat mistaken!</div>

I think you will find that I have the law – as it was in 1958 – very much on my side in respect of the said incident. I am surprised frankly that you seem so determined to act as an apologist for what was clearly criminal behaviour.

It was never lawful – even in the 1950s – for a Headmaster to cane a boy without good reason , and I would strongly suggest that what happened to this boy represented criminal assault as the law then stood.

I doubt it.

I’ve always taught in Australia and Australian law never exactly matches British law (and less and less over time) but the legal situations on this issue have historically been very similar, and because of my job, I’ve had to be very well aware of where the legal lines were.

And I think you misunderstand the legal situation.

Headmasters (and by extension, teachers and schools) are not expected to be perfect. That means they are not expected to always make the correct decision. If a boy was caned who did not deserve it (and there have been cases where I have caned a boy who later proved to be innocent, and I’m sure there were other cases where I made mistakes as well that I still don’t know I made a mistake) that is, of course, terribly unfair and unjust and he would have every right to be upset about it – but it’s not evidence that a crime has been committed. If a teacher honestly and sincerely believed the child to be guilty, then legally they were allowed to punish the child. Even if they were wrong. Headmasters, teachers, and schools are not even held to the same standard of proof that is required in a courtroom – guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The standard has always been closer to, on the balance of probability, do you believe the child to be guilty.

You would almost certainly be committing a crime (although if you go back as far as the 1950s, I think there’s quite a good chance you’d get away with it) if you caned a child you knew to be innocent, and you might even be committing one if you deliberately or negligently ignored evidence of innocence that you should have considered, but if you believed the child to be guilty on reasonable suspicion and evidence then you were acting within the law.

I’ve gone back to look at the John King incident you describe (it can be found on page 5 of this discussion). Obviously we are dealing with limited information here, but this is what John says happened:

I was accused of cheating in a test by copying another boys work. In fact he had copied mine but neither the teacher or the headmaster, who had been summoned, believed me. I was bent over the desk, my trousers were lowered and the headmaster caned me very hard over my underpants. I expected another hiding at home but fortunately my parents believed me and complained to the school.

I’ll assume, of course, that John is describing this accurately and that he was innocent, because at this juncture he hardly has any other reason to lie and he seems quite upfront that the other punishments he received were deserved when he thinks they were. Looking at this, I can’t see any reason to think that the Headmaster might not have honestly and sincerely believed John to be guilty. In fact, John says quite clearly that both the teacher and the headmaster believed him to be guilty. Were they wrong? Yes. But it looks to me like they had reasonable grounds, and so the punishment would not have been unlawful. John says he was fortunate that even his parents who knew him much better believed him, so it’s hard to see any evidence of negligence here. And cheating did occur, even if John didn’t do it, so there was evidence of cheating. And in many schools, because most copying in tests does occur with the knowledge of the child being copied from and the child who is copying (at least if it is extensive) there has often been a general policy of treating both as equally guilty. It would be interesting (although considering the entry was made two years ago, perhaps unlikely) to know if the other boy was punished as well.

I’d also like to know if John knew the other boy was cheating at the time – because if he did, I would regard him as equally guilty anyway, even if John didn’t feel that way.

It would not have helped his case in that it would seem likely the same Headmaster had previously punished him for an offence involving dishonesty. You are entitled to consider the child’s previous character in forming an opinion, and personally, I would be much more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to a child I knew to be honest, who was claiming innocence, than one with a previous history of dishonesty. It would also be interesting to know if John had admitted his offence the previous occasion, because again, if I was dealing with a boy who had never denied an offence before and this time he was doing so, I’d take that very seriously – but if he had a history of lying to get out of trouble, I’d need more evidence than the mere denial to cancel out other evidence.

I have during most of my career made very real efforts to be fair and to avoid mistakes and to give boys the benefit of any reasonable doubt in their favour. I set up policies in my school to allow boys the chance to appeal to somebody else so at least two people had to be convinced they were guilty and deserved to be caned in a case where they wanted to make such an appeal. Even with that in place, I still know of a few mistakes I made – either as the person punishing, or as the person hearing the appeal, because evidence later came out of a person’s innocence, or because as adults who have no real reason to lie people have told me I got it wrong. I’m sorry in those cases, I truly am, and I regret my mistakes. But I don’t believe I’ve ever made one where I was negligent or careless or did anything else, that would make a criminal prosecution likely. There is one case from my early career, where I think if somebody tried to bring a civil prosecution I doubt I’d even try to defend it, because in that case, I think I did make a serious error (but the boy in that case was guilty – my error was in not looking more closely into why he did what he did). But in virtually all cases at the time I did my best and made my best judgement, on the evidence available.

And while there are probably (statistically I would expect it) there were probably other occasions I got it wrong, I am sure I let off far more guilty boys by giving them the benefit of the doubt (sometimes the tiniest sliver of doubt, other times, there really was a decent reason to doubt even though I would have said I was sure) than I ever punished the innocent. And that is as it should be. And, again, I have had cases years after the event where somebody has told me he got away with something because I chose to believe him. A few of them have even been guilty about that – and I don’t think they should be. I think a schoolboy is absolutely entitled to try and get out of a punishment if they can – I certainly did everything I could to do so more than once. And it even worked once or twice.