Do teachers in the UK really lose their jobs if they accidently touch a child? I once had a talk with a teacher in which I mentioned to her that when I used to teach 9 year olds music theory I would hold their hands while we drew treble and bass clefs together. Then slowly I would wean them off my assistance until they could write the clefs themselves. I never thought much of this because I had a 100% distinction record all the way through the decade I taught, so I assumed my methods were validated by the extended spell of high achievements as made clear by multiple music examination boards, both local and international, on my candidates' certificates. I only ever asked to have the quality of my instruction be judged by my results. She then told me that this would be unacceptable in the UK. That there have been developed whole methods of piano instruction that teach teachers how to teach the piano without any touch. That the associate board of the royal schools of music holds seminars in the UK to better equip music teachers in teaching like this. You would also find multiple articles in their quarterly newsletter about the subject. I then asked her if it would surprise the English that if I were to touch a child to help him to learn the specific notation of a treble clef that my motivation for doing so is not to abuse the child, but in fact only to teach the child the subject matter that his or her parents employ me to do. To which she sarcastically replied it would surprise every member of parliament in the UK who could not teach an apple how to fall off a tree but make the policies that govern the teaching profession. So that made me wonder if this is true, what would happen if a primary school child arose from his desk a little too vigorously and fell and started crying. I'm assuming there is no way to console a crying child without touching him, so I guess the teacher's only recourse would be to call the nurse and get her to remove the crying child. I now better understand why the UK government has to import teachers. So in closing what exactly is the policy regarding this?
There is no nationwide prohibition on physical contact between teachers and children. But there are positive duties for child safeguarding which might result in a local policy that is more restrictive. The exact legal background is different depending on whether this is happening in England, Scotland, etc., or on whether it's a state or private school, but the net result is the same. For music tuition which takes place outside school, bodies such as the Independent Society of Musicians (the UK's main professional association for musicians and music teachers) will have their own policies for members. For example, for state schools in England, the governors must &quot;make arrangements for ensuring that their functions relating to the conduct of the school are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children who are pupils at the school&quot; (Education Act 2002 s.175(2)). This is a bit of a mouthful, but the rough idea is that the school has to implement certain policies in the interests of the child, including protecting them from sexual abuse and grooming. The school has to take account of statutory guidance from the Department for Education. In addition, there are standards for teachers' conduct which are used to assess their performance, and include language around safeguarding duties as well as &quot;proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach&quot;. Now, there is nothing here to say that a teacher can never make physical contact with a pupil. There are rules about how allegations of abuse are meant to be handled, as well as the general employment law around unfair dismissal, which would mean that accidentally touching a child ought not to result in immediate sacking. A particular school could decide that on balance, the appropriate policy is one of no physical contact at all, or they could be more nuanced (which is likely). Whatever policy they do have must be communicated to the teaching staff, who naturally are meant to follow it - although again, there are requirements of fairness on the employer as to how they handle noncompliance. Given that overall framework, scenarios of accidental touching, or administering first aid, or breaking up a dangerous situation, are different from physical contact as part of normal instruction. Even a local policy which ostensibly says &quot;no touching ever&quot; would have to give way to the Education and Inspections Act 2006, s.93 which specifically authorises our hypothetical teacher at an English state school to use reasonable force to stop a pupil injuring someone else, among other examples. That is also in line with the teachers' duty of care towards the wellbeing of their pupils. These examples are not really the same as what is happening in an ordinary music lesson. Meanwhile, outside the school gates, the Independent Society of Musicans has its own Code of Conduct which includes specific rules about touching in Annex 2, paragraph 20. Physical contact between teachers and pupils is only appropriate in very limited circumstances. Teachers should consider using other strategies such as demonstrating for the student to copy or using a mirror. If a teacher intends to use any physical contact in their teaching, they should state this in writing before lessons begin and ask the parent or guardian to sign that they have read the document. Explain the type of touch involved, where on the body and why, and make sure the pupil is aware of the reason for physical contact. Explain this orally to parents, guardians and pupils, and keep them informed of any need to modify the type of touch required as pupils progress. It is not advisable to touch a child on the trunk of the body unless there is a justifiable reason (e.g. to administer first aid). It is not appropriate to touch a child around the chest, waist, diaphragm or ribs in order to teach breathing. These rules are also made in the context of safeguarding, with the threat of terminating ISM membership (at least in principle). Note that this does not say that touch is disallowed, but does ask it to be limited and respectful, and clearly signalled to the child and their parents or guardians. Other professional societies may well have their own rules. All of this is happening at the level of law and policy, and so it's a little removed from the highly emotive social question of what sorts of behaviour are considered acceptable. Someone who teaches music in the UK would be exposed to a range of strongly-held views on the topic, which don't necessarily relate very clearly to the legal minimum requirements.
Rudeness is not a crime Thankfully, or I’d be writing this from jail. The threat or actually of intentional and unwanted physical contact is a crime. Historically these were seperate common law crimes (and torts) of assault and battery respectively. However, in most jurisdictions these have been codified and merged and redefined so there is common assault (which merges historic assault and battery and is what you are asking about), indecent assault, sexual assault etc. In general, there must be an intentionality to the contact - accidentally colliding with someone is not assault (although it can be the tort of negligence). Similarly the contact must be unwanted - participating in a game of rugby means you want to be tackled (in a legal sense, in a sports sense you don’t want to be tackled, you want to score). And finally it must intend harm - holding your hands up to prevent a collision does not intend harm even if harm may result, punching someone does. In the cases you describe, the aggressor is the “elderly person” and they have committed a crime. I am interested in the suggestion that public opinion in first-world countries like Canada is that being old and annoyed justifies you beating someone. That is not my understanding of public opinion in Australia- old people have to follow the rule of law here just like everybody else.
At least in the United States (and I'm pretty sure this is true around the world), facts and information cannot be copyrighted. Just because a work is copyrighted, doesn't mean every part of that work is copyrighted, and factual information conveyed by the work is a part which is not subject to copyright. Copyright on a collection of facts is limited to the selection and arrangement of those facts, and only if that selection and arrangement has some bare minimum amount of originality. See Feist v. Rural, 499 U.S. 340. In this case, it looks at first glance like the person who made that site made their own selection of which materials and which sources would be included; the one place where they really seem to have copied their selection is from glass catalogs with datasheets from specific manufacturers, who would have a hard time arguing that "everything we manufacture in this widely-recognized class of substances" is an original selection. What the author of the website has done is relinquish his rights in his selection and arrangement of the data. In some places, there are other rights besides copyright that do apply to databases; for instance, the EU recognizes database rights to protect significant investment in compiling a database of stuff. But the US does not have that concept. For citing stuff, that's not really a legal question, and has more to do with academic standards. Ask your adviser or teacher if you have one.
This may well be infringement, but I agree that you should start by reaching out to the instructor. You don't want to pay a lawyer if the matter can be be adjusted peacefully. In the US there is a special limited exemption to copyright for "use in classroom instruction" which might apply in such a case. I am not sure if there is a similar provision in Canadian copyright law. But the instructor is likely to change his practice if you notify him of your objection, even if he has the technical right to use the photo. At least it is worth finding out. If he won't, then you can always consult a lawyer.
Let's break it apart: The police has an union or charity. That's legal in most jurisdictions. The union or charity accepts donations from non-police. Also legal in most jurisdictions. The union communicates who the donors are. Generally legal in most jurisdictions. Keeping it secret would be just as problematic. Police officers have some discretion if and how they charge incidents. That's just common sense. Otherwise you get cases like 8-year-olds being arrested. (You get those anyway when the police don't use their discretion, or if the laws are too rigid.) Police officers let themselves be influenced by the donor card in how they apply their discretion. That's usually illegal on the part of the police officer. The Brits use the catchphrase 'without fear or favour.' But it is difficult to prove, even if it is systematic. The union issues donor cards to facilitate the effects of the previous bullet point. That sounds at the very least unethical. Some might argue that it is organized corruption. On the other hand, you can assume that the police unions have some decent lawyers on staff, and that they made sure that the words on their cards are not blatantly illegal in the jurisdiction in question. It might take something like a whistleblower, a sting operation, or an internal affairs investigation to prove corruption.
It looks to me as if "money laundering" is a misunderstanding; though any organization has a duty to prevent this, charities have no special responsibilties. However, charity law does in general terms prevent a charity from giving money to a cause that does not further the charity's aims. The Charity Commission's guidance says "Charities can only spend their money on projects or activities that support the aims stated in their governing document" (and although it goes on to outline exceptions, you still need to obtain the Commission's agreement to return a gift from a source you find objectionable, for example). The rationale is that people gave money to the University to further the cause of education; the researchers have no right to divert that money to Shelter (or another charity like the Roman Catholic Church) without the giver's consent. My experienced but non-expert view is that these payments would be a breach of the law, though they would probably be treated as a de minimis exception; you can't blame the University's legal team for insisting they should not be made.
There are legitimate apps that let you buy phone numbers. With the right app I can buy let's say a landline number in Kansas. I call you, and you will think it's some guy in Kansas calling you. That's totally legal, it's a genuine phone number, and just like I can buy 10 phones and have ten phone numbers, I can use an app to pretend to have 10 phones. I cannot pretend to by your child's school with that kind of app, because for obvious reasons your child's school's number is not up for sale. If an app let's you pretend to be someone else, like your child's school, then your phone company will be very interested in hearing about that. You don't have to sue the app maker, your phone company will. These three police officers will also be very interested, and impersonating a police officer is by itself a crime. (Normally impersonating a police officer is done by putting on a uniform, but calling you with the number of that police officer will also count). So these three police officers will have a word with your husband as well. So suing the app maker (you can't sue an app, you can only sue the people responsible for it) is very hard, and not needed. Complain to your phone company, complain to the police, first to the three police officers he impersonated (the phone company will have records of phone calls seemingly coming from them) to advice them they are being impersonated, and then you complain to the police for harassment.
I found a number of news stories and official documents about public schools with such policies including: &quot;Parents face more fines and rules if their children miss too much school&quot; from Public Opinion; &quot;School Adopts Strict Policy on Parents Picking Up Children Late&quot; from the Los Angeles Times; &quot;If you're late to pick up your kid at school, expect more than embarrassment&quot; from The Oregonian; &quot;Late Again? This School Fines Kids Who Aren't on Time&quot; from Parents; &quot;Late Pick Up Policy&quot; from Hazelwood Elementary; and &quot;School Issues Terrifying Threat to Parents Who Pick Up Kids Late&quot; from Yahoo Parenting The last story is about a school that threatened to call the local child protection authorities to take children into custody if parents were late, even by a short time. This was rescinded and apologized for. None of these stories mentioned any source of authority to impose such fines, nor any parent who had legally contested such fines. Public schools do not generally have authority to fine parents unless a law or ordinance grants such authority. Usually a school would need to file a report with law enforcement, and any fine be imposed by a court. But it may well be that parents are simply paying in such cases, rather than insisting on legal authority. If a student is left unsupervised, a school would pretty clearly have the right, and in some cases the duty, to notify the police or the appropriate child protection agency. Parents might fear that resisting the fines would lead to that far more drastic response, and so not challenge any fine. I did not include any of several news stories about similar practices in the UK, as the legal basis would be different there. But there were several such stories. There were also several stories suggesting that such fines can be counterproductive. It seems that some parents tend to come to regard them as fees, and are perfectly willing to pay, and the fine replaces the feeling of social obligation which might have been stronger. But that is not really a matter of law.