Can a teacher check a pupil's phone for "inappropriate content"?

John Rambo you are 100% correct. I have heard so many of these cases in some of the most 'snobby' schools in this country and as well as the not so snobby, when parents after incidents described choose to attack the teachers of the Head, instead of stepping back and assessing the situation. Most teachers are trying to do the best for the kids they are educating and also to make sure the environment of the school is safe for all the pupils. There is a fine line between right and wrong. However in this case, I would be thanking the school for highlighting the matter and then deal with my son for hanging around with such a crowd of degenerates. Happy Slapping - bet a different view would occur if God for Bid a child suffered a fractured skull or ruptured spleen from a Happy Slapping incident. And I'm not a prude.
 
John Rambo and Mercman, you are absolutely right and ASFKAP get a grip on what the real problem is ! not the teacher, your son and his likeminded loser mates are whom you should be focusing on. If I found any of my kids were involved in something like this, I can tell you now they would never ever do it again and I would shake that teacher's hand and donate a gift to the school funds with a suitable written apology from your son and your son should be grounded for a few weeks. I would be absolutely mortified if this was my son and I certainly wouldn't be advertising it on the internet for everyone to read ! - maybe this says something about YOU and why your son has got involved in something like this.
this sounds like behaviour imported from the UK to Ireland.
 

The picture is slowly becoming clearer. Did he pick one of the kids at random,do you think, or the likely ringleader ?
 
Again allow me to clarify, there was neven any suggestion of happy-slapping at the school before or after the incident, and even the principle agreed that the fact that a great many students had these clips on their phones did not necessarily suggest such a campaign was about to start. The clips were put together with a backing (track and quite professionaly too) and taken off Youtube and similar. For the record I have already said I was shocked and disappointed with my son for having this offensive material on his phone and dealt with it accordingly yet some of you seem very quick to condemn me for asking a simple question!
 

The OP is entitled to ask for a legal opinion, definitive or not on the Askaboutlaw forum of this website.

Happy-slapping is disgraceful but the OP did not ask to be judged by others.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the support Remfan, as I pointed out in several posts I did not condone or support my son's behaviour, nor did I ask to be judged on my parenting skills, I've already said I was embarrased about the incident but one or two members on here would obviously like me to wear sackcloth for having the temerity to ask for advice on here.
Regarding my son's guilt (and he was clearly guilty in this case) even people guilty of far more serious crimes have legal rights especially minors, I just wanted clarify what his (and my) rights were in this instance.
Originally I thought of asking my brother who happens to be a barrister but I was too embarrased by the incident , I wish I had now as I'm fairly confident he wouldn't have been so quick to judge me!
 

I don't see what this has to do with the OP's original quiry? Nor do I see how you or anyone has the right to take a moral high ground and judge the OP as a parent.
 
Where did the OP state that their son was into 'this kind of thing'?
 
Involved in what exactly? Sending bluetooth content? As that all the OP son has been involved in.

If you bothered to read the thread and not been so ignorant then perhaps your post would be taken more seriously.
 
This thread has been hijacked by people more interested in hurling around personal insults than discussing the substantive issues. My own opinion is that the thread should be locked. Bluetonic, calling Lorna ignorant was neither fair or accurate. Nobody has suggested the kids were actually doing the "happy-slapping". I'd have a problem with my kids being involved in desseminating this dangerous rubbish among other children. That is "involved" from my point of view. Equally, you were wrong to defend the OP regarding my "definitive legal opinion" comment. You don't come to AAM for definitive legal opinion or definitive taxation opinion...it's a guide but the caveat of seeking good independent professional advice is always there. Also, and we've seen it so many times, you don't describe your situation, look for advice, and then throw your toys out of the pram when posters disagree with you over some of the issues.
 
Don't lock the thread just yet, following the rantings of the baying mob on here I overcame my embarrassment and approached my brother for some 'definative legal advice', it appears we do have rights and in this case the school appeared to have breached them. Once they had been explained to me I thought it would be best to let the matter quietly drop, but it was explained to me that for a very good reason which I hadn't even considered I must pursue this matter further. Anyway a letter has been drafted and will be hand delivered to the school authorities first thing monday morning.
 
I work in a primary school occasionally and would be amazed at any staff reading messages on a child's phone. The only time I have seen anyone going into details on a phone is if a phone is handed in having been found in the yard or lying around somewhere with no apparent owner nearby, then a staff member has looked to see if there is a number for "Mum" or "Dad" and find out who the phone belongs to that way.

Personally I think the principal should have at least phoned you before checking your the contents of your son's phone. (By the way, I would be very interested in knowing the reason you must pursue the matter further.)

And for those criticising the OP, I think that is unfair. He/she has not attempted to justify the actions of the child, saying "obviously was very disappointed and angry with my son for being so stupid. The school impounded the mobile for a month and made him agree not to bring it back to school before returning it, which was fair enough."

As far as I am aware, if a person's house is searched illegally then evidence found cannot be used against them (a certain judge who had unpleasant stuff on his computer comes to mind, the search warrant had expired by a matter of hours so all the images were deemed inadmissable in the subsequent court case where he was found not guilty). Is the principle different because this is a child?
 
Thank you Tree Tiger unfortunately I have been advised not to go into any further detail regarding the specific issue just yet but I'd be happy to tell you once the matter is finally closed. For info though, my son does not know that I am taking the matter further with the school as I think it would send out the wrong message, as far as hes concerned he was caught red handed and suitably punished both in school and at home, he is very unlikely to be so stupid as to do anyhting similar again, not that its possible of course on the 'bog standard' phone which replaced his previous model.....
 

Do you mind me asking why are you taking this matter further if you believe doing so would send out the wrong message to your child?
 
John Rambo said:
This thread has been hijacked by people more interested in hurling around personal insults than discussing the substantive issues.
Click to expand...
In no more relevant than you assuming details about the OP child.
 
Bluetonic said:
In no more relevant than you assuming details about the OP child.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're referring to. To be honest I do believe this thread should be locked as many, such as yourself, seem to have little to add. When did I make assumptions about the child?
 
Bluetonic said:
Involved in what exactly? Sending bluetooth content? As that all the OP son has been involved in.

If you bothered to read the thread and not been so ignorant then perhaps your post would be taken more seriously.
Click to expand...

You have trivialised this issue...to say the OP's child was merely "sending bluetooth content" is seriously understating the situation. People sharing videos of happy-slapping are "into it". Nobody was suggesting there was happy-slapping going on, so I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. This link may be of help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping Notice the terrible injuries that have been inflicted on victims of this practice, and that muggings and rapes are sometimes part of it.
 
John Rambo said:
situation. People sharing videos of happy-slapping are "into it".
Click to expand...
You would do a good job in a court of law to prove unequivocally that people sharing such content are 'into it'. It's your opinion which you are entitled to but not a fact.

I'm sure you can apply to be a moderator if you feel like once again repeating that this thread should be locked.
 

Would you consider people who share footage of happy slapping incidents to be "into it"? Or do you believe people spend time bluetoothing things to each other that they've absolutely no interest in whatsoever? Your contributions so far have been to accuse another poster of being ignorant at 4am in the morning and to direct smart comments at me regarding moderation. If you or the OP think a student disseminating happy slapping clips while at school or a parent moaning about unauthorised searches when a headmaster asks to see a mobile phone are normal behaviour then you too are entitled to your opinion. However, based on the contributions to the thread you are in the minority.
 
Bluetonic said:
You would do a good job in a court of law to prove unequivocally that people sharing such content are 'into it'.
Click to expand...

Why? The criminal justice system's treatment of people who are found to have child pornography on their computers has been based entirely on this premise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register