Liberals to strip discrimination protection to target waggers [With poll]

Another storm in a teacup. If they cannot buy stuff at certain shops (how many shopkeepers would actually bother to cooperate with this anyway?) will they really just go back to school indeed?

If it would be likely to make one iota of difference, maybe it would be worth discussing. But to change the legislation for a token effort?

Move on, nothing to see here.

KaptnKaos said :

Never seen a wagging student actually buying stuff from a shop, shoplifting, that’s another rant.

Keep saying on numerous rants and raves in this fora, ACT Public Schools are just useless, teachers have no rights, schools have no “real” policies on bullying etc, schools are powerless to do anything to repremand pupils, so called on-site “social workers” at schools tell the students how to suck money out of the government and how their parents have been abusing them all their lives. Someone tries to enforce something like learning (gasp) onto students, like this principal from Lanyon, and they get railroaded by moronic civil libitarian twats and branded a monster for trying to do what a school is supposed to do, teach kids.

And yet Australian literacy and numeracy rates are extremely high, and the Australian populace is – as a whole – becoming more and more educated at higher and higher levels, with the ACT generally in the top percentiles … crazy, isn’t it?

Students at the (public) senior college near my place are allowed out in their lunch break. Many go to the local shops to buy lunch. The college has a long waiting list and is in the top 5 every year for HSC results.

Leaving school grounds to go to the shops does not automatically equal underachievement or truanting. This is just a cheap and easy way to pretend to do something about truanting, instead of actually getting the education authorities out there doing their job by following up on unauthorised absences.

Never seen a wagging student actually buying stuff from a shop, shoplifting, that’s another rant.

Keep saying on numerous rants and raves in this fora, ACT Public Schools are just useless, teachers have no rights, schools have no “real” policies on bullying etc, schools are powerless to do anything to repremand pupils, so called on-site “social workers” at schools tell the students how to suck money out of the government and how their parents have been abusing them all their lives. Someone tries to enforce something like learning (gasp) onto students, like this principal from Lanyon, and they get railroaded by moronic civil libitarian twats and branded a monster for trying to do what a school is supposed to do, teach kids.

What if a student needs to buy lunch, or as someone said, tampons? What are they going to do, sit hungry or bleeding onto their clothes all day? That sort of thing is hardly going to cut truancy rates and improve concentration for those who are in class. Not all students are provided with everything they need by their parents and have to go to the shops. Crude populism from Zed Seselja.

Buying tampons during free periods?

So presumably the idea is that a student wags school, goes to a shop, is rejected and suddenly are enlightened? From this point on they return to school, become a straight A student and cure cancer!

Zed has my support!

Watson said :

wooster said :

Proper schools dont let students out on so-called ‘free’ periods.

Good to hear there are plenty of menial workers coming out of Lanyon, though…

Free perionds can mean that college students start an hour later or finish an hour earlier on some days. I know that happened in my strict, old-fashioned catholic school 20+ years ago.

Periods even.

wooster said :

Proper schools dont let students out on so-called ‘free’ periods.

Good to hear there are plenty of menial workers coming out of Lanyon, though…

Free perionds can mean that college students start an hour later or finish an hour earlier on some days. I know that happened in my strict, old-fashioned catholic school 20+ years ago.

Yep Im with you Mysteryman,

That all being said – perhaps if there was a effective behaviour management policy from the ACT government then kids wouldnt be skipping school as much? Dont get me wrong wagging has been around since the invention of school I am sure – but if it is such a problem then perhaps they should look at the policy and their ability to implement the policy? personally, I think that instead of suspension they shoudl be spending their time in Binberi to get an idea of what their future could be like.

Bosworth said :

how will shopkeepers be able to tell the difference between a student that is wagging, and a student that has a free period?

I’d wager the “high school” bit gives them some clue, or at least in my day there were no “free periods” in high school and you couldn’t leave the grounds. If someone bothered to continue onto college and still wags, then good for them.

Zed, what happens if the student is legitimately buying food during lunch, or tampons, or other student needs? This law would not only give store owners a tool to eliminate the hordes in the mall, but alienate the students from society. They’d feel even less like responsible adults and more like some kind of criminal who can’t be trusted.
Does he have any brilliant ideas that will do actual benefits to society?

Proper schools dont let students out on so-called ‘free’ periods.

Good to hear there are plenty of menial workers coming out of Lanyon, though…

Jeebus, so now we’re not only not busting kids for cutting class, but making sure that they don’t get discriminated against while they’re cutting class?

Nice to see that our local government has got its priorities right.

I didn’t realise students could leave school during free periods, i assumed that would have been banned years ago. Anyway, when i worked in liquor we were told it was store policy not to sell alcohol to kids in school uniform (even if they were over 18) – now i know that may have been illegal?

Mysteryman said :

It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? I would like to think that shop keepers have the right to refuse service in a shop they own. I would support the legislation on that ground alone – not because I think it will have any effect on truancy.

Are you serious? Would you think it’s ok if the newsagent would refuse to sell a paper to an African person because they happen to be racist?

I’m sure there are already rules about having the right to refuse service if a customer is being abusive for example.

Discrimination is a serious issue. And even though the regulations around that may seem a bit too generic at times, it is much better than the alternative.

p1 said :

steveu said :

I gotta say I feel for the shopkeepers – you would have presumed that they had the right to refuse service to anyone – its their shop isnt it? I didnt realise we all had the right to enter any shop we choose and demand service, regardless of how obnoxious we were being at the time.

I always thought this was a massive grey area. You have the right to refuse service to who ever you want BUT you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, hair colour, height, smell, accent, shoe size, preference for apple products, brand of V8, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth…..

It does seem ridiculous, doesn’t it? I would like to think that shop keepers have the right to refuse service in a shop they own. I would support the legislation on that ground alone – not because I think it will have any effect on truancy.

Bosworth said :

how will shopkeepers be able to tell the difference between a student that is wagging, and a student that has a free period?

+1

I think it’s overkill.

(Can’t see the vote buttons though?)

steveu said :

I gotta say I feel for the shopkeepers – you would have presumed that they had the right to refuse service to anyone – its their shop isnt it? I didnt realise we all had the right to enter any shop we choose and demand service, regardless of how obnoxious we were being at the time.

I always thought this was a massive grey area. You have the right to refuse service to who ever you want BUT you can’t discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, hair colour, height, smell, accent, shoe size, preference for apple products, brand of V8, etc, etc, and so on, and so forth…..

how will shopkeepers be able to tell the difference between a student that is wagging, and a student that has a free period?

I gotta say I feel for the shopkeepers – you would have presumed that they had the right to refuse service to anyone – its their shop isnt it? I didnt realise we all had the right to enter any shop we choose and demand service, regardless of how obnoxious we were being at the time.