This is a too-good to miss video-Sky Saxon & The Seeds from 1967-Pushin' Too Hard.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHTyLBIZ1g

A garage rock classic, dig that wonderful one string guitar solo!

Completely unconnected with this post; except they later did Excuse,Excuse.

So, what was the most ingenious excuse you heard about or used at school? Equally, what was the lamest you heard about?

I'm sure Doc will have some doozies from his vast experience, so I'd be interested if he also agrees with the assumption that the likelihood of an excuse being true expenditially depreciates with the length of the said excuse-there's probably a formula for it, Doc, but you'll know it better than I will!


Steve

Hi Steve. Ever since you posted this I've been trying to think back to excuses from school days. The odd thing is, I can't remember any, lame or otherwise, from me or anyone else.

My recollection is that if you were nicked you were nicked. If you thought it was someone else who should have been facing the music you might well say it wasn't you who did whatever was at issue, though obviously you didn't name anybody else. That's not really an excuse though, just a protestation of innocence.

Recalling the teachers involved all the way through from Infants to the 6th form I don't remember any where actual excuses would have had any effect other than to make matters worse.

I wonder if this is an age thing. You are 10 years younger than me, and I'm presuming you remember a few excuses from your own era, so maybe they were worthwhile by then.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone else thinks. I was at school from 1947 to 1960. There are one or two more people on this estimable Forum who are as old as that. I'd be interested to hear if they think excuses loomed very large in the scheme of things in that era, or if it was a case of just take whatever was coming and make the best of it for them too.

Today of course there is an excuse for everything, in schools and everywhere else, since whatever unpleasant thing has happened is always someone else's fault irrespective of whoever actually did it/caused it.

I am also stuggling to recall any excuses that pupils made at my school. Not quite on topic , but a girl did cry once after being given a detention and claimed afterwards that she was suffering from a cold.

The best I can do is when myself and another boy were sent to the deputy head for fighting. This boy poked me with his pen and I responded by snapping his pen in two. We then had a minor brawl, at which point a teacher arrived and sent us to the deputy head. I told the deputy head that this boy had started it by poking me and he accepted that there had been provocation. He also accepted the other boy's view that breaking his pen was also provocation. He let us off with a warning that any future fights would result in " Two cuts of the stick " as he put it.

This deputy head was able to see your point of view , unusual perhaps in some teachers of the time, though he certainly did use the cane on other boys.

We had about 4 deputy heads at my school, some temporary. The first one, who was no longer deputy when I was there ( he had been ill and in fact died not long after I started there)was a chap called William Thompson. His initials were WTNT and he was known as "Dynamite Bill", not just due to his initials but from an alleged explosive temper. I only saw him explode once and he was a very pleasant man when he taught us french in the first year.

Oddly enough there was another teacher called William Thompson, a biology teacher , and he was officially known as Bill Thompson. The ex deputy head was known as William Thompson though as I say he was known to the boys as " Dynamite Bill" I suppose " Dynamite William " doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Our teachers were shrewd enough not to be easily deceived by concocted lame excuses , and genuine excuses dismissed with, you should have foreseen or know better, the no win situation.


But when an opportunity presents you have to try and turn a situation to your advantage.

The end of my first year, returning from an out of bounds lunch time shopping spree, four of us were caught bang to rights. Afternoon registration pending we were told to report to the deputy head during break.. First lesson of the afternoon for me was domestic science; the other two girls and one lad involved attending different lessons. Come break still wearing my apron made my way to the office contemplating the worse due to our confiscated booty containing various orders for smokes.

First in the office blurting out the words i have been sent by........, deputy head looks up seeing me wearing an apron assumes and asks if I've come to collect her lunch tray, quick thinking yes from me, she points to the tray , rises from behind the desk and offers to open the door, not wishing to convey the real reason for my presence, expressed my thanks making a hasty retreat.

True friends took their dues, and never snitched, not to say the next few days didn't raise a few anxious moments waiting a summons that never came.

Ketta

A magnificent account Ketta! It made me chuckle - not easy when I've just spent 1½ hours on the phone explaining why text size and font face can affect colour perception! I assume that your companions in crime who didn't manage to stage such a clever exit paid their dues in the currency which is the subject of this estimable Forum?

BTW, while on the subject of school corporal punishment there may still be an untold story from your post at 6:46 PM on July 16th in your Uniform debate thread. I hesitate to pursue this, but Another_Lurker can't resist a skirt raising during punishment account, especially from someone with your gift for words as so excellently manifest in your 'excuses' post above. Sill Lee Asso would probably be quite pleased as well!

I'm sure Doc will have some doozies from his vast experience, so I'd be interested if he also agrees with the assumption that the likelihood of an excuse being true expenditially depreciates with the length of the said excuse-there's probably a formula for it, Doc, but you'll know it better than I will!

I've been thinking about this - but honestly, I can't remember all that many 'excuses' being offered over the years. Genuine reasons. Yes. Simple clear (and sometimes completely dishonest) denials. Yes. Pleas for mercy. Yes. But excuses. Not really.

I've got some funny stories though.

One of my favourites comes from a few years ago when I caught some boys hiding in a utility room at the school smoking. They'd actually done a pretty good job of concealing themselves - the door looked locked from the outside - but they were caught and like most smokers were facing a caning. I launched into a lecture intending to put the fear of the universe into them, and among other things, told them how dangerous the location they were was in terms of smoking, as it's where the gas lines come into the boarding house. "You have no idea how dangerous that was. There's a good chance you could have blown yourselves up. And half the school with you." (I was exagerating the risk, I admit).

One shot back. "It's not that dangerous, Sir, it can't be."

"Oh, and how do you know that?"

"Because we've been smoking in there every day this year and nothing has happened yet."

His two friends went pale with looks of absolute horror on their faces as he said this. About ten seconds after he'd said it, of pure silence, because I was stunned as well, it suddenly dawned on him what he had just said.

I had a very hard time not completely cracking up into laughter - especially as five minutes before they'd all been insisting that this was the very first time they'd ever had a cigarette.

I have thought of a couple of excuses now. I once had a first form boy sent to me for truanting the previous day. He came out with this elaborate story about somebody trying to abduct him on the way to school and having to run away and hide and being too scared to come out. I might have taken him somewhat seriously if I hadn't had a phone call from the manager of the local Timezone (a video game arcade) reporting a boy answering his description having tried to come in and been turned away because he was in uniform. So I asked him: "Yes, and why did you go to Timezone?" "Well, Sir... if I was going to hide, why not hide somewhere fun?"

The boy who was meant to do 200 lines, and when I counted had only done 160. "Where are the other forty lines?" "Oh, Sir, I stopped because I'd learned my lesson."

And then there was the boy who who when I asked him where his homework was, said: "I have a note from Mum, Sir." and handed it up. The note read: "My son has asked me to write a note excusing him for not doing his homework because he's a bone idle, time waster who'd rather spend his weekend playing computer games insetad of doing his homework, tidying his room, or helping to look after his brother and sister. I'm sick of him and I'm sure you are too. He needs a good belting and he's getting too big for me to do it, hence this note."

Thanks, Doc.

I knew you would come up trumps, but the first one you listed is a beauty. I had a reputation at school(thoroughly deserved & still here now)of having to say my two penn'orth, but I never quite managed to put my foot right in it just like that lad-classic!!

As for the last one, in the immortal words of Harry Belafonte(or Lord Calypso, who probably wrote it), "Man Smart,
Woman smarter"!


Steve

Thank you for the above post Doctor Dominum. Except when the Fun Pesters¹ are in full spate I very seldom get a good chuckle out of threads in this estimable Forum two nights running!

A few questions though, if I may please:

Did you let the lad who let the cat out of the bag on the smoking off his caning? A boy so careless in ensuring that his brain was in gear before releasing his mouth was clearly going to have a very hard time in life and caning him would surely have been unnecessary on that basis alone. In addition he was inevitably going to undergo quite enough suffering anyway when his two companions in crime settled the score for adding their strokes for lying to their strokes for smoking!

IMHO the amusement arcade lad and the lines lad also deserved some remission for their quick thinking. Indeed I'd probably have let the lines lad off altogether for his cheek! Can you recall how your decisions went in the respective cases?

The note lad clearly deseved a good caning. I trust he got one and that it taught him never to think that you can fool your Mum - ever!

Note 1: The term 'Fun Pesters' is acknowledged as the intellectual property of my esteemed fellow contributor Alan Turing.

Did you let the lad who let the cat out of the bag on the smoking off his caning? A boy so careless in ensuring that his brain was in gear before releasing his mouth was clearly going to have a very hard time in life and caning him would surely have been unnecessary on that basis alone. In addition he was inevitably going to undergo quite enough suffering anyway when his two companions in crime settled the score for adding their strokes for lying to their strokes for smoking!

Somewhat amusingly, he's one of the brightest boys I've ever taught - he's most likely going to be Dux of the School in a few weeks, unless something goes seriously wrong in his last few weeks at the school. But though possessed of a profound intellect, he's somewhat lacking at times in the more practical ways of using it - hasn't always made the most sensible decisions and sometimes seems to see the world in a way very different from most of us. I actually let all three boys off very lightly after that incident. They were caned, but only one stroke each, along with the loss of some privileges and compulsory diversion into the QUIT program. I had to be lenient in the circumstances, otherwise his friends would have likely caused him damage and then I would have to punish them even more severely.

While I don't generally tolerate dishonesty, I have to say I do make something of an exception when it comes to lies told in an attempt to avoid the cane. I certainly don't condone lies like that, but I thoroughly understand them. And given that boys do not enjoy a presumption of innocence beyond all reasonable doubt, nor the right to remain silent and avoid incrimination, nor benefit of legal advice, or any of the other protections they'd have in a properly consituted justice system (nor do I consider it desirable that they should), I think it's reasonable to partially compensate for all that is lacking, by being forgiving of some flexibility with the facts if it might get you off. If there's enough doubt that you can lie your way out of it, there was probably enough doubt for the benefit to be reasonable.

IMHO the amusement arcade lad and the lines lad also deserved some remission for their quick thinking. Indeed I'd probably have let the lines lad off altogether for his cheek! Can you recall how your decisions went in the respective cases?

The boy with the lines did escape. I personally think the real truth there was that he assumed the pages had 25 lines each, when they only had 20, and so after eight pages thought he was done - but he also knew that wasn't the type of excuse that would impress me, so he tried something else which did. I caned the truant - two strokes, I think. I was reasonably lenient, but I couldn't just ignore the fact that there is an element of danger in a 12 year old not being where his school or his parents expect him to be, and also, lies of the type he was telling me - of an abduction attempt fall into the 'crying wolf' category. We can't have boys telling lies about such things because it increases the risk that a boy reporting something real might be ignored. Ever since the Thorpe case, the idea of abduction of a schoolboy on his way to school has been the absolute nightmare scenario for every independent school in Australia. I still get a chill thinking about it - and I was a very young man, and a very new teacher when it happened. There's few things worse than the fear associated with a child that parents have put into your care being in danger.

The note lad clearly deseved a good caning. I trust he got one and that it taught him never to think that you can fool your Mum - ever!

Six of the best, after I'd phoned his mother to see if that's what she wanted. It certainly wasn't what he wanted.

Thank you very much indeed for the further details Doctor Dominum. Clearly justice tempered with mercy - where mercy was appropriate, which it certainly wasn't in the case of the boy with the note! I'm very pleased to hear the careless line counter with the very quick wit escaped further punishment and that the others got off relatively lightly including the unfortunate smoker spared the vengence of his fellows!

Your time probably does not permit, but if other similar memories come to mind you have an appreciative audience here.

I am interested in your attitude to lies told in an attempt to avoid the cane. A couple of questions if I may. Clearly the argument regarding lack of due process and consequential allowance therefor is a valid one. However, in theory at least, it could be extended to lies told in the process of attempted avoidance of most school punishments. I presume though from the context that you would not extend the same tolerance to lies told to avoid, say, detention or indeed other punishments? If this is so, does the greater tolerance of lying to try to evade caning arise from the nature of the caning punishment itself? Obviously detention, or even suspension, may be highly inconvenient or socially disruptive but does not involve facing up to and undergoing physical pain as is the case when being caned. Any comments you have time to make will be greatly appreciated.

I am not familiar with the Thorpe case that you mention, and, presumably because it was some time ago, the web doesn't seem to point me in the right direction. Clearly it made a great impact, on you and on teachers generally. All child abductions are horrific and almost impossible to contemplate, even where they eventually have a happy ending. Were there special features of the Thorpe case that made it stand out so much please?

I am interested in your attitude to lies told in an attempt to avoid the cane. A couple of questions if I may. Clearly the argument regarding lack of due process and consequential allowance therefor is a valid one. However, in theory at least, it could be extended to lies told in the process of attempted avoidance of most school punishments. I presume though from the context that you would not extend the same tolerance to lies told to avoid, say, detention or indeed other punishments? If this is so, does the greater tolerance of lying to try to evade caning arise from the nature of the caning punishment itself? Obviously detention, or even suspension, may be highly inconvenient or socially disruptive but does not involve facing up to and undergoing physical pain as is the case when being caned. Any comments you have time to make will be greatly appreciated.

In general, I wouldn't extend the same level of understanding to lies in an attempt to avoid detention, but that is because for most boys detention is a much less significant sanction. It also involves a time delay in which a boy's innocence may become apparent, or where he may be able to find evidence for his innocence, which doesn't apply with a caning. Having said that, if I was dealing with one of those boys for whom detention is a greatly feared sanction - far worse than a caning, and they do exist (yet another reason why I worry about banning corporal punishment - for some children it means increasing use of a sanction they find far worse, but which is generally not used with the same care, or whose risks go unacknowledged), I'd probably give him a similar level of understanding over lies in an attempt to avoid detention. Truth is always preferable - I never want boys to feel lying is acceptable. But it can be understandable, tolerable, and very, very forgiveable.

I am not familiar with the Thorpe case that you mention, and, presumably because it was some time ago, the web doesn't seem to point me in the right direction. Clearly it made a great impact, on you and on teachers generally. All child abductions are horrific and almost impossible to contemplate, even where they eventually have a happy ending. Were there special features of the Thorpe case that made it stand out so much please?

You wouldn't have found it because I got the name slightly wrong - Thorne, not Thorpe. Graeme Thorne was eight years old when he was kidnapped in 1960 while on his way to Sydney's Scots College, one of the GPS schools, by the creature called Stephen Bradley. Bradley's intent was to hold Graeme for ransom - his father had just won the lottery. But whether deliberately or accidentally, Graeme was killed within a few hours of his abduction. Bradley was fortunate that New South Wales had abolished capital punishment for murder a few years earlier.

It was the first kidnapping for ransom known in Australian history - in fact, it wasn't even a recognised crime (if Graeme had lived and been released unharmed, Bradley probably would have been charged with trying to obtain money with menaces) and it scared the living daylights out of schools as well as parents. Along with the disappearance of the Beaumont children in 1966 (these three vanished on a trip to the beach near Adelaide in South Australia and have never been seen since), the Thorne case is often seen as an end of innocence for Australian children. No longer free to roam where they wanted to, free of direct supervision, from dawn to dusk, secure in the knowledge that any adult would protect them if needed and didn't need to be feared (beyond the knowledge in some cases, that any adult would also hand out a good smack if you were doing something you shouldn't, anyway).

DOC

The Thorne case-remember that over here. I was Graeme's age & that was the nearest I got to a good hiding at home, when I came back 30 mins late from playing football just up the way. That sent a shudder further than you knew!

The Beaumont kids case is still a mystery. I see no less than 3 notorious paedos have been linked to it, none of whom knew each other, yet the local postman(who knew the kids well by sight)always swore he'd seen them fairly near their home a good hour after they'd last been seen on the beach with a strange man, and they weren't with that man by then.

Apart from the Soham murders over here, I can't think of one example where child killers have abducted more than one child at a time, so you have to wonder if something else entirely happened to them. Whether it did or not, the idea of 3 kids, the eldest 9, going down to the beach on the bus without an adult does belong to another world-I certainly did the same sort of thing in my childhood, as you no doubt did, but that sort of innocence has generally been long gone.

Though I have to say, I often see 7-8 year olds around here going to the local supermarket for Mum on their tod. Wonder whether that's wise these days?


Steve

Thank you for the very informative reply Doctor Dominum. I had overlooked the time aspect in the case of caning, which I guess in some cases will come very quickly after the offence.

You have mentioned previously that for some boys detention is a more feared punishment than caning. I find this surprising, but I can only judge by my own experience. For me caning was something I strove to avoid at all costs, and I admit to being very frightened indeed on the one occasion I thought I might be caned by the prefects. Had that been the sentence I should certainly have utilised my appeal to the Headmaster! Detentions though were never a problem. I had a couple as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when mass punishments was handed out and never gave them a second thought.

It would seem from your information on the Thorne and Beaumont cases that the innocent enjoyment of childhood has been lost in Australia in exactly the way it has here. It is inconceivable to the parents of young children amongst my acquaintance that as pre-teens I and my contemporaries would range miles from home, playing in woods, disused allotment gardens and any other tempting location, sometimes from breakfast to teatime, without anyone ostensibly worrying where we were or what we were doing. If help had been needed any house, or any adult, would have given it, just as they would give a glass of water and sometimes a biscuit. Equally, as you note, adults wouldn't hesitate to reprimand or dispense instant justice if behaviour merited it, and even if they didn't your parents would certainly get to hear about it.

I think the difference, in the UK at least, arises from community. Everybody knew everybody else then, populations were fairly static, and most of the adults we encountered would have been known to at least one of us and in turn would have known us and our parents. News of where we we'd been and what we'd been doing used to reach home long before we did. Telephones were rare, but some mysterious adult communication system meant that you were constantly on the radar screen. Any attempt to ascertain who had shopped you for some misbehaviour was always unsucessful, but the report was always correct and the consequences justified!

Happy days! Now, if by myself I would have to think very seriously about approaching a child, even if that child was in distress and clearly in need of some comfort or assistance. It would literally have to be a case of actual or imminent injury to cause me to take the risk, in all other cases I'd look around for company before getting involved. Very sad, and overall I don't think the paranoia has actually benefitted children at all.

Hi Steve. You say:

Though I have to say, I often see 7-8 year olds around here going to the local supermarket for Mum on their tod. Wonder whether that's wise these days?

I'd like to say that it depends on how far away the supermarket is, how large and busy it is, how well people in the neighbourhood know each other, and if there's a busy road to be crossed. Those ought to be the considerations a parent would take into account, plus how sensible the child is of course. In practise, sadly, the way things are now, the answer is probably that no, it isn't wise. There's no safety in numbers for children anymore. Thus a few children doing that sort of errand while their contemporaries, who would once have been playing or also running errands outside, are now shut indoors are inevitably at greater risk.

A_L

Some of them seem to come from the bottom end of our estate & that's a good half-mile from Tesco, with a One-Stop/Mace co-op in between-I haven't confirmed this by following the kids, for obvious reasons.

If they are on their bikes, it's not a problem, I reckon. Or if there's two of them.


Steve

When I was a fifth former, one break time a friend and I were walking through a part of the school "out of bounds" during break times. Only prefects were allowed there at those times. Suddenly a voice behind us called out "You two, what are you doing here. You're not prefects." We turned around and there was one of the science teachers. Thinking very quickly, I replied "Er, we're undercover prefects, Miss, that's why we're not wearing badges". She thought for a second and I'm sure there was a slight smile on her face as she said "No you're not. Get out."

There ended the very short history of "The Secret Prefect Service", a service so secret, even the teachers didn't know of its existence.