Daca aveti un copil care merge la scoala cu un terminal iPhone, atunci poate veti fi interesati de aceasta poveste care ne arata ca nu chiar orice este permis la scoala. Vorbim despre o poveste din Singapore in care terminalul iPhone al unui elev a fost confiscat timp de 3 luni de zile de catre diriginte, care a refuzat sa i-l mai returneze, in ciuda insistentelor.
Un terminal iPhone 7 a fost confiscat de la elev, acesta recunoscand ca a folosit terminalul in timpul orelor de curs, in ciuda faptului ca stia pedeapsa care este aplicata pentru asta. Desigur ca parintele elevului nu a fost multumit de faptul ca un smartphone in valoare de cateva sute de euro a fost confiscat de catre scoala si a decis sa o actioneze in judecata.
Parintele elevului a trimis un email scolii cerand restituirea bunului sau, insa desigur ca aceasta l-a ignorat, asa ca el a apelat la un avocat pentru a actiona dirigintele in judecata. In ciuda acestei actiuni, instanta a decis ca actiunea dirigintelui este legala, pentru ca aparent in Singapore este legal sa confisti bunul altei persoane, chiar daca nu esti instanta de judecata sau ea nu este anchetata penal.
In aceasta idee, terminalul iPhone 7 al respectivului elev va ramane in posesia scolii pana in data de 20 iunie, situatia in sine fiind foarte ciudata. In Romania nimeni in autoritatilor care impun forta coercitiva a statului nu pot confisca bunuri ale persoanelor, insa in Singapore regulile in scoli sunt ceva mai diferite decat aici.
“It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s son flouted the Phone Rule by using the Phone during school hours. By confiscating the Phone, the defendant had merely sought to enforce the Phone Rule, which he had authority to do. All proper procedures were also adhered to in the lead up to the confiscation of the Phone. The defendant’s evidence is also that the Phone Rule is applied consistently and uniformly across the student body and that there is no reason for the plaintiff’s son to be treated differently. On this point, I note that whilst the plaintiff took issue with the harshness of the punishment in his email of 21 March 2017, the plaintiff did not raise any issue with the reasonableness of the Phone Rule in these proceedings. Hence, I accept that the defendant’s refusal to return the Phone until 20 June 2017 is justifiable.”
This post was last modified on iun. 7, 2017, 5:27 PM 17:27