WATCH: GA teacher resigns after video captures her ruthlessly knocking over special needs student

First topic message reminder :

A 20-year veteran of the Georgia school system has resigned after surveillance video captured her pausing and then intentionally kneeing a special needs student in the back causing to fall forward, reports WALB. Amelia Stripling, a special needs instructor at Tift County Pre-K Center in Tifton, Georgia, has stepped down after the video was released to the public. According to Sarah Patterson, the mother of the boy, her son just turned 4 years old on Wednesday, days after Stripling casually walked around an open classroom door and shoved her knee in the boys back without warning, causing him to lurch forward and to the ground.

Stripling then helped the boy up with the help of another adult before giving him a shove into the classroom.

According to Tifton County school system officials, the boy was not injured and the incident was reported to the division of family and children services.

Watch the video below via WALB:




http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/watch-ga-teacher-resigns-after-video-captures-her-ruthlessly-knocking-over-special-needs-student/

Didge wrote:lol you asked why they were involved and now claim I agree with you lol
No I do not not, also, I love how you are selective when the above states

"This generally includes"parents, grandparents, guardians, foster parents, relatives, legal guardians or bystanders. Showing you are nothing more than a charlatan, as this can clearly include others which in this case would be teachers. In other words generally does not mean others are not included in others states like teachers.

What you fail to grasp is that it was clearly the school that reported this to the CPS, as it is part of the law that they do report child neglect

FFS

My sentiments exactly. So what?? Child Protective Services have no role as their jurisdiction extends only to removal of the child. As Raggs realized a full day before you, what good will that do?

Didge wrote:You are full of bull quill and this just further proves it. It gave examples and clearly teachers are included, as in this state they would be, being as this has been reported to the protective services.

You can to stop with the bull you claim to know the law
You clearly do not

You are exposed as a fraud as you do not practice law full stop, that is just a fantasy you have to poorly try to get people to look up to you
You have massive insecurity issues, and would have known something basic as this in US law, which clearly you did not.

The best way to reveal you are bested is to throw a temper tantrum. And that’s just what that is. Who cares what I do for a living...it still ain't gonna find a role for North Carolina Child Protective Services? You really don't understand how to connect ideas, do you?

are your teachers not considered "in loco parentis" then quill?

Original Quill wrote:

My sentiments exactly.  So what??  Child Protective Services have no role as their jurisdiction extends only to removal of the child.  As Raggs realized a full day before you, what good will that do?
The best way to reveal you are bested is to throw a temper tantrum.  And that’s just what that is.   Who cares what I do for a living...it still ain't gonna find a role for North Carolina Child Protective Services?  You really don't understand how to connect ideas, do you?

No you just changed your tune again lol

You have been exposed and badly so

Judge my arse ha ha

Lord Foul wrote:nope i mean xos you is stirring


like didge and fuzzy......didge and quill "deserve" one another

and they dontneed your help

Don't hang that non compos mentis on me. He's like the toy mouse the cat plays with. Only...even the cat gets bored with him.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nope i mean xos you is stirring


like didge and fuzzy......didge and quill "deserve" one another

and they dontneed your help

Don't hang that non compos mentis on me.  He's like the toy mouse the cat  plays with.  Only...even the cat gets bored with him.  

lol That does not even make any sense

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:nope i mean xos you is stirring


like didge and fuzzy......didge and quill "deserve" one another

and they dontneed your help

Don't hang that non compos mentis on me.  He's like the toy mouse the cat  plays with.  Only...even the cat gets bored with him.  

more like compost mentis if you ask me.......

Lord Foul wrote:are your teachers not considered "in loco parentis" then quill?

In loco parentis is a concept that empowers parental responsibility in a remote (non-parental) capacity.

Wiki wrote:The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.

The teacher has already resigned and is out of the picture. There is no reason for CPS to establish jurisdiction in this case because the only thing it can do is remove the child. That would provide no remedy as the issue is between the child and the teacher. The only legal issue remaining is the prosecution of the teacher for some sort of assault & battery...an action that will be dropped as soon as it is apparent no one is looking.

Original Quill wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:are your teachers not considered "in loco parentis" then quill?

In loco parentis is a concept that empowers parental responsibility in a remote (non-parental) capacity.  

Wiki wrote:The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.

The teacher has already resigned and is out of the picture.  There is no reason for CPS to establish jurisdiction in this case because the only thing it can do is remove the child.  That would provide no remedy as the issue is between the child and the teacher.  The only legal issue remaining is the prosecution of the teacher for some sort of assault & battery...an action that will be dropped as soon as it is apparent no one is looking.  

Yes - it wouldn't surprise me if they charged her in order to appease the histrionic people. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the people who put a video of a surveillance camera from a school on the internet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

In loco parentis is a concept that empowers parental responsibility in a remote (non-parental) capacity.  



The teacher has already resigned and is out of the picture.  There is no reason for CPS to establish jurisdiction in this case because the only thing it can do is remove the child.  That would provide no remedy as the issue is between the child and the teacher.  The only legal issue remaining is the prosecution of the teacher for some sort of assault & battery...an action that will be dropped as soon as it is apparent no one is looking.  

Yes - it wouldn't surprise me if they charged her in order to appease the histrionic people. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the people who put a video of a surveillance camera from a school on the internet.

Well clearly the only people who put the video up to the media was the school themselves

Or did you not think of that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes - it wouldn't surprise me if they charged her in order to appease the histrionic people. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the people who put a video of a surveillance camera from a school on the internet.

Well clearly the only people who put the video up to the media was the school themselves

Or did you not think of that?

Exactly. They're the ones who need looking at.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well clearly the only people who put the video up to the media was the school themselves

Or did you not think of that?

Exactly. They're the ones who need looking at.

No they should be praised, as they did the bright thing

@quill

fair enough..I see where you are comming from...and in that light the involvement of the CPS does seem odd...

I think it "may" be different over here...in as much as the input from our CPS  would inform police action...but then we have a "double layer" almost

the police have a child protection sub unit
then we have social services....which I guess is equivalent to your CPS ?
and even over here social sevices would not normally be involved in this kind of issue....

Lord Foul wrote:@quill

fair enough..I see where you are comming from...and in that light the involvement of the CPS does seem odd...

I think it "may" be different over here...in as much as the input from our CPS  would inform police action...but then we have a "double layer" almost

the police have a child protection sub unit
then we have social services....which I guess is equivalent to your CPS ?
and even over here social sevices would not normally be involved in this kind of issue....

They would be if the teacher was in guardianship of children

We do not know all the details here

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Watched it and watched it. Can't decide if the initial contact was deliberate. That said her conduct after the initial contact is inexcusable. Look at the size of him!
If that was my child I would break her. 71? Why the hell is she working with vulnerable children at that age?

That's why I say it doesn't appear to be malicious.  There is no evidence showing malice.  I remember my father teaching me how to shake hands: A firm grip, son, aggressively put forward!  Lol...well, that's kinda what she did.  She tried to swoop up the kid and into the classroom,  Just too strong.

Accusing someone in a criminal law context is meaningless.  Just like in a civil trial, the prosecution is just another side.  Anyone can accuse; it's what you can prove that counts.

As far as the Division of Family Services is concerned, they could take the kid away from his parents.  But what does that accomplish?  The teacher has quit.  The prosecutor has pressed charges.  It'll never go to trial.  If it does, the defense attorney will argue to the jury it was an accident; the jury will find reasonable doubt; she would be acquitted.  But, bet you will never see the trial.  Trials cost too much money for such nonsense.

The woman's career is ruined, but that's just chance.  I mean, who can survive that?  Like an auto accident.  Chance...bad luck, that.  But I don't think the criminal accusations will go anywhere.

The parents were not involved with this.
If parents are silenced when someone else hurts their child for fear that they themselves will be punished that doesn't say much about the US legal system.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly. They're the ones who need looking at.

No they should be praised, as they did the bright thing

I disagree. It was irresponsible and unnecessary. Whatever is on their surveillance camera should not be for public use unless it involves a person from outside who they need to identify.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

No they should be praised, as they did the bright thing

I disagree. It was irresponsible and unnecessary. Whatever is on their surveillance camera should not be for public use unless it involves a person from outside who they need to identify.  

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I disagree. It was irresponsible and unnecessary. Whatever is on their surveillance camera should not be for public use unless it involves a person from outside who they need to identify.  

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

I agree with Rags. Her view isn't "wrong" it just differs from yours.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I disagree. It was irresponsible and unnecessary. Whatever is on their surveillance camera should not be for public use unless it involves a person from outside who they need to identify.  

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

My view is not wrong. It's my opinion, and so it can't be wrong. Please do not disrupt the thread by accusing people of having opinions which are "wrong"

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

I agree with Rags. Her view isn't "wrong" it just differs from yours.

And?

You both share prejudice views, so you being in agreement does not counter the points I just made

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its a major news story of neglect that everyone has a right to know about and I applaud the school, who did not try to cover this but were willing to show no fault was with the school
So there is countless reasons as to why your view is wrong

My view is not wrong. It's my opinion, and so it can't be wrong. Please do not disrupt the thread by accusing people of having opinions which are "wrong"

Again you are unable to counter my points, then start having a tantrum again

So grow the fuck up you silly child

Got it

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
I agree with Rags. Her view isn't "wrong" it just differs from yours.

And?

You both share prejudice views, so you being in agreement does not counter the points I just made

There's no prejudice - it's my opinion, which differs from your opinion.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My view is not wrong. It's my opinion, and so it can't be wrong. Please do not disrupt the thread by accusing people of having opinions which are "wrong"

Again you are unable to counter my points, then start having a tantrum again

So grow the fuck up you silly child

Got it

Stop disrupting the thread with abuse.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


And?

You both share prejudice views, so you being in agreement does not counter the points I just made

There's no prejudice - it's my opinion, which differs from your opinion.

That is not what I said

I said that you both hold prejudice views, not that this was prejudice

Now counter my points why it was valid, otherwise, stop wasting the forum's time with your childish natics

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Again you are unable to counter my points, then start having a tantrum again

So grow the fuck up you silly child

Got it

Stop disrupting the thread with abuse.

Jog the fuck on you silly petulant brat

Got it

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no prejudice - it's my opinion, which differs from your opinion.

That is not what I said

I said that you both hold prejudice views, not that this was prejudice

Now counter my points why it was valid, otherwise, stop wasting the forum's time with your childish natics

What are these "prejudice views"?

Stop the insults or I'll report you for disruption.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
I agree with Rags. Her view isn't "wrong" it just differs from yours.

And?

You both share prejudice views, so you being in agreement does not counter the points I just made

Many a time our views are polar opposites. We usually manage to agree to disagree without insulting one another and having tantrums though.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stop disrupting the thread with abuse.

Jog the fuck on you silly petulant brat

Got it

Last chance - stop disrupting the thread with insults.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

That is not what I said

I said that you both hold prejudice views, not that this was prejudice

Now counter my points why it was valid, otherwise, stop wasting the forum's time with your childish natics

What are these "prejudice views"?

Stop the insults or I'll report you for disruption.

I do know off the top of my hate everytime there is racism against blacks you argue against this, or homophobia, you argue against this etc

Jog the fuck on again as I am not listening to a silly little brat tell me what to do, got it

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Jog the fuck on you silly petulant brat

Got it

Last chance - stop disrupting the thread with insults.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What are these "prejudice views"?

Stop the insults or I'll report you for disruption.

I do know off the top of my hate everytime there is racism against blacks you argue against this, or homophobia, you argue against this etc

Jog the fuck on again as I am not listening to a silly little brat tell me what to do, got it

What does this subject have to do with black people (not "blacks), or homophobia?

Reported for abuse and disruption.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I do know off the top of my hate everytime there is racism against blacks you argue against this, or homophobia, you argue against this etc

Jog the fuck on again as I am not listening to a silly little brat tell me what to do, got it

What does this subject have to do with black people (not "blacks), or homophobia?

Reported for abuse and disruption.

I was giving examples of the many prejudices you have

Nobody is doing anything about your reports rags, mainly as they see you acting like like a brat

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What does this subject have to do with black people (not "blacks), or homophobia?

Reported for abuse and disruption.

I was giving examples of the many prejudices you have

Nobody is doing anything about your reports rags, mainly as they see you acting like like a brat

Irrelevant as we are not discussing black people or gay people. Stay on topic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I was giving examples of the many prejudices you have

Nobody is doing anything about your reports rags, mainly as they see you acting like like a brat

Irrelevant as we are not discussing black people or gay people. Stay on topic.

Its not relevant when you asked me specifically what you are prejudiced about

So do not ask me and divert the topic then, you only have yourself to blame

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Irrelevant as we are not discussing black people or gay people. Stay on topic.

Its not relevant when you asked me specifically what you are prejudiced about

So do not ask me and divert the topic then, you only have yourself to blame

You were the one who introduced the issue of "prejudice views", not me. If you can't justify that, it's fine. Just stop the disruption and move on.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its not relevant when you asked me specifically what you are prejudiced about

So do not ask me and divert the topic then, you only have yourself to blame

You were the one who introduced the issue of "prejudice views", not me. If you can't justify that, it's fine. Just stop the disruption and move on.

I really cannot stop laughing at how childish you are being

You need to take a deep breath and take that lump of coal out of your arse, its clearly a diamond by now

I going to leave you to sulk lol

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You were the one who introduced the issue of "prejudice views", not me. If you can't justify that, it's fine. Just stop the disruption and move on.

I really cannot stop laughing at how childish you are being

You need to take a deep breath and take that lump of coal out of your arse, its clearly a diamond by now

I going to leave you to sulk lol

You mean you're going to stop disrupting this thread with your silly comments.

Jolly good - try to stick to that.

Lord Foul wrote:@quill

fair enough..I see where you are comming from...and in that light the involvement of the CPS does seem odd...

I think it "may" be different over here...in as much as the input from our CPS  would inform police action...but then we have a "double layer" almost

the police have a child protection sub unit
then we have social services....which I guess is equivalent to your CPS ?
and even over here social sevices would not normally be involved in this kind of issue....

The CPS is an agency tasked with certain specialty or "domain" responsibilities--namely, the welfare of children.  As an agency, they are a police force.  Like any police force, they have investigative, arrest and prosecution capabilities/responsibilities.  Those are the same capabilities and responsibilities the police and county prosecutor have.  

These are duplicative, or overlapping responsibilities.  To avoid a waste of resources, the CPS will take charge whenever the fate of the child is involved; that is their specialty, so to speak.  The county prosecutor will take over whenever the fate of the accused is involved--their specialty.  They probably both have jurisdiction, in both issues (I'm not a lawyer in Georgia, but that is the way it is here), but I would expect they divide their jurisdiction according to their expertise.

Syl wrote:The parents were not involved with this.
If parents are silenced when someone else hurts their child for fear that they themselves will be punished that doesn't say much about the US legal system.

It's not the fault of the legal system; more likely the awkward way I put that.

Raggs sussed me out: I was trying to demonstrate by ad absurdum that you wouldn't want to go that way. The real point is that CPS is irrelevant in that picture.

Iam sick to death of all this sh** which Didge spouts on a daily rant. name calling, unsults, spamming, trolling.

HE IS OUT OF CONTROL

He has never shut up his rantings since I have been here.

Stormee wrote:Iam sick to death of all this sh** which Didge spouts on a daily rant. name calling, unsults, spamming, trolling.

HE IS OUT OF CONTROL

He has never shut up his rantings since I have been here.

Oh, you're out of the basement.

I agree with you.

Stormee wrote:Iam sick to death of all this sh** which Didge spouts on a daily rant. name calling, unsults, spamming, trolling.

HE IS OUT OF CONTROL

He has never shut up his rantings since I have been here.

W/b Stormee.  The trick is to leave him alone or anyone like that.  When you don't talk back, there's no grist for his mill.

I give him two or three answers, then leave it.  Occasionally, when you have a specific point, you might make it in addition.  But silence is the prescription.

It's a failure of impulse-control. Sad to say, but when people like that realize that no one will come out and play with them, then they quiet down.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The parents were not involved with this.
If parents are silenced when someone else hurts their child for fear that they themselves will be punished that doesn't say much about the US legal system.

It's not the fault of the legal system; more likely the awkward way I put that.

Raggs sussed me out: I was trying to demonstrate by ad absurdum that you wouldn't want to go that way.  The real point is that CPS is irrelevant in that picture.

The parents of the little boy are speaking to lawyers, so who knows where it will end.

One of the reasons I don't agree for videos like this to be put out for public consumption is that when there is a huge outcry, the whole thing gets taken too far, and the police may act to calm the public outcry instead of dealing with the case more suitably.

I do think she is unfit to look after vulnerable children....so she should be placed on some sort of register that would prevent her applying for any other job in the caring profession.

Though at the age of 71 I would have thought she was too old to be applying for jobs anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stormee wrote:Iam sick to death of all this sh** which Didge spouts on a daily rant. name calling, unsults, spamming, trolling.

HE IS OUT OF CONTROL

He has never shut up his rantings since I have been here.

Oh, you're out of the basement.

I agree with you.

Oh welcome back Stormee. x
Though I didn't even know you had gone till your time was almost up.

I don't think that 71 is too old to be working. If she's been in the profession for over 20 years, that would suggest that this was a lapse of judgement. As for the family getting lawyers involved, well they need to pull themselves together.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that 71 is too old to be working. If she's been in the profession for over 20 years, that would suggest that this was a lapse of judgement. As for the family getting lawyers involved, well they need to pull themselves together.

Well it's America, and they tend to involve lawyers a lot more frequently than people in GB do.

I personally think 71 is too old to be dealing with a class of infants with disabilities myself, but the way it's going here that will be the norm in a generation or two as the retirement age increases.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not the fault of the legal system; more likely the awkward way I put that.

Raggs sussed me out: I was trying to demonstrate by ad absurdum that you wouldn't want to go that way.  The real point is that CPS is irrelevant in that picture.

The parents of the little boy are speaking to lawyers, so who knows where it will end.

There's only civil recourse.  I don't think they'll get anywhere.  Look at the split of opinion we have here.  There's just no way of telling whether it was intentionally malicious.

Syl wrote:One of the reasons I don't agree for videos like this to be put out for public consumption is that when there is a huge outcry, the whole thing gets taken too far, and the police may act to calm the public outcry instead of dealing with the case more suitably.

I do think she is unfit to look after vulnerable children....so she should be placed on some sort of register that would prevent her applying for any other job in the caring profession.

Though at the age of 71 I would have thought she was too old to be applying for jobs anyway.

When it comes to institutional answers versus the human rights involved, I'll take the humanist side every time.  The teacher is probably totally embarrassed, and though the boy took a face-plant, no injuries resulted...

I'm not so sure I agree with you about keeping the videos from public view.  In this country we've seen the cell phone video and surveillance cameras advance civil and human rights immeasurably.  The shooting of Walter Scott, on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a non-functioning brake light, is a case in point. Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by police officer Michael Slager in a situation that can only be described as a murder.



People in authority should not be entitled to murder with impunity.

The existence of dash-cams, cell-cams, and surveillance cameras have the effect of making sure that the street authorities hold to the line.  That's why their superiors actually like them.  As hard as they are on the line officer or teacher, whomever, it promotes rigor and discipline when they know they can be watched.  And that's a good thing.  

If you reject that, it's a vote for sloppiness and poor performance, not to mention the possibility of criminal activity.

Quill, those were videos taken by bystanders, and I suspect they were made public so that the police couldn't turn a blind eye.

The surveillance video from the school must surely have been posted by someone from the school itself, although it doesn't say who the source of the video was.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, those were videos taken by bystanders, and I suspect they were made public so that the police couldn't turn a blind eye.

The surveillance video from the school must surely have been posted by someone from the school itself, although it doesn't say who the source of the video was.

I don't recognize that difference, Raggs. Look, a camera is essentially good only because it doesn't have bias in what it captures. When you introduce censorship, you are embracing that bias all over again.

I see no difference between a cell camera, a dash-cam or a surveillance camera. Their beauty is that they faithfully report truth. And the truth shall set you free...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, those were videos taken by bystanders, and I suspect they were made public so that the police couldn't turn a blind eye.

The surveillance video from the school must surely have been posted by someone from the school itself, although it doesn't say who the source of the video was.

I don't recognize that difference, Raggs.  Look, a camera is essentially good only because it doesn't have bias in what it captures.  When you introduce censorship, you are embracing that bias all over again.

I see no difference between a cell camera, a dash-cam or a surveillance camera.  Their beauty is that they faithfully report truth.  And the truth shall set you free...

I see a difference. It seems to me that the motive for posting a private surveillance video is possibly malice. If the issue was being dealt with, why did the public need to know about it?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

The parents of the little boy are speaking to lawyers, so who knows where it will end.

There's only civil recourse.  I don't think they'll get anywhere.  Look at the split of opinion we have here.  There's just no way of telling whether it was intentionally malicious.

Syl wrote:One of the reasons I don't agree for videos like this to be put out for public consumption is that when there is a huge outcry, the whole thing gets taken too far, and the police may act to calm the public outcry instead of dealing with the case more suitably.

I do think she is unfit to look after vulnerable children....so she should be placed on some sort of register that would prevent her applying for any other job in the caring profession.

Though at the age of 71 I would have thought she was too old to be applying for jobs anyway.

When it comes to institutional answers versus the human rights involved, I'll take the humanist side every time.  The teacher is probably totally embarrassed, and though the boy took a face-plant, no injuries resulted...

I'm not so sure I agree with you about keeping the videos from public view.  In this country we've seen the cell phone video and surveillance cameras advance civil and human rights immeasurably.  The shooting of Walter Scott, on April 4, 2015, in North Charleston, South Carolina, following a daytime traffic stop for a non-functioning brake light, is a case in point. Scott, a black man, was fatally shot by police officer Michael Slager in a situation that can only be described as a murder.



People in authority should not be entitled to murder with impunity.

The existence of dash-cams, cell-cams, and surveillance cameras have the effect of making sure that the street authorities hold to the line.  That's why their superiors actually like them.  As hard as they are on the line officer or teacher, whomever, it promotes rigor and discipline when they know they can be watched.  And that's a good thing.  

If you reject that, it's a vote for sloppiness and poor performance, not to mention criminal activity.

Well in the case you mention and cases similar I agree that the videos should be shown. Also if anyone takes film of wrong doing on their own cameras it often helps identify wrong doers and can be shown as proof.

But in cases like this the CCTV was surely between the school, the parents and social services.

I just don't think this woman (wrong as I believe she was) deserves to be publicly vilified, possibly trolled, and judged by everyone who has seen the film clip.

I know that's what we have done here, but had the film remained between the authorities involved I think that would have been fairer.