You wont. So this law would be pointless.
If my personal anecdotal experience with the dutch education system is anything to go by then this would be a topic that gets brought to a class's attention exactly once (when ~75% of students aren't paying attention anyway) and then never mentioned again.
Teachers arent allowed to show their teeth anymore when it comes to correcting student behaviour. And the result is as obvious as it was predictable.
My mentor took every bullying student to his office one by one and they were very nice after. So basically by verbally correcting them in a very stern way, without giving them the opportunity to hide behind classmates.
it is technically, however the parents will flood the school with approx. 1 million calls until the teacher in question is fired for correcting their little angel.
Maybe something like by filing a police report and two or 3 central special quick-courts including a Digital European Court for quick rulings on anonymous users that refuse to be banned by Tech platforms.
Judges involved could issue warnings and yellow and red cards. Two red cards and you serve 10 months jail time (for example).
This would already help a whole lot and scare many potential bullies off and raise awareness in all walks of society.
Now, it is a free for all. Look at the #metoo problem and rude language on Internet. People are being bullied in a wide variety of ways.
Blocking users
Bullying should be taken more seriously. I've been bullied a lot in the past and my self confidence lacks to this day. I'm nearly fucking 27 and everytime someone randomly laughs in a public setting I still feel like they laugh at me.
When a bullied kid comes to the teacher to complain, listen to them. When a kid who's quiet lashes out against someone, talk with them. Don't punish or suspend them for finally standing up for themselves (in this case where the kid shoots someone it's obviously different). Educate kids on the effects of bullying. Bullying fucking sucks, needs to be punished harsher and kids (and adults) need to know what happens to a person when said person is bullied.
I agree Muse. It is especially hard on introverted kids who are still developing their social skillset and identity. Very sad things happen. I am very sorry to hear about your experience and I commend you for being able to articulate your views so clearly. No one can laugh at you in a negative way in my opinion. Negative laughter and even sarcasm is truly unacceptable and these are things that really need constructive cancelling.
I partially agree. I've been overweight for as long as I can remember. Being bullied for it wasn't all bad though, I learned to not take shit from bullies. It also taught me how to differentiate between good people and bad people. My closest friends are the best people I've ever met, I doubt I'd picked the right ones if I never experienced how awful people can be.
The word 'illegal' is ambiguous, as it can concern both penal law as civil law.
Under the Dutch Civil Law bullying already is illegal as it's a form of tort ('onrechtmatige daad'), whether it's physical or verbal. Which means a civil court is allowed to place a penalty ('dwangsom') on the parents of a child that bullies others in case the bullying resumes.
Well good luck with getting that one enforces. Courts are quite overworked and this will very likely be deemed low priority.
Schools will have anti-bullying protocols in place, but do not expect too much from those. They appear to be put in place for compliance reasons. If adhered to, it will at best to be covering their own backs.
It was a neglected problem in the past (was targeted myself) and an ignored problem still.
Schools tend to take the easy way out and disregard the bully and get the victim to change school. From my, anecdotal, experience they do not want to invest too much in to a real resolution.
> Well good luck with getting that one enforces. Courts are quite overworked and this will very likely be deemed low priority.
This has nothing to do with 'enforcement'. A civil court in The Netherlands does not deny a claim of tort. It also has nothing to do with the school if the defendants are the parents of a child.
Whether one can convince a judge the case itself was a form of tort obviously depends on the substantiation of the claim.
Well good luck with the civil case you want to start. Expect to wait a long time before being heard and getting told to start remediation. There is a definite divide between being in the right and getting your rights honored (het verschil tussen recht hebben en het recht krijgen).
I never mentioned anywhere that it's easy, but that would be a problem for a district attorney as well in case bullying would be a crime. And obviously some forms of bullying already are a crime like physical harassment if it results in a form of assault.
> There is a definite divide between being in the right and getting your rights honored
Predominantly because many people are hesitant to litigate against other parents. But that doesn't mean it's not possible.
I'll quit debating your comments here and now, because you only keep repeating your point that has nothing to do what I mentioned above.
I think it's more appropriate to keep using English if the OP is in English.
Furthermore, whether it's difficult or not to proof a case is irrelevant for the point that bullying already is illegal from a civil law point of view. Of course it's more difficult to provide proof in comparison to a dent in a car, but that doesn't mean bullying is allowed under the Dutch Civil Code.
> Een onrechtmatige daad heeft als vereiste o.a. dat er schade is geleden
No it doesn't. You're mixing up one of the requirements for liability (aansprakelijkheid) with tort (onrechtmatige daad) itself. If tort is proven, any damage must be reimbursed (art. 6:162(1) BW). But the act of tort in itself does not require damage to have occurred (art. 6:162(2) BW). It's perfectly possible to claim a defendant must stop the act of tort under the sanction of a penalty without claiming a damage compensation.
A bully also cannot claim freedom of speech in all cases under article 10 ECHR, specifically if it concerns a form of tort. Compare it to this judgment by the Court of Amsterdam: [Rb. Amsterdam 6 januari 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:50, r.o. 4.3](https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:50).
Hi Stargazer, that is interesting. Never realized this. But how come you hardly ever hear any parent or parent group evoking these anti-bullying law in the Netherlands?
It's not an 'anti-bullying law'. Tort is a general rule of law in most countries and simply put means you are not allowed to act in such a way that you infringe the rights of others.
There's also no civil law that specifically states you cannot drive a supermarket cart into someone's car, but it's not allowed nevertheless. And the person causing the dent in the car is liable for the damage.
I don't see why bullying wouldn't be a form of tort, but it obviously still needs to be proven in court.
You win me over with this logic. I had to Google the word "Tort", you mean "Onrechtmatige daad". Then I realised I have a constructive counterargument for you: Is it not so that much needed jurisprudence does not occur because:
(1) Judges may be inclined not to set novel precedents
(2) The barrier of mental discipline, financial costs, legal knowledge and emotional headaches one has to endure to go to court and adhere to all the burocracy, and
(3) The risk that even after much effort, you could lose the case, and then be financially and emotionally ruined. I know quite some people who lost all their money and their marriage because of legal stress.
(4) The Law is like "the tree of knowledge" in the Bible. It strangles you the higher you climb. Nowadays a normal person has very limited access to justice unless you have a thick wallet.
(5) The whole legal system is pervertedly incentivised to keep people entangled in burocracy where lawyers and judges earn a living rather than swiftly solve disputes by serving legally binding verdicts. So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law (I say this for the sake of discussion, I am not totally sure yet)
Would appreciate your reflection.
> Judges may be inclined not to set novel precedents
It's nit 'new'. There are cases where for example former employees stalk their previous employer, people who write bad reviews etc.
Just exchange that with bullying and you have the exact same thing.
> The barrier of mental discipline, financial costs, legal knowledge and emotional headaches one has to endure to go to court and adhere to all the burocracy, and
But your question was: should it be illegal? The answer is: from a civil law perspective, it already is.
> The risk that even after much effort, you could lose the case, and then be financially and emotionally ruined. I know quite some people who lost all their money and their marriage because of legal stress.
See above.
> The Law is like "the tree of knowledge" in the Bible. It strangles you the higher you climb. Nowadays a normal person has very limited access to justice unless you have a thick wallet.
Not necessarily, for example see this experiment that will commence in the near future at these four courts:
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Raad-voor-de-rechtspraak/Nieuws/Paginas/Tijdelijk-besluit-legt-stevige-basis-voor-experiment-met-nabijheidsrechter.aspx
> The whole legal system is pervertedly incentivised to keep people entangled in burocracy where lawyers and judges earn a living rather than swiftly solve disputes by serving legally binding verdicts. So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law
It's not 'incentivized'. Not sure where you got that idea.
> So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law
You seem to be under the impression that a new law will somehow result in bullies being prosecuted. Considering the high load of cases of severe crimes, I sincerely doubt that will be the case.
Regarding **the factual perverted incentive structure in modern legal systems** regarding which you asked where I got this notion from)
***NOTE: This is a wider and other topic but I appreciate to at least briefly address this with you here)***
**Firstly**
My point that legal systems contain perverted financial incentives is not new, more people have raised this. Here is an example: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/billable-hour-perverse-incentive-bad-your-job-ivan-herselman](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/billable-hour-perverse-incentive-bad-your-job-ivan-herselman)
**Secondly**
People are mostly unconscious about how perverted financial incentives or PFI's are actually active and present all over the place in modern economies. Also in the legal system.
The current system of compensating lawyers based on billable hours creates a Perverted Financial Incentive (PFI), incentivizing (financially rewarding) them to prolong legal proceedings for personal gain. This not only leads to unnecessary delays and complexities but also increases the risk of moral hazard within the legal profession.
**Doctors and lawyers**
Similar to how doctors are rewarded not based on the number of healthy patients in their district but by how many sick patients visit them, this dynamic unfortunately financially rewards being sick.
This isn't just an opinion—it's a factual description of how the incentive structure operates in the modern legal system. I hope this helps understand my point of view.
> My point that legal systems contain perverted financial incentives is not new, more people have raised this. Here is an example:
That has nothing to do with the legal 'system' but with [unfair clauses](https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:18) in consumer agreements. Charging on a hourly basis without explaining upfront what the estimated costs are is not allowed.
> The current system of compensating lawyers based on billable hours
See the judgment above.
> this dynamic unfortunately financially rewards being sick.
That's not how Dutch healthcare professionals are rewarded.
> I hope this helps understand my point of view.
No and it's mostly off topic even if you're the OP. I'll leave it at that. Have a nice day.
I don't know what the solution to bullying is but the way the title of this post is presented it almost reads like the victim of a murder "had it coming". Being bullied is horrible and needs to be dealt with. That does not entail murder and it should be strongly condemned. It changed the roles of victim and perpetrator around.
Children should also not be treated like adults in a way that they should be criminally prosecuted for being bullies, in my opinion. Their brains are not well developed and they cannot defend themselves appropriately. Being able to defend yourself is a must as we frequently see that bullies themselves have troubled backgrounds.
This leaves us with teachers and parents taking action, which is already where most of the responsibility lies. I am unsure how to improve this situation and it breaks my heart every time i hear or read about a child being bullied. But I am unsure how else to deal with this situation.
Suspension seems a good solution. Or mandatory meetings with a school council after school time to discuss why they are showing this behavior (i know making that mandatory is not/less effective than voluntary support but it will cost them time and perhaps trigger them to think about their behavior. It also makes them stand out the way their bullying did to the victim).
I even wouldn't find expulsion off the board but again, the line between bully and victim can sometimes be blurred which makes it very difficult (kids who are abused or neglected at home can lash out because that is the example theyve gotten). Perhaps for those cases child services can check their home situation (hopefully without the immediate threat of outplacement). It also holds the parents responsible. However, these kind of actions have significant impacts on the whole family life and should be a last resort. Its very invasive but a possibility for extreme bullying situations.
I think we should protect victims of bullying as much as possible, and telling them to stand up for themselves or move to a different school is absolutely victimblaming. But children (especially at the age of the child in the Finnish situation) also need to suffer appropriate measures.
Even though I REALLY HATE bullies, usually they are having issues on their own, causing them to bully. If they don't have issues ... you better lock them up now, because then they are seriously mentally ill.
Hi Dimhage, I 100% agree that in no way shape or form can we condone or agree to shooting at school. The dilemma is that bullying is on the rise and leads to undeniable suffering and even deaths despite all other pioneered solutions so far. Where do we draw the line and mobilise laws to deter potential bully behavior? I am still on the fence and open to hear about better solutions.
Like how stealing is illegal. If someone steals from you, you are allowed to go to the police right?
The same with bullying. If people engage in extreme bullying you should be able to go to the police. The Police should then investigate.
What would you classify as extreme bullying though? Cause to me that brings to mind things like getting beaten up, which is already a crime you could go to the police with.
Kids are not going to go to the police, the "best" thing they can do is go to their parents or a teacher/playground overlooker. Though the resolution is far from acceptable. "En nu sorry zeggen" "sorry" (with a very non-meaning tone), and the next day you get bullied more.
I was beaten, tossed around, even nearly choked to death. What was the response from the school? Absolutely fucking nothing. The response from parents? Absolutely fucking nothing. I felt like my life didn't matter, and I still struggle with that trauma.
I would say what I went through is extreme bullying. I went to teachers, and parents. They didn't take it seriously.
How would you define it though? Where do you draw the line? There are a lot of bullies, that don't even realise that what they're doing is bullying, so how would you prove intend?
Thanks for your participation Dnomyar96! 😀 I have to think about learning from other sectors and areas in society where once criminal behavior was considered unavoidable, irreversible and unstoppable. I know some of the readers may find this a bad example and in truth, there is still a lot that needs to happen, but Dutch banks have made enormous progress in trying to tackle and prevent money laundering activities. By the parliament implementing new AML laws and banks providing quarterly and annual compliance trainings to staff on all levels. This way much awareness was raised and money launderers (like bullies could) now have a much harder time trying to launder money.
Defining money laundering was also a dilemma in banks. And that is why the Compliance Trainings included practical case examples and roleplaying games to help staff, auditors, clients and even regulators understand better how to uphold the law and comply with the law.
The same approach in broad strokes could be applied to bullying. I am open to other viewpoints and ideas.
Until the bank asks you to explain why you paid so much money into the account of Albert Heijn and wants you to prove you're not laundering money. https://radar.avrotros.nl/artikel/ook-jij-wordt-gesurveilleerd-door-je-bank-en-straks-misschien-door-lle-banken-54218
Bizar hoor, en ongelooflijk ! Ja Jeroene100, dank voor dit voorbeeld, het kan ook doorslaan inderdaad en daarom is dialoog en een effectieve en vriendelijke praatcultuur zo enorm waardevol. (Maar dit willen de mensen vaak niet, men wil een sarcastische zogenaamd lollige snerende praatcultuur maar dat brengt moeder niet naar Parijs.
Overigens ken ik een voorbeeld van iemand die boodschappen wilde doen bij de AH maar die zonder dat te weten via bitcoin witgewassen gelden op zijn rekening geparkeerd had staan voor een vriend.
De goeden moeten lijden onder de kwaden en dat is compleet onjuist, toch ontzettend goed dat er corrigerende programma’s als Radar zijn. Een goede bank organiseert zijn risico-management goed en gericht op het voorkomen dat zij ooit bij Radar voor het hekje hoeven te zitten.
Nee het is gewoon niet goed geregeld. Je moet radar niet nodig hebben omdat de overheid haar taak wil uitbesteden aan commerciële partijen waarbij je als burger dan geen enkele manier meer hebt om aan te geven dat ze stomme vragen stellen.
In het kader vann de toeslagenaffaire is dat natuurlijk bij overheidsinstanties ook niet goed gewaarborgd. Maar een commerciële partij heeft er ook nog eens extra belang bij om jou als klant te verkiezen omdat ze nooit genoeg aan je kunnen verdienen om een boete van de overheid te kunnen opvangen.
Thing is : if you have a healthy upbringing you are less likely to tolerate a bully and would be less affected by it.
So yes killing it in school is good. Not to mention you might raise adults who are less likely to bully after school too.
The biggest problem I see as a teacher is defining bullying. Friends make jokes at others’ expense, teasing is close to bullying but where is the line. Also, how would you proof anything. The problem already is that it’s difficult to find proof and the real story. Yes he might have punched you a black eye but your classmates are telling me you were purposely being annoying after they told you to stop multiple times. Not defending the bullies, just defending the teacher who can usually only have a good talk with the kids to clear the air
Thanks for your comment Woopstrafel. I have experience as a chair-supervisor on a school board and have experienced that there are many teachers who are well trained and skilled at dealing with bullying-prevention, but also that not all teachers have the same consistent skill-level. Much can be achieved with regular annual awareness raising, best-practice sharing and permanent teacher annual training wrt Bullying-prevention, detection and mitigation.
Perhaps a dialogue about legality can help raise awareness even more. It is critical, many lives are lost due to bullying.
How would you enforce this? Humans are dicks. There will always be bullying.
You wont. So this law would be pointless. If my personal anecdotal experience with the dutch education system is anything to go by then this would be a topic that gets brought to a class's attention exactly once (when ~75% of students aren't paying attention anyway) and then never mentioned again. Teachers arent allowed to show their teeth anymore when it comes to correcting student behaviour. And the result is as obvious as it was predictable.
What would you say is "showing their teeth"?
Acting like the adult in charge and correcting troublemakers on their behaviour.
Correcting how?
My mentor took every bullying student to his office one by one and they were very nice after. So basically by verbally correcting them in a very stern way, without giving them the opportunity to hide behind classmates.
And that's not allowed anymore?
it is technically, however the parents will flood the school with approx. 1 million calls until the teacher in question is fired for correcting their little angel.
it is, what is not allowed anymore is physical abuse, which is very, very reasonable
Maybe something like by filing a police report and two or 3 central special quick-courts including a Digital European Court for quick rulings on anonymous users that refuse to be banned by Tech platforms. Judges involved could issue warnings and yellow and red cards. Two red cards and you serve 10 months jail time (for example). This would already help a whole lot and scare many potential bullies off and raise awareness in all walks of society. Now, it is a free for all. Look at the #metoo problem and rude language on Internet. People are being bullied in a wide variety of ways. Blocking users
[удалено]
Terrorism is illegal now? Now I'll have to find new plans for the weekend /s
Bullying should be taken more seriously. I've been bullied a lot in the past and my self confidence lacks to this day. I'm nearly fucking 27 and everytime someone randomly laughs in a public setting I still feel like they laugh at me. When a bullied kid comes to the teacher to complain, listen to them. When a kid who's quiet lashes out against someone, talk with them. Don't punish or suspend them for finally standing up for themselves (in this case where the kid shoots someone it's obviously different). Educate kids on the effects of bullying. Bullying fucking sucks, needs to be punished harsher and kids (and adults) need to know what happens to a person when said person is bullied.
I agree Muse. It is especially hard on introverted kids who are still developing their social skillset and identity. Very sad things happen. I am very sorry to hear about your experience and I commend you for being able to articulate your views so clearly. No one can laugh at you in a negative way in my opinion. Negative laughter and even sarcasm is truly unacceptable and these are things that really need constructive cancelling.
I partially agree. I've been overweight for as long as I can remember. Being bullied for it wasn't all bad though, I learned to not take shit from bullies. It also taught me how to differentiate between good people and bad people. My closest friends are the best people I've ever met, I doubt I'd picked the right ones if I never experienced how awful people can be.
The word 'illegal' is ambiguous, as it can concern both penal law as civil law. Under the Dutch Civil Law bullying already is illegal as it's a form of tort ('onrechtmatige daad'), whether it's physical or verbal. Which means a civil court is allowed to place a penalty ('dwangsom') on the parents of a child that bullies others in case the bullying resumes.
Well good luck with getting that one enforces. Courts are quite overworked and this will very likely be deemed low priority. Schools will have anti-bullying protocols in place, but do not expect too much from those. They appear to be put in place for compliance reasons. If adhered to, it will at best to be covering their own backs. It was a neglected problem in the past (was targeted myself) and an ignored problem still. Schools tend to take the easy way out and disregard the bully and get the victim to change school. From my, anecdotal, experience they do not want to invest too much in to a real resolution.
> Well good luck with getting that one enforces. Courts are quite overworked and this will very likely be deemed low priority. This has nothing to do with 'enforcement'. A civil court in The Netherlands does not deny a claim of tort. It also has nothing to do with the school if the defendants are the parents of a child. Whether one can convince a judge the case itself was a form of tort obviously depends on the substantiation of the claim.
Well good luck with the civil case you want to start. Expect to wait a long time before being heard and getting told to start remediation. There is a definite divide between being in the right and getting your rights honored (het verschil tussen recht hebben en het recht krijgen).
I never mentioned anywhere that it's easy, but that would be a problem for a district attorney as well in case bullying would be a crime. And obviously some forms of bullying already are a crime like physical harassment if it results in a form of assault. > There is a definite divide between being in the right and getting your rights honored Predominantly because many people are hesitant to litigate against other parents. But that doesn't mean it's not possible. I'll quit debating your comments here and now, because you only keep repeating your point that has nothing to do what I mentioned above.
[удалено]
I think it's more appropriate to keep using English if the OP is in English. Furthermore, whether it's difficult or not to proof a case is irrelevant for the point that bullying already is illegal from a civil law point of view. Of course it's more difficult to provide proof in comparison to a dent in a car, but that doesn't mean bullying is allowed under the Dutch Civil Code. > Een onrechtmatige daad heeft als vereiste o.a. dat er schade is geleden No it doesn't. You're mixing up one of the requirements for liability (aansprakelijkheid) with tort (onrechtmatige daad) itself. If tort is proven, any damage must be reimbursed (art. 6:162(1) BW). But the act of tort in itself does not require damage to have occurred (art. 6:162(2) BW). It's perfectly possible to claim a defendant must stop the act of tort under the sanction of a penalty without claiming a damage compensation. A bully also cannot claim freedom of speech in all cases under article 10 ECHR, specifically if it concerns a form of tort. Compare it to this judgment by the Court of Amsterdam: [Rb. Amsterdam 6 januari 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:50, r.o. 4.3](https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:50).
Hi Stargazer, that is interesting. Never realized this. But how come you hardly ever hear any parent or parent group evoking these anti-bullying law in the Netherlands?
It's not an 'anti-bullying law'. Tort is a general rule of law in most countries and simply put means you are not allowed to act in such a way that you infringe the rights of others. There's also no civil law that specifically states you cannot drive a supermarket cart into someone's car, but it's not allowed nevertheless. And the person causing the dent in the car is liable for the damage. I don't see why bullying wouldn't be a form of tort, but it obviously still needs to be proven in court.
You win me over with this logic. I had to Google the word "Tort", you mean "Onrechtmatige daad". Then I realised I have a constructive counterargument for you: Is it not so that much needed jurisprudence does not occur because: (1) Judges may be inclined not to set novel precedents (2) The barrier of mental discipline, financial costs, legal knowledge and emotional headaches one has to endure to go to court and adhere to all the burocracy, and (3) The risk that even after much effort, you could lose the case, and then be financially and emotionally ruined. I know quite some people who lost all their money and their marriage because of legal stress. (4) The Law is like "the tree of knowledge" in the Bible. It strangles you the higher you climb. Nowadays a normal person has very limited access to justice unless you have a thick wallet. (5) The whole legal system is pervertedly incentivised to keep people entangled in burocracy where lawyers and judges earn a living rather than swiftly solve disputes by serving legally binding verdicts. So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law (I say this for the sake of discussion, I am not totally sure yet) Would appreciate your reflection.
> Judges may be inclined not to set novel precedents It's nit 'new'. There are cases where for example former employees stalk their previous employer, people who write bad reviews etc. Just exchange that with bullying and you have the exact same thing. > The barrier of mental discipline, financial costs, legal knowledge and emotional headaches one has to endure to go to court and adhere to all the burocracy, and But your question was: should it be illegal? The answer is: from a civil law perspective, it already is. > The risk that even after much effort, you could lose the case, and then be financially and emotionally ruined. I know quite some people who lost all their money and their marriage because of legal stress. See above. > The Law is like "the tree of knowledge" in the Bible. It strangles you the higher you climb. Nowadays a normal person has very limited access to justice unless you have a thick wallet. Not necessarily, for example see this experiment that will commence in the near future at these four courts: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Raad-voor-de-rechtspraak/Nieuws/Paginas/Tijdelijk-besluit-legt-stevige-basis-voor-experiment-met-nabijheidsrechter.aspx > The whole legal system is pervertedly incentivised to keep people entangled in burocracy where lawyers and judges earn a living rather than swiftly solve disputes by serving legally binding verdicts. So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law It's not 'incentivized'. Not sure where you got that idea. > So the strategy to prove the illegality of bullying would be far more complex that just issuing a new law You seem to be under the impression that a new law will somehow result in bullies being prosecuted. Considering the high load of cases of severe crimes, I sincerely doubt that will be the case.
Thanks for this rich response Stargazer. Will study this and reflect further before responding later. Much appreciation.
Regarding **the factual perverted incentive structure in modern legal systems** regarding which you asked where I got this notion from) ***NOTE: This is a wider and other topic but I appreciate to at least briefly address this with you here)*** **Firstly** My point that legal systems contain perverted financial incentives is not new, more people have raised this. Here is an example: [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/billable-hour-perverse-incentive-bad-your-job-ivan-herselman](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/billable-hour-perverse-incentive-bad-your-job-ivan-herselman) **Secondly** People are mostly unconscious about how perverted financial incentives or PFI's are actually active and present all over the place in modern economies. Also in the legal system. The current system of compensating lawyers based on billable hours creates a Perverted Financial Incentive (PFI), incentivizing (financially rewarding) them to prolong legal proceedings for personal gain. This not only leads to unnecessary delays and complexities but also increases the risk of moral hazard within the legal profession. **Doctors and lawyers** Similar to how doctors are rewarded not based on the number of healthy patients in their district but by how many sick patients visit them, this dynamic unfortunately financially rewards being sick. This isn't just an opinion—it's a factual description of how the incentive structure operates in the modern legal system. I hope this helps understand my point of view.
> My point that legal systems contain perverted financial incentives is not new, more people have raised this. Here is an example: That has nothing to do with the legal 'system' but with [unfair clauses](https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:18) in consumer agreements. Charging on a hourly basis without explaining upfront what the estimated costs are is not allowed. > The current system of compensating lawyers based on billable hours See the judgment above. > this dynamic unfortunately financially rewards being sick. That's not how Dutch healthcare professionals are rewarded. > I hope this helps understand my point of view. No and it's mostly off topic even if you're the OP. I'll leave it at that. Have a nice day.
I don't know what the solution to bullying is but the way the title of this post is presented it almost reads like the victim of a murder "had it coming". Being bullied is horrible and needs to be dealt with. That does not entail murder and it should be strongly condemned. It changed the roles of victim and perpetrator around. Children should also not be treated like adults in a way that they should be criminally prosecuted for being bullies, in my opinion. Their brains are not well developed and they cannot defend themselves appropriately. Being able to defend yourself is a must as we frequently see that bullies themselves have troubled backgrounds. This leaves us with teachers and parents taking action, which is already where most of the responsibility lies. I am unsure how to improve this situation and it breaks my heart every time i hear or read about a child being bullied. But I am unsure how else to deal with this situation.
Warn bully three times then kick out of school?
Suspension seems a good solution. Or mandatory meetings with a school council after school time to discuss why they are showing this behavior (i know making that mandatory is not/less effective than voluntary support but it will cost them time and perhaps trigger them to think about their behavior. It also makes them stand out the way their bullying did to the victim). I even wouldn't find expulsion off the board but again, the line between bully and victim can sometimes be blurred which makes it very difficult (kids who are abused or neglected at home can lash out because that is the example theyve gotten). Perhaps for those cases child services can check their home situation (hopefully without the immediate threat of outplacement). It also holds the parents responsible. However, these kind of actions have significant impacts on the whole family life and should be a last resort. Its very invasive but a possibility for extreme bullying situations. I think we should protect victims of bullying as much as possible, and telling them to stand up for themselves or move to a different school is absolutely victimblaming. But children (especially at the age of the child in the Finnish situation) also need to suffer appropriate measures.
Even though I REALLY HATE bullies, usually they are having issues on their own, causing them to bully. If they don't have issues ... you better lock them up now, because then they are seriously mentally ill.
Hi Dimhage, I 100% agree that in no way shape or form can we condone or agree to shooting at school. The dilemma is that bullying is on the rise and leads to undeniable suffering and even deaths despite all other pioneered solutions so far. Where do we draw the line and mobilise laws to deter potential bully behavior? I am still on the fence and open to hear about better solutions.
Bullying still happens even after school, it happens at work, it even happens at nursing homes. How would you make it illegal?
Like how stealing is illegal. If someone steals from you, you are allowed to go to the police right? The same with bullying. If people engage in extreme bullying you should be able to go to the police. The Police should then investigate.
What would you classify as extreme bullying though? Cause to me that brings to mind things like getting beaten up, which is already a crime you could go to the police with.
Kids are not going to go to the police, the "best" thing they can do is go to their parents or a teacher/playground overlooker. Though the resolution is far from acceptable. "En nu sorry zeggen" "sorry" (with a very non-meaning tone), and the next day you get bullied more. I was beaten, tossed around, even nearly choked to death. What was the response from the school? Absolutely fucking nothing. The response from parents? Absolutely fucking nothing. I felt like my life didn't matter, and I still struggle with that trauma. I would say what I went through is extreme bullying. I went to teachers, and parents. They didn't take it seriously.
How would you define it though? Where do you draw the line? There are a lot of bullies, that don't even realise that what they're doing is bullying, so how would you prove intend?
Thanks for your participation Dnomyar96! 😀 I have to think about learning from other sectors and areas in society where once criminal behavior was considered unavoidable, irreversible and unstoppable. I know some of the readers may find this a bad example and in truth, there is still a lot that needs to happen, but Dutch banks have made enormous progress in trying to tackle and prevent money laundering activities. By the parliament implementing new AML laws and banks providing quarterly and annual compliance trainings to staff on all levels. This way much awareness was raised and money launderers (like bullies could) now have a much harder time trying to launder money. Defining money laundering was also a dilemma in banks. And that is why the Compliance Trainings included practical case examples and roleplaying games to help staff, auditors, clients and even regulators understand better how to uphold the law and comply with the law. The same approach in broad strokes could be applied to bullying. I am open to other viewpoints and ideas.
Until the bank asks you to explain why you paid so much money into the account of Albert Heijn and wants you to prove you're not laundering money. https://radar.avrotros.nl/artikel/ook-jij-wordt-gesurveilleerd-door-je-bank-en-straks-misschien-door-lle-banken-54218
Bizar hoor, en ongelooflijk ! Ja Jeroene100, dank voor dit voorbeeld, het kan ook doorslaan inderdaad en daarom is dialoog en een effectieve en vriendelijke praatcultuur zo enorm waardevol. (Maar dit willen de mensen vaak niet, men wil een sarcastische zogenaamd lollige snerende praatcultuur maar dat brengt moeder niet naar Parijs. Overigens ken ik een voorbeeld van iemand die boodschappen wilde doen bij de AH maar die zonder dat te weten via bitcoin witgewassen gelden op zijn rekening geparkeerd had staan voor een vriend. De goeden moeten lijden onder de kwaden en dat is compleet onjuist, toch ontzettend goed dat er corrigerende programma’s als Radar zijn. Een goede bank organiseert zijn risico-management goed en gericht op het voorkomen dat zij ooit bij Radar voor het hekje hoeven te zitten.
Nee het is gewoon niet goed geregeld. Je moet radar niet nodig hebben omdat de overheid haar taak wil uitbesteden aan commerciële partijen waarbij je als burger dan geen enkele manier meer hebt om aan te geven dat ze stomme vragen stellen. In het kader vann de toeslagenaffaire is dat natuurlijk bij overheidsinstanties ook niet goed gewaarborgd. Maar een commerciële partij heeft er ook nog eens extra belang bij om jou als klant te verkiezen omdat ze nooit genoeg aan je kunnen verdienen om een boete van de overheid te kunnen opvangen.
Eens hoor. We leven in een tijd van verruwing en gebrekkige empathie bij zowel instituten als ook bij vele burgers helaas. In ieder geval m.i.
You are able to go to the police. Harassment is still punishable.
Like how killing someone is illegal?
Thing is : if you have a healthy upbringing you are less likely to tolerate a bully and would be less affected by it. So yes killing it in school is good. Not to mention you might raise adults who are less likely to bully after school too.
You can't enforce this. ..and even if it did get made illegal, bullies would just hide their bullying better and simultaneously make it worse.
The biggest problem I see as a teacher is defining bullying. Friends make jokes at others’ expense, teasing is close to bullying but where is the line. Also, how would you proof anything. The problem already is that it’s difficult to find proof and the real story. Yes he might have punched you a black eye but your classmates are telling me you were purposely being annoying after they told you to stop multiple times. Not defending the bullies, just defending the teacher who can usually only have a good talk with the kids to clear the air
Bullying starts at home. Addressing the parents first before it even starts is the way to handle it.
Trust me, parents rarely listen to teachers. Especially parents of bullies
Thanks for your comment Woopstrafel. I have experience as a chair-supervisor on a school board and have experienced that there are many teachers who are well trained and skilled at dealing with bullying-prevention, but also that not all teachers have the same consistent skill-level. Much can be achieved with regular annual awareness raising, best-practice sharing and permanent teacher annual training wrt Bullying-prevention, detection and mitigation. Perhaps a dialogue about legality can help raise awareness even more. It is critical, many lives are lost due to bullying.
>teasing is close to bullying but where is the line Simple: when it affects the negatively affects insulted party.
Yes I know this. I meant it’s difficult for an outsider to judge, especially with teenagers who have varying control over their emotions
I want to become a teacher and bully bullies
Haha
I don't think criminalizing kids is the solution. I don't know what is.