//And who does?//

I did. Having to wear a uniform was a bit lame, but school is a place where you can go and they will teach you all sorts of interesting stuff for free. FOR FREE! How awesome is that? There's no hardship involved (at least not in the classroom - lunchtime can be a different story): all you have do is show up and nice people will teach you all manner of fascinating things. Public education and public libraries are the best inventions ever: places you can go to to learn stuff for free. And who doesn't like learning stuff?

//With bullies a smack in the mouth with a bunch of fives is far more effective than telling the teacher.//

No it isn't. Bullies tend to hit back, and they hit back a lot harder because they are bigger, stronger and meaner - which is why they are bullies in the first place. Starting a fight you can't win and having seven kinds of crap kicked out of you by a bully won't dissuade them from their bullying, it just encourages them. And it's likely to earn you disciplinary action as well as a whole world of pain. A thoroughly stupid idea.

You're better off lying in wait for them with a half brick in a sock.

Stevi, most unruly young men are a product of their upbringing and the schools are merely dealing with the product they are presented with, and even then with both hands often tied behind their backs, especially when it comes to discipline.

As for bullies, well most i have encountered are all talk and when confronted often crumble.

Toni,

I forgot to add that my kids, girls included, were taught to fight, they never had problems with bullies after the initial encounter.

My eldest son had his first brush with bullies just after he started school, they were the two sons of the local policeman, they started hitting him on the way home from school so he grabbed a fallen tree branch and successfully and bloodily defended himself.
This did cause a bit of ill feeling from the constable but as I knew much more senior police than he did, and he was aware of the fact, nothing untoward ever came of it.
Hit 'em early and often was my advice.

I wish to correct a statement in the first post. “So far this year more than 2000 women have died in Australia due to family violence” is incorrect. The statement should have been, “This year alone more than 70 women have died”. I didn't intentionally lie, yet, I somehow imagined 2000 women died without replaying the DVR over again. It is easy not to check facts and assume figures. Even though I apologise for the mistake, I don't regret the mistake.
By over estimating the number of women who died, I increase the attention on the posting.

I bring attention to how lies increase stories power to persuade. This idea of mixing truth with lies, allowing lies to be believed is old hat.

I watched part 1 Hitting Home hosted by Sarah Ferguson. The program was no more than 5 women telling their story. The part 1 had no men being interviewed as to ask why they hit their wives. No questions were asked from trained psychologists or psychiatrists to why men hit their wives. The lie is focusing attention on women's stories without asking why? Viewers are left no wiser than before watching the part 1 program.

The tactic of telling as it happened facts, media exclusive stories without expressing what leads up the point of reported events, denies thought into experiencing reasoning.
That Tuesday ABC “The Drum” Sarah Ferguson expresses wanting to ask relevant questions to why men hit their partners, school gets a short mention, Tuesday night part 1 failed the task to ask why.

My question is, where is the human programming coming from? I am accusing education, contact sports and violent media. A number of people are stimulated into dominating conclusions, males feeling power of being a dominate male. I am blaming education for long periods of mental stress prompting children to medicate themselves by keeping themselves dumb; a need to stimulate themselves, using drama distractions from classroom “dog chasing his own tail” boredom, aiding a need for feeling self-esteem.

Continuing on the idea of lies:

Having watched last Sunday night's November 22nd, SBS one Genius: The Wright Brothers were depicted as mostly being concerned with patent protection laws, collecting license fees from any company manufacturing aircraft that had any kind of stabilising flaps. The one company owned by Glenn Curtiss that was designing better stabilising flaps was denied a license. As stated in the Genius story, the Wright brothers feared carrying out better designs as better aircraft designs would reduce the value of their original patents. The lies I am complaining about are previous documentaries portrayed the Wright brothers as heroes of aviation, not greedy money lovers, stifling progress.

The second story of the same date was a story about Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. In the Genius story, Pulitzer who respected himself for providing true newspaper stories, was accusing Hearst of fabricating sensationalising lies to sell newspapers. Eventually Pulitzer had to compete with Hearst by lowering prices to match Hearst's price and disregard fact checking to ensure stories were true, allowing made up stories and alterations to stories to compete with Hearst. Genius story accused Hearst and Pulitzer of starting the Spanish American War of 1898 by accusing Spain of blowing up an U.S. American war ship USS Maine, docked in Havana, Cuba, killing 266 U.S. sailors.

The Genius narrator said about Hearst and Pulitzer, “An intense conflict that will defined journalism as we know it today”.

What present day media concerned people receive from media are short attention grabbing headlines, short shallow rolled over stories allowing readers and listeners little need to think about what's being realised. Reconfirming judgements can be felt as true, based on as it happens events. Stories often based on people names.

The Hearst Pulitzer story compares past, present, and future media news story formulas.

All religious representatives act as though they're praying to a magical god. Few people challenge the validity of praying to something that may not exist and or that a magical god may not be caring to listen to self-appointed religions. That even though written down history stories somewhat states stories to be facts. Last words may state evidence to be no more than faith.

Pope Francis says god doesn't have a magic wand and that a creation day is not a literal day, is the vaguest statement to clear up believers imagined faith and or belief. The statement may conclude that people are allowed to believe what they want to believe. I state that people were lead to believe what religious providers wanted people to believe. Either way lies are believed because people want to believe simple, easy to understand, heard many times before as children, lies.

A documentary following Genius entitled Inquisition, is about religious beliefs used to persecute less knowledgeable and or conflicting ideas people using torture to abstract lists of other non-complying people. The narrator states inquisitions were about confiscating property and money, sharing wealth around people in power. Religious inquiry made inquisitors wealthy.

Lies, misinformation, avoiding real reasons with invented reasons mixed with known believed information. Prime ministers and presidents appearing in the media to allow media stories to dominate people's spare moments of media attention with shallow daily news stories, controlling how people think. Everything perceived sounding intelligent or not, controls how people act and believe in society. Controlling the media is essential to society. As society is often violent, than maybe controlled percentages of violence is intentional.